31 by Tom I stopped at Bob Corre?s website www.forumonastrology.com and read his sample lesson on delineating the ascendant http://www.forumonastrology.com/issueindex.html where he examines the chart of a man described to us as ?miserable.? There are two reasons given for his general misery one is Saturn and how Saturn in this chart is tied to the ASC, and the other is something Corre calls ?gender confusion.? Gender confusion arises when the Ascendant is dominated by feminine planets in feminine signs in a man?s chart or vice versa. Masculine signs act; feminine signs react. Society expects men to act and women to react, therefore if we have a feminine dominance of the ASC in a man?s chart his inclinations will be opposed to those that are expected. This does not mean that everyone whose ascendant is dominated by planets and signs of the gender opposite their own is miserable. You have to tie Saturn in somehow to get to that point, but rather to point out that the contradiction between the native?s gender and the roles society expects from the different genders is an underlying motivating theme. The idea is to find a proper outlet for the natural inclinations to keep the native happy. In his example of a man?s chart, Cancer, a feminine sign rises. The Moon, a feminine planet is in the feminine sign of Taurus. Venus (feminine planet) trines the ASC from Scorpio (feminine sign). Saturn is brought in by the Moon?s applying opposition to Saturn (masculine) in Scorpio (feminine). Corre argues that there is an exaggeration of feminine characteristics and Saturn?s influence that brings trouble to the man. I saw Cancer rising and I thought of our mystery native No. 10, Lee Harvey Oswald and decided to check Corre?s ideas against Oswald?s chart. Oswald has 8 Cancer rising with Moon in 7 in Capricorn: a feminine ASC, a feminine ruling planet, in a feminine sign, but perhaps the least feminine of the feminine signs. Furthermore Oswald?s Venus in Scorpio trines the ASC as does the switch-hitting Mercury in Scorpio. I believe we can say that Oswald?s ASC is dominated by the feminine. His life bears this out as well. He was somewhat frail looking and at 5? 9? and about 130 - 140lbs not an imposing figure. His eccentric mother dominated his childhood. He had no father or father figure. He didn?t date in high school and only had his first sexual experience after being goaded into it by fellow Marines. His wife?s testimony to the Warren Commission, The House Select Committee on Assassinations, and interviews with Gerald Posner and Norman Mailer was consistent in the matter of their sex life. There wasn?t much of one. Mailer and a few others have indicated Oswald may have been homosexual, but there are no documented instances of homosexual liaisons or behavior. If anything, based on what is known, he was more likely to be asexual. But he was always willing to help with the housework, whereas most men would rather walk barefoot on hot coals. Going back to Corre, in his example he notes the Moon is in the 11th house. Corre claims this demonstrates a need for love from others as the Moon is in the 7th (others) of the 5th (love). If this technique is accurate, then wouldn?t Oswald?s 7th house Moon would indicate a strong need for self-acceptance or self-love? This would be difficult for a man with what are considered to be feminine inclinations in a man?s body. So he tries to compensate. He joins the US Marines, the manliest of the US service branches. His experience is a disaster. He doesn?t fit in Marine culture, and he makes no friends during his enlistment. He is court-martialed twice, and suffers an emotional breakdown before using his mother to get discharged early. He immediately leaves the US for what he thinks will be a superior culture in the USSR. This might be what psychologists call ?the geographic cure.? He?ll solve his psycho-social problems in a new environment. In other words, he isn?t acting within his own environment, he is seeking another one to react to. It doesn?t work. He is as disliked in the USSR as he was in the US. He proposes marriage to a woman whom he apparently genuinely loves and is rejected. He marries Marina on the rebound (to prove his sexuality?). Works to get back to the USA and finally is allowed to leave. As his frustration with himself grows over his inability to provide for a family, he withdraws from socializing, and resorts to wife beating, and gun purchases. In other words he over-compensates, brutally, for his feminine inclinations. None of this, of course, inevitably leads to cold-blooded murder. It does give one cause to wonder if this astrological method, highly psychological with traditional trappings, has merit. Your ever-intrepid moderator then went to look at a chart that might give us the flip side of the masculine ? feminine question. Let?s look at the chart of Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady. [Oct 13, 1925, 9:00 am, GMT, Grantham, UK,] Thatcher has Scorpio rising (feminine) ruled by Mars (masculine) in Libra (masculine). Saturn (Masculine) is conjunct the ASC and Jupiter, (masculine) is in a tight sextile from Capricorn (feminine). Although Thatcher?s chart shows more feminine characteristics than Oswald?s chart shows masculine, the masculine side still dominates. Thatcher was no psychopath, but she is no shrinking violet either, and she found an appropriate outlet in her life for her assertive tendencies. I?m usually adverse to psychological astrology, but this little technique has me intrigued. Keep in mind this is the delineation of the ASC only. Although Corre says this comprises 80% of the delineation. There are other factors in these charts. This is a broad brush similar to the traditional method of determining temperament. A comparison of those two methods might be interesting. Does anyone else have any thoughts or other charts where we could apply this technique? Try to find extremes for now. If we?re going to leave Oswald, then we should start another thread. I?d like some feedback for or against the method. Tom Quote Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:58 pm
32 by yuzuru Maybe this theory of "masculine/feminine" isn?t so necessary... there seens to me that there are others indications of unhapiness in this chart. For example, both SAturn and Venus (in detriment) aspect the moon and the ASC. So I think this Venus in detriment and afflicted by conjunction with non dignified Saturn, is likely to be a significator of manners in the native. We could also see mercury in detriment and under the beans of the sun and difficulty to think clearly and to take good decisions. The luminar in the chart is in good condition, exalted in the 11th, but his dispositor is venus... Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com Quote Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:38 pm
33 by Tom Maybe this theory of "masculine/feminine" isn?t so necessary... I didn't mean to imply that it was necessary or even correct. I think it works pretty well with Oswald. Whether it works well with a lot more charts is the question. The other thing that struck me is that Corre says to use this first and as the basis for the rest of the reading. This is what we would do with the temperament. So the question is this: assuming this "works" does it work as well as, better than, or not as well as the determination of temperament or should we be doing both? I don't have the answers to these questions; I'm only suggesting them. For example, both Saturn and Venus (in detriment) aspect the moon and the ASC. So I think this Venus in detriment and afflicted by conjunction with non dignified Saturn, is likely to be a significator of manners in the native. We could also see mercury in detriment and under the beans of the sun and difficulty to think clearly and to take good decisions These are good points and I wondered if we could get to the same place as Corre did by different routes. The other point is this: just because there is a conflict between the gender of the things that affect the ASC and the gender of the native, it does not follow that every such native is condemned to a difficult life. This is the point of noting Margaret Thatcher's chart. She found a way to use those masculine traits in a socially acceptable manner. I'm working on another chart of a man whose behavior is way out of synch with the feminine dominance of his ASC. I'm trying to figure out how to look at this with Corre's method. I'll let you know what I come up with. Tom Quote Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:43 pm
34 by Papretis Marilyn Monroe comes immidiatedly to mind. Masculine Ascendant (Leo), masculine ruler (the Sun) in a masculine sign (Gemini) sextiling the Ascendant. Temperament is choleric/sanguine by the Greenbaum method, so predominantly hot (masculine). Robert Corre is coming to give a weekend seminar in Helsinki, Finland in June! Quote Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:45 am
35 by Tom I looked at Marylin Monroe's chart and it is heavily masculine. The idea is that masculine signs act within the environment and feminine sign react to the environment. This is a little play on words, but Marylin definietely "acted" within her ennvironment. She had no children and broadly speaking found an outlet for her masculine ASC that was within the accepted norms. On the other hand she was troubled and died very young at 34 while under the care of a psychologist. I certainly don't know the nature of her problems, but she certainly had them and therefore this could fit Corre's idea. [It may be Morin's ida. I haven't checked] The one I was fooling with was George Herman "Babe"Ruth. I will explain for the non-Americans. Babe Ruth lived fro 1895 until 1948. He was a baseball player who was at his prime in the "Roaring Twenties." To say he was the most famous man in America at that time is putting it mildly. In this country anyway, he "invented" the sports superstar. He made an amazing amount of money for the times. He was so popular, that his team, The NY Yankees built a stadium (they previously shared a stadium with a neigboring team)just to hold his fans. Yankee Stadium still exists and is known as "The House That Ruth Built." I'm not going to write a biography, but to give an idea of his popularity, a few years ago America Online had a long running contest to pick America's greatest athlete ever. Ruth, who had not played a game since the mid 1930s, and whom few if any of the millions voting had ever seen (perhaps their grandparents never saw him play either; my father saw him play when Ruth's career was almost over)) came in second. He's been dead for almost 59 years and every ten-year-old in America today knows who he is. The data most often accepted for Ruth is Feb 6, 1895, 1:45 PM, EST, Baltimore, Maryland. There is some doubt, but let's use this chart. Cancer (feminine) rises and Moon in Cancer is five degrees away in the ASC. Venus in Pisces and Mercury in Pisces both aspect the ASC and it sruler the Moon. The closest and only masuline planet in contact with the ASC or its ruler is Saturn (masculine) in Scorpio (feminine). Ruth's appettites were the stuff of legend. He ate enormous quantities of food; liquor didn't seem to effect him and he was sexually insatiable. Those stories are too lurid for this site. He was a great big kid who lived life they way every 14 year-old boy fantasizes about living it. This ASC doesn't fit Corre's description of seeking a partner in order to create life by starting a family and one who is neither interested in or very good at athletics. Babe Ruth was an athlete and probably could have succeeded at any sport he chose. On the other hand there are a couple of things worth mentioning that do fit with Corre's description. He married quite young although he never stopped carousing. He genuinely liked kids and used to sneak into hospitals to see sick kids unannounced and not just for photo ops. COntrst this to today's athletes who charge for autographs. He did show some signs of being pulled into a family role. After his first wife died in a house fire (they had been separated for some time), he married a very strong woman who held him in check as best as anyone could. He was also adept at sewing and tailoring as he was taught those skills at St. Mary's [see below]. His manual dexterity was in a class by itself. However, none of this remotely can overcome his adolescent boy behavior. And Ruth was hardly uncomfortable in the role of super athlete. Keep in mind in pre and post World War I American professional sports, the athletes probably spent more time in correctional facilities than they did in educational institutions. St. Mary's Industrial School for Boys where Ruth grew up, would have sent chills down the spine of Charles Dickens. A effeminite boy would not have surivived. [Interesting but irrelevant side note: 1920s super popular entertainer Al Jolson was raised at the same institution as Ruth at about the same time Ruth was there] No astrology system is 100% foolproof and maybe Corre himself has an explanation for this chart. And maybe the chart is wrong. I am still intrigued because it seems to work, so far, a lot more often than it doesn't a dhumans are a pretty complex lot. If you can make it, by all means go and see Bob Corre. He is a first rate lecturer and his astrology is fascinating. You'll enjoy it. Tom Quote Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:48 pm
36 by Papretis Ruth's appettites were the stuff of legend. He ate enormous quantities of food; liquor didn't seem to effect him and he was sexually insatiable. Those stories are too lurid for this site. He was a great big kid who lived life they way every 14 year-old boy fantasizes about living it. What interestests me in Ruth's chart is the strongly phlegmatic temperament - I think it fits very well with what you write here about him. They say that phlegmatic temperament is the one that is most attached with worldly enjoyments and this chart is one of those that prove it true. It's actually quite strange that in modern astrology phlegmatic/Water is connected with emotions or feelings, when it rather seems to have more to do with instincts. I'll definitely be seeing Bob Corre, I'll be one of his hostesses and translate part of the seminar . Quote Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:40 pm
37 by Christina Hi Tom, The other thing that struck me is that Corre says to use this first and as the basis for the rest of the reading. This is what we would do with the temperament. So the question is this: assuming this "works" does it work as well as, better than, or not as well as the determination of temperament or should we be doing both? I?d like some feedback for or against the method. Hands down, I prefer your temperament/manners analysis of Oswald over Corre?s Ascendant hypothesis on gender confusion. In fact, Corre borrows portions of his Ascendant analysis from temperament technique, either without realizing it or without admitting it. On his website, Corre?s ?gender confused? example (figure #3) is more easily explained through temperament and other traditional techniques. For his figure #3, I get a temperament of phlegmatic-melancholic with almost no choler (1 pt). Compare to (Tom?s) temperament analysis of Oswald ? again ?no choler?: Temperament: I get a balance of melancholic, phlegmatic, and sanguine, with no choler using two different methods. In one method, Dorian Greenbaum?s melancholy slightly dominates. In the other, John Frawley?s modification of Lilly, phlegmatic slightly dominates. Both show some sanguine. Oswald could never hold even a menial job for any length of time. If phlegm represents the desire principle, he had a desire for recognition (Moon in Capricorn?), but lacked the discipline, the skills, and the education to fulfill his desires. His main desire was nothing less than being recognized as a major theorist of Marxism. He never finished high school. But here we see the conflict of the phlegmatic principle and the sanguine. He wanted to be an intellectual, but lacked the drive, (choler?) to become one. Both Oswald and Corre?s alleged ?gender confused? man lack choler. Next compare to a similar ?feminine? dominated chart high in choler ? Arnold Schwarzenegger http://astrodatabank.com/NM/SchwarzeneggerArnold.htm Schwarzenegger has Cancer rising (same Asc as Oswald and Corre?s gender confused man). Schwarzenegger also has Moon in Capricorn (ditto Oswald), Venus in Cancer conj Asc and conj Mercury in Cancer which is partile conj Asc, partile trine Jupiter in Scorpio (their exalt lord). Feminine planets and feminine signs dominate Schwarzenegger?s Asc. For temperament I get choleric-phlegmatic. If ever there were a description of western society?s male gender stereotype choleric is it! (will, inexhaustible, optimistic, aggressive, assertive, take-charge, impatient, hates details ) http://www.skyscript.co.uk/temperament.html There is the obvious question of whether Schwarzenegger?s body building and military prowess was compensation for gender confusion. It crosses over into the ridiculous when men can be labeled gender confused if they are athletic stars or join the military and are similarly labeled when they are neither athletic nor military bound. Schwarzenegger?s chart bears out athletic ?showman? and not gender confused. His MC exalt lord (Venus = show) is conj Asc trine Jupiter (MC Lord) in 5th, and Sun in Leo is in 1st house. Schwarzenegger admitted he turned to bodybuilding when he was young because he was shy and frightened of his strict father. Sun in Leo conj Saturn in 1st house can do this with or without Cancer rising or gender confusion. I disagree with Corre presenting feminine sign Asc?s for men as problematic without regard for temperament ? he says ?a man having a feminine Ascendant - will create feelings of inadequacy. This can lead to issues of poor self-image and problems with self-esteem.? This may or may not apply to Schwarzenegger, we would have to ask him. The important point is that it can also apply to men with masculine Asc's. Bob Dylan has a masculine sign ascending (Sagittarius) and was consistently described as shy, bashful and fearful of fame. Significator of manners plays a role, too. Schwarzenegger?s SOM is Mercury, angular, unafflicted, in friendly aspect to both benefics with reception. In contrast, Tom?s analysis of Oswald SOM is Mars, Significator of the manners is the planet or planets that most engage Mercury and the Moon. That planet is Mars. Mars is the exaltation ruler of the Moon and the domicile ruler of Mercury. Mars is also in a partile square with Mercury. Mercury and the Moon are in an easy aspect, which shows the imagination and rational mind can work well together. But Moon is in her detriment, and Mercury is an accidental malefic via the square from Mars in 8 and gets no real help from the conjunction with Venus in her detriment. The Mars square to Mercury and the Moon in her fall with both Mars and the Moon being disposed by Saturn in fall point to difficulties with the proper functioning of the mind. Oswald may have had what we would call today learning disabilities. His journal, which he called his ?historic diary,? is replete with misspellings, horrible syntax, and no sense of style at all. It is the work of a semi literate. Yet, objective observers have called him, verbally ?articulate.? Posner referred to him as ?dyslexic,? this has become a catch all term for learning disabilities when the meaning of the word is simply, ?difficulty with reading.? Oswald read, or tired to read, voraciously. In addition, the Oswald and Corre charts both have a fairly unusual configuration where the feeling planets and planets of soul (Moon, Venus, Lord Asc, Moon Lord - again, mostly temperament indices) are all seriously corrupted by Saturn. The Saturn affliction to Moon-Venus in the Corre example are obvious, however, in Oswald less so. His Venus is within orb of an out-of-sign opposition to Saturn, is besieged by ray and under beams (plus square Mars which has been mentioned by others). Oswald?s Moon is technically out of orb of a square to Saturn however it is within orb of a square to the Sun which is the Moon?s next applying aspect and the Sun is closely opposing detrimented Saturn. IMO, this pulls in the Moon square to Saturn. In contrast, Schwarzenegger?s Moon, Venus, Lord Asc and Moon Lord are unafflicted. If we applied Corre's method we would have to say he is gender confused but found a healthy outlet therefore no problem. I consider that a bad application of psychological astrology because, 1) it cannot be verified so the astrologer can say whatever and, 2) it overlooks important factors in the chart that deny gender confusion. Temperament/SOM dwarf Corre?s Asc polarity method. His polarity approach borrows temperament techniques but comes up short by not considering temperament in its entirety. Corruption of Moon, Venus, Lord Asc by Saturn gives hardship regardless of dominant Asc polarity. Oswald may have been gender confused, but the polarity method's seeming fit is most likely a fluke. His temperament lacks choler yet he expresses through a choleric planet, Mars SOM - passive temperament vs active SOM might partially explain the fluke. Christina Quote Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:16 am
38 by Tom Hi Christina, I've been away and will only have occasional access to the Forum as I am currently on vacation. Then there is the time zone thing; I'm 11 hours after GMT. I am enjoying myself in Hawaii, Maui to be precise, and the Forum has taken a back seat to sun, beach and Mai Tai cocktails. Ahh the life of an itinerant astrologer. I think you've nailed it on the Oswald - Corre charts. In fact you echoed my gut instincts only you backed it up. There is something in Corre's method that I found confusing. Refering to Arnold's body building you stated: If we applied Corre's method we would have to say he is gender confused but found a healthy outlet therefore no problem. When reading Corre I got the impression that the native needed find a constructive outlet for his feminine tendencies, not the opposite, which is what Arnold did. In other words, a constructive outlet might have been something considered at least gender neutral that was not masculine in nature. Say cooking or design work. Society will accept a male chef or designer of some kind and not question feminine tendencies. Corre might argue, sensibly, that Arnold was "overcompensating" for his shyness and fear of his father. But then we go too quickly into pop psychology, and I like to stay away from that. He would say the same thing about Babe Ruth i.e., Ruth overcompensated by becoming a swaggering, carousing, blustering professional athlete. But Ruth's childhood, or what is known of it, doesn't seem to fit. He didn't become a professional athlete so much by choice or desire, as he was discovered and given his level of education, may have been somewhat surprised to learn people would pay him for playing a game. His upbringing was rough, and he was sent to St. Mary's Industrial School supposedly after being found to be "an incorrigible" at age 7! Feminine tendencies would not have emerged this way at that age. But there are so many legends concerning Ruth, and all the official documents are lost (St. Mary's sufferred a serious fire and all the records pertaining to Ruth's "stay" were destroyed in that fire). Paperetis also hit the nail on the head when he said Ruth's phlegmatic temperament manifested by desire. He made, for the time, a lot of money and simply followed his desires whether it was eating, drinking, night life, or sex, the Babe did as he felt like doing. The phlegmatic temperament is the desire nature, and does a far better job of describing Ruth than explaining his behavior by judging it to be some kind of overcompensation for feminine leanings. On the other hand, I think Corre's idea has some merit. It is part of the temperament, but doesn't go deep enough. It might give us something to look for or an idea to keep in the back of our minds, but since it does not go deep enough, it can be overridden, whereas temperament cannot. What has been discovered of Lee Harvey Oswald's life confirms the phlegmatic/melancholic temperament. He lost job after job and more often than not, he started out well enough, even showing promise, but could never stay with it for very long. Some other interest or desire took priority. There are other problems with his psyche as not everyone with that temperament ends up a killer. But the combination of his overbearing mother, lack of a good father figure, and perhaps having tendencies that were not socially acceptable were converted in his mind to things that brought about a horrible event. Nice job as usual Christina. Tom Quote Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:31 am
Re: Mystery Chart No. 10 Revealed 40 by Trish Tom wrote: This thread is not the place for gassy knollers to vent their spleen. "gassy" knollers?? Trish Quote Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:29 pm
41 by Tom "gassy" knollers?? Hi Trish, Sure. As an FYI for folks who might not know. The "grassy knoll" is the place in Dealy Plaza where so many conspiracy theorists claim shots were fired at JFK. If this is true, then there must have been a conspiracy to kill him as Oswald fired from above and behind the motorcade. People who believe in any of the hundreds of conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK murder are collectively called "grassy knollers" whether they think shots were fired from the grassy knoll or not. In fact "grassy knollers" has been extended to include any conspiracy advocate of anything. The other descriptive noun is "buffs," which is short for "conspiracy buffs." Those who believe Oswald acted alone are subscribers to the "lone nut gunman theory." :-) Tom Quote Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:53 pm
42 by Trish Tom wrote:"gassy" knollers?? Hi Trish, Sure. As an FYI for folks who might not know. The "grassy knoll" is the place in Dealy Plaza where so many conspiracy theorists claim shots were fired at JFK. If this is true, then there must have been a conspiracy to kill him as Oswald fired from above and behind the motorcade. People who believe in any of the hundreds of conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK murder are collectively called "grassy knollers" whether they think shots were fired from the grassy knoll or not. In fact "grassy knollers" has been extended to include any conspiracy advocate of anything. The other descriptive noun is "buffs," which is short for "conspiracy buffs." Those who believe Oswald acted alone are subscribers to the "lone nut gunman theory." :-) Tom Hi Tom: I was only laughing at the typo. As a further FYI, you meant "grassy knollers" not 'gassy knollers'. Trish Quote Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:54 pm