skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

The national horoscope - England's - Greece's cases
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Mundane Astrology & World Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Thomas-Gazis



Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 21

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:34 am    Post subject: The national horoscope - England's - Greece's cases Reply with quote

There is a wide confusion about what actually constitutes the "national horoscope" of a nation. Even a major authority in this field like Nick Campion is not facilitating things. In his "The Book of World Horoscopes" he shows several horoscopes for each country without elucidating which one is the national horoscope of the country. He just mentions that there are many horoscopes for each country, each one expressing different stages in the history of that country. Well, indeed there are many such horoscopes but there must be ONLY ONE "foundation" horoscope for each country, the one we should call its "national horoscope".

This is elementary astrology. Whatever comes into existence - be it a human being or an animal or a car or a country - has a SPECIFIC natal/foundation horoscope. Yes, it's hard to determine the national horoscope of a country but that's the fascination of it.

Take England /Britain/United Kingdom for example. When was this Nation really born? There are several candidate dates: on the withdrawal of the Romans from England (410 CE), on the election of Aethelbert as the “over-king” of England (560 CE), on the recognition of Athelstan as the absolute ruler of England (927 CE), on the coronation of William the Conqueror (1066 CE), on the proclamation of the “English Republic” (1649 CE), on the Union of Scotland with Britain (1707), on the Union of Great Britain and Ireland (1801) and on other occasions too. How can we distinguish out of all these events the true birth date of England/Britain/UK? The political sciences might prove very helpful in this!

In our quest for the true horoscope of a nation even a small - but crucial - detail can make the difference! Did you notice for example above the phrase “when was the NATION of England/Britain/United Kingdom born?” There are two crucial points here. The first one is the term “Nation”. Strange as it might sound - a “Nation” is a modern “invention”! There were no Nations in ancient times (there were either city-states or empires. There was the city-state of Sparta but not the “Nation of Sparta”. There was the Roman empire but not the “Nation of Rome”). The concept of a “Nation”, of a “State” is a rather modern one. In reality Nations - in the modern sense of the word - have been formed only in the last 3 - 4 centuries. With this knowledge in our hands things get a lot easier in England’s case. We immediately discard all the ancient and medieval dates and we are left only with dates from 1600 CE. on.

The second crucial point is the many different names assigned to England. It is "England" and "Britain" and "United Kingdom" (UK). Different names assigned to different historical periods, to different "identities" or even different “states of mind” (outside UK the United Kingdom is generally mentioned as “England”). So, which is in your opinion the UK's horoscope?


(P.S. excerpts from a Thomas Gazis article are incorporated in this post)
_________________
Know Thyself
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 1801
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi thomas,
nice post. thanks. i have read and seen these ideas articulated before, but can't remember where or from which book. i agree for the most part. i also think as you mentioned in the other thread a national chart will have greater bearing then ingress charts, but the trick is doing the research to verify one over another.. as you point out campion while generous with important dates in the study of nations, doesn't make any clear commitment to a particular chart for a nation which has more then 1 important date. thinking it through from the point of view of what is the foundation chart for the country, or nation seems wise. the chart i use for the UK is jan 1 1801, but that is the UK, not england. it is an interesting question. thanks for sharing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4193
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Thomas,

Thanks for your post. You have raised some interesting issues.

Quote:
There is a wide confusion about what actually constitutes the "national horoscope" of a nation. Even a major authority in this field like Nick Campion is not facilitating things. In his "The Book of World Horoscopes" he shows several horoscopes for each country without elucidating which one is the national horoscope of the country. He just mentions that there are many horoscopes for each country, each one expressing different stages in the history of that country. Well, indeed there are many such horoscopes but there must be ONLY ONE "foundation" horoscope for each country, the one we should call its "national horoscope".


Quote:
This is elementary astrology. Whatever comes into existence - be it a human being or an animal or a car or a country - has a SPECIFIC natal/foundation horoscope. Yes, it's hard to determine the national horoscope of a country but that's the fascination of it.


Nicholas Campion points out the so called national horoscope is a very modern notion. It really only dates from the publication of Charles Carter’s book ‘Introduction to Political Astrology' in 1951. Carter developed the idea of ‘national charts’ following his failure to predict WWII using the traditional method of Aries Ingress charts. I have to state that Carter’s failure was more due to his poor delineation of the prior ingress charts in 1939 rather than any inherent inadequacy of the ingress charts themselves. Still out of this personal frustration for Carter we have been given another very useful tool in mundane astrology.

You seem to be taking the line on national charts that many astrologers do. In other words a nation or country can be treated exactly the same as a person. Hence all we need is exact data for the exact 'birth moment'. Its an attractive idea but I believe ultimately an illusionary one.

There are several objections to the approach you advocate.

Firstly, as you acknowledge, there are frequently several competing charts which all have valid claims to be historically authentic and important. We never confront this kind of problem in nativities. Why? Quite simply a person can only have one birth moment. However, surely a nation is more an ongoing process incorporating several key events rather than a single event? From this astrological multiverse outlook there are numerous charts worth studying for a nation. From this perspective the analogy you are using is false. My view is that nations are in a continual process of flux (as we see in transits/progressions, directions etc). Over time the very nature of a nation can change. However, its still worth looking at a variety of charts to pick up any recurrent national themes.

At the risk of patronising a Greek I need to quote the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus at this point:

Quote:
“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”


Think about how national character can appear to change over time. The Romans were probably the most organised, efficient and brutal military force the world had ever seen. Yet these qualities seem very different from modern Italian characteristics. I accept you acknowledge the change over from ancient kingdoms to modern nation states.

Clearly over time political and cultural developments can change the nature of a land and its people. However, why shouldn't this apply to nations too? It doesn't necessarily happen every week or year but over decades or centuries there can be historical junctures that represent a key transformation.

Rather than seeking the 'one true chart' to rule them all I concur with the ideas of the Irish astrologer Bill Sheeran. He focusses on identifying a 'family' of associated charts for a nation and finding the common themes. In particular Sheeran suggests we need to focus on 'structural coupling', which describes how planetary transits, etc. activate a whole family of historically linked charts at the same time.

In my opinion Bill Sheeran's article on national charts ' The Observer Observed' is the most philosophically profound piece ever written on national charts.

http://www.radical-astrology.com/articles/articles/mundane/index.html

Look at Germany. Unification of Imperial Germany in 1871, The first German Republic in 1918, The Federal Republic of 1949 or the unified German Federal Republic of 1990?

Using your logic that first chart is always the ‘one the true chart’ so we should all be using the 1871 chart for Germany and nothing else. This was undeniably a key moment with the creation of the first German state. However, this was still an absolute monarchy and not a democracy. Many German astrologers therefore suggest the 1949 chart is the pivotal one. In 1949 we see the creation of the modern model of a German Federal Republic and democracy with the current electoral system. Germany still follows the same democratic constitution established in 1949 so arguably the 1990 unification chart is not as fundamental. Some astrologers therefore take the line that major constitutional changes provide a pivotal new date for the modern nation.

My personal view is that an event as important as the first unification of a nation must leave an important astrological resonance that can continue to this day. While I might give more focus to the 1949 chart myself I think all the dates cited probably have an astrological significance worth studying.

Secondly, some Traditional astrologers would probably have a different objection to your approach. They would likely agree with you that we need a key precursor chart but they would regard it very dfferently from you. Just as short term event can be tied into a prior lunation so long term social, political or religious events can be tied into longer term cycles such as preceeding ingress or Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions. The idea is that the the preceeding ingress is more important as the astral precursor of an event rather than a randomised moment it actually occured.

While I agree that the nation-state is fairly modern development in the last few centuries there is a long history of Empires and governments in the ancient and medieval world that astrologers sought to delineate in horoscopes.

In particular, Persian/Arab astrology developed the notion of the Aries ingress preceding a dynasty being the key foundational chart.

Astrologers like Abu Ma’shar suggested new religions or important new dynasties were indicated in charts for the preceeding Jupiter-Saturn conjunction.

To be more accurate they used the Aries ingress prior to a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction as the key foundational chart for a dynasty. Following this kind of logic the traditional astrologer John Frawley has proposed the chart for the prior Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of 1762 for the later USA. Frawley, has diverged from actual medieval practice somewhat by proposing we can dispense with the Aries ingress chart and focus exclusively on the conjunction chart of 1762 itself. Frawley's logic is that astrologers now have precise data for Jupiter-Saturn conjunction charts which would not have been available to medieval astrologers. Our Skyscript traditional forum moderator Tom Callanan has utilised this chart for assessing some American events.

I wonder though if a common 20 year Jupiter-Saturn conjunction is really enough to represent a precursor of a the rise of a great nation like the USA? The USA has undeniably had a very significant influence on subsequent world history. I think the great conjunction of 1603 is interesting. England established its first permanent North American settlement, Jamestown, in 1607. The conjunction of 1603 was not just a standard Jupiter-Saturn conjunction but instead marked a transition of conjunctions back into the fire triplicity. The conjunction took place at 8 Sagittarius and the Moon was in Cancer providing interesting parallels to the popular Sibly (1776) chart.

We also have the important ‘great conjunction’ chart of 1702 taking place in Aries. Traditionally, the return of the conjunction cycle to the sign of Aries began a whole new cycle of approximately 800 years.

Thirdly, there is a tendency to lump national together as if they all identical. However, national charts are derived from numerous different kind of events. Should be treating these all if they have equal validity and operate the same? In particular:

-Declaration charts-USA chart-4th of July 1776, Israel chart (1948), People’s Republic of China (1949).

-Military/Revolutionary/Coup de’tat charts-Seizure of winter Palace ( Soviet Union 1917), Surrender of British at Yorktown (1781)

-Legal/Constitutional charts: United Kingdom ( 1707), (1801), (1927), USA (1789), Germany (1871, 1918, 1949), France (1958)

-Coronation/Succession/ inauguration charts-England (1066), Scotland (1005), Spain (1479), Spain (1975)

-Territiorial change charts-United Kingdom (1922), Germany (1990)

Personally, I have found constitutional charts the most generally reliable when applied to democracies. Although we need to be careful in not going with a new chart every time a minor constitutional amendment is made!

Nicholas Campion has a definite preference for declaration charts. He often lists these while not giving much focus to key constitutional developments. However declaration charts are often the source of disagreement over exact timing. For example the USA or Israel. The various 1776 declaration of independence charts for the USA is a good case in point. This is not dissimilar to the frequent problem in nativities when have no exact data and various rectifications are proposed.

Fourthly, what are we seeking in a 'national chart'? Many modern astrologers apply a psychological approach and see the entire chart as a map of the national psyche. Hence we see charts rejected as authentic as they dont seem to fit 'national characteristics'.

In my view the only requirement of a national chart is that it should describe the kind of government concerned and significant national events with predictive tools. Traditional astrologers would only look at the Moon and ASC and its ruler to describe national characteristics. Although, in a day chart the Sun might be descriptive too as the luminary of sect.

I will reply later regarding your statement on the Chart for England/Great Britain or the United Kingdom. I have a difficulty with the way you have presented this as you seem a bit confused. Still the basic question is interesting.

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thomas-Gazis



Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 21

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello dear Mark! Great to have astrological discussions with you!

Are you sure you have read my article? Because you are bringing forth certain arguments that I have already addressed there (http://astro.getforum.org/post3194.html#p3194 )

You have actually written two different posts with the same argument, so I am answering you here mostly in the same way I answered your in your other (6H Mars) post.

Let's see your major arguments: You wrote me: "My problem with your position is more fundamental than that. I simply don't agree that one chart can sum up a country".

First of all, that's not "my" position but the position of millions of astrologers all over the world.

You don't agree that a chart can sum up a country. That's your position dear Mark, a position you are backing up with Bill Sheeran's theory "there is no birth chart for a nation"!

But as Bill Sheeran himself confesses, this theory was actually brewed in his mind after a years long failed attempt from his side to determine a proper national horoscope for Ireland! But how could he do that when Ireland is not currently a whole, entire Nation State but a "half" one, since it has been divided (by an external force) in two parts? Ultimately, the difficulty in determining Ireland's National Horoscope brilliantly mirrors the fact that there is no entire Ireland but a "severed" one currently!

You see Mark if there is no birth chart for a nation then there shouldn't be a birth chart for a city, nor for an association, a corporation, nor for a shop. Maybe there shouldn't be birth charts for human beings too...Yes, maybe we are in that kind of illusion! Maybe it would suffice to study the prenatal Lunar eclipses or ingresses of a human being (as Sheeran instructs us to do in the case of nations) and NOT his birth chart!

At some other point in his article Sheeran is writing: "In my analogy, and taking a leaf from C. G. Jung". He is taking a leaf from Jung but he is not taking in consideration Jung's major axiom: "whatever is born or done at a particular moment of time, has the quality of that moment of time". But this is a major astrological axiom too. "Things, situations, beings etc. are born at a specific moment in time and bear the quality of that moment in time"! That's elementary astrology dear Mark. Unless we want to impose a new "quantistic" astrology where things, situations, beings are born through an array of moments in time and in various parallel universes...

So dear Mark you admire Bill Sheeran's theory but apparently you don't apply it! You have ventured - for example - on doing predictions for Greece and you always stick to the very same chart: the 1975 Greek constitutional "amendment" chart! This goes against Bill Sheeran's "structural coupling" theory! I have never seen you for example taking in consideration in your studies the 13th January 1822 (NS) chart, the one stemming out of the Declaration of Independence of the Greeks from the Turks (who had militarily occupied Greece for 4 centuries), the chart I propose as the "national horoscope" of Greece). There is no structural coupling in your Greek predictions but a unilateral use of a "Greek constitutional amendment" chart. Bill Sheeran would be mad with this kind of "unilateral" reasoning...

And no dear Mark, I don't think I am "confused". I see a huge confusion though in a country that bears THREE different names (England, Britain, United Kingdom), a unique occurence worldwide! And I am trying to understand the intricacies of this occurence...
_________________
Know Thyself
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1381

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

. . .

Last edited by ### on Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:35 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4193
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Thomas,

I will come back to you on your most recent reply later. I think this is an interesting discussion. Too often people just use a national chart without really questioning where it originates or what the logic is of applying it.

However, as I promised earlier I want to address the matter of how you described the charts for England/Great Britain/United Kingdom. I dont want to give offence but I do think your understanding is somewhat muddled here. Your main misperception seems to be that the term 'England' can be applied to charts for the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707) or the United Kingdom (1801 or 1927 borders). I fully accept the term 'England' is frequently used and confused by Americans or Europeans for the modern United Kingdom. That doesn't change the fact that this terminology is both misleading and inaccurate. The United Kingdom or Great Britain is not synonymous with England. Indeed if you wish to avoid causing offence to people from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland do not under any circumstances describe their country as England!

Its also inaccurate to describe the charts for 1707, 1801, 1922 or 1927 as describing England. The only commonly used chart for England by UK astrologers I am aware of is the 1066 chart which was for the coronation of William I (The Conqueror).

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Take England /Britain/United Kingdom for example. When was this Nation really born? There are several candidate dates: on the withdrawal of the Romans from England (410 CE), on the election of Aethelbert as the “over-king” of England (560 CE), on the recognition of Athelstan as the absolute ruler of England (927 CE), on the coronation of William the Conqueror (1066 CE), on the proclamation of the “English Republic” (1649 CE), on the Union of Scotland with Britain (1707), on the Union of Great Britain and Ireland (1801) and on other occasions too. How can we distinguish out of all these events the true birth date of England/Britain/UK? The political sciences might prove very helpful in this!


Yes we have discussed a lot of this ground in previous Skyscript discussions here.

http://tmp.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3271&sid=7d4d51c1063a42a801f7ea06c167b1d8

http://tmp.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4152&sid=7d4d51c1063a42a801f7ea06c167b1d8

I can only assume you have taken a look already as I pretty sure I was the first person anywhere to suggest taking a look at the coronation chart for Athelstan! I should state these posts go back several years and my views have changed somewhat in the intervening time.

Quote:
The second crucial point is the many different names assigned to England.


This is what I meant by you getting a bit muddled with the terminology.
Strictly speaking England hasn’t existed as an independent state since 1707! Moreover, the United Kingdom although one Kingdom is arguably a multi-national state rather like the old kingdom of Yugoslavia. People in the United Kingdom often have a dual sense of nationality describing themselves as both 'British and ‘English’, ‘Scottish’, ‘Welsh’ etc. Although many nationalists in Northern Ireland would not describe themselves as British but rather Irish. Similarly, many Scottish people are in favour of independence so they regard themselves as Scottish but not British.

Quote:
It is "England" and "Britain" and "United Kingdom" (UK). Different names assigned to different historical periods, to different "identities" or even different “states of mind” (outside UK the United Kingdom is generally mentioned as “England”). So, which is in your opinion the UK's horoscope?


We are not just referring to different periods in the terms England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom. These terms refer to completely different geographical boundaries in many cases way beyond those of 'England'.

To summarise:

1 The Kingdom of England. England was an independent state up to 1707. It ceased to exist as a sovereign nation state after that time. The 1066 chart for the coronation of William I is often used for England. For England's current status see the notes below.

NB: The English and Scottish monarchies became unified in the so called 'Union of the Crowns' in 1603. This was when James (VI of Scotland) succeeded to the English throne, after the death of Elizabeth I, and became King of England (James I). From 1603 onwards both countries had the same monarch but remained separate Kingdoms until 1707.

2 The Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1707 England and Scotland formed a political union. The new entity was called the Kingdom of Great Britain. Geographically the term ‘Great Britain’ includes England, Scotland, Wales. It excludes Ireland completely.

3 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This state was formed in 1801. Its boundaries looked like this:



In 1922 the Irish Free state was formed (this became the Irish Republic in in 1937). At this point most of Ireland effectively seceded from the United Kingdom. However, the predominantly protestant parliament in the north east of Ireland voted to opt out of the newly created Irish Free state almost immediately and remain in the United Kingdom.

4 The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was introduced in 1927 by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act to reflect the reality that the de facto independence of the Irish Free State, created by the partitioning of Ireland in 1922, left Northern Ireland as the only part of the island of Ireland still within the UK.

The modern ‘United Kingdom’ is in itself a state that is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It's official name is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Although not a fully fledged federation like Spain, Italy or Germany the United Kingdom recognises England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as four separate constituent parts of the Kingdom. England, Scotland and Wales are often described as 'home countries'. The term is used less frequently for Northern Ireland as this would be seen as insulting to Irish nationalist feeling. It is therefore called, Northern Ireland or sometimes ‘the province’. It is incorrect to call it Ulster as it only comprises 6 of Ulster’s 9 counties. The remaining 3 counties of Ulster are in the Irish republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom

For the benefit of our readers generally who may know little of the modern United Kingdom I offer the following map and a quick summary of the 4 constituent parts of the United Kingdom:

Here is a map of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.



England is geographically the largest part of both Great Britain and the United Kingdom. England comprises approximately 55% of the territory of the United Kingdom. It also makes up around 84% of the total population of the United Kingdom. It is one of the four constituent parts that make up the UK and one of the three that makes up Great Britain. Unlike Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, England currently has no Parliament or Assembly of its own to decide its domestic policy. It instead relies on the UK parliament (aka Westminster) to do this. It was an independent country until it joined with Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. This later became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and later still the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. London is the capital of England. London is also the capital of the United Kingdom.

Scotland is geographically in the northern part of the island of Great Britain and a constituent country of the United Kingdom. It makes up about a third of the territory of the United Kingdom. It shares a border with England, but it is not in England. The capital of Scotland is Edinburgh. Scotland has a population of over 5 million. It was an independent country until it joined with England and Wales to form the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. As part of the treaty of union with England Scotland preserved a separate legal, educational and religious structure. Although politically, Scotland is now part of the United Kingdom it has its own Parliament (aka Holyrood) with extensive law making powers that effectively gives it considerable autonomy in all domestic matters. The situation is rather similar to Quebec in Canada.

Wales is in the west of Great Britain and is part of the UK. It has a population of 3 million. The capital city of Wales is Cardiff. Wales has been politically linked with England since 1542. Wales now has some independence with its own Assembly which decides domestic policy and has limited law making powers.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but it is not in Great Britain. Northern Ireland can be found in Ireland (which is the island to the west of Great Britain). The capital of Northern Ireland is Belfast and it has a population of under 2 million. It effectively rejoined the UK in 1922 after having been part of the Irish Free state for a couple of days after its creation. Ireland is divided into two parts; Northern Ireland is part of the UK while the Republic of Ireland, in the south, is an independent country with its own laws, government and currency. Northern Ireland now has its own Assembly which decides domestic policy.

Sporting events understandably create confusion for people outside the United Kingdom. For example in nearly all sports like Football, Rugby, Tennis, Chess, Judo etc. England, Scotland, and Wales all compete internationally as separate Associations. This is despite the fact these are not separate nation states but all part of the United Kingdom. This also occurs at the Commonwealth Games where the 'home countries' compete separately.

I suspect Football generates a lot of the confusion as England regularly participates in Tournaments like the European Championship or World Cup. Many people therefore conclude (wrongly!) that England is a nation state like Germany, Poland or the USA.

As you might expect Northern Ireland is even more confusing as it has a separate governing body for Football but forms single all-Ireland sporting body for Rugby and some other sports. However, since the Irish Republic is outside the Commonwealth, Northern Ireland competes separately in the Commonwealth Games.

In the case of the Olympics though there is just one team. This is because the Olympic committee only allows independent sovereign states to compete. Confusingly the United Kingdom team is currently being called 'Team GB' for short. Of course 'Great Britain' geographically excludes Northern Ireland so this is really a bit misleading. However, in reality the United Kingdom is often referred to as simply Britain. British government sources frequently use the term as a shorthand form for the United Kingdom, whilst the media generally allow its use but point out that the longer term Great Britain refers only to England, Scotland and Wales. 'Team UK' would be more logical though.

As for charts I look at multiple charts as you might expect. For example in the current discussion on Scottish independence I have looked at charts for 1707, 1801 ,and 1927 as well as charts specifically for England (1066) and Scotland (1005, 1306, 1314, 1320, 1328, 1560, 1934, 1999 etc).

The United Kingdom is a tough nut to crack in regards a national chart if you are looking for a sole chart to summarise national identity forever more. The fact many inhabitants of the United Kingdom increasingly dont identify as 'British' in surveys but rather 'English', 'Scottish', Welsh or Irish makes it even trickier. The United Kingdom is undeniably a sovereign state and a Kingdom but is it a nation? I suppose it depends what you mean by a term like 'nation'. The United Kingdom is arguably not a 'nation' in the clear cut sense that say Greece, Germany or the USA are.

Perhaps this reveals a basic problem with the idea of 'national charts'. Are we trying to find the birth of a 'national consciousness' or a 'state'? The two aren't always synonymous.

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus


Last edited by Mark on Sun Jul 01, 2012 9:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thomas-Gazis



Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 21

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Mark thank you for your long post and the illustrations. It will surely help many people outside UK to understand what we are talking about.

You insist that I have muddled up things (you wrote me: "I dont want to give offence but I do think your understanding is somewhat muddled here") but that's not the case. You see I have studied Semiotics and I know there is more in a word than meets the eye...Plus I have lived for some time in England / Great Britain / United Kingdom, thus I know the meaning of each one of these names (I was living in Bristol and in the beginning I was surprised by some "alien" stations I was receiving in my radio, when I soon realised they were Welsh radio stations...). That is why I am seeking the deeper meaning of the multiple names assigned to England/Britain/UK.

I know it's wrong for a foreigner to call the entire british "sub-continent" England but that's how the rest of us Europeans perceives England. And definitely there is an intrinsic meaning to that.

There is a strong intrinsic meaning too in the following lines you wrote:
"In nearly all sports like Football, Rugby, Tennis, Chess, Judo etc. England, Scotland, and Wales all compete internationally as separate Associations. This is despite the fact these are not separate nation states but all part of the United Kingdom. This also occurs at the Commonwealth Games where the 'home countries' compete separately.

I suspect Football generates a lot of the confusion as England regularly participates in Tournaments like the European Championship or World Cup. Many people therefore conclude (wrongly!) that England is a nation state like Germany, Poland or the USA.

As you might expect Northern Ireland is even more confusing as it has a separate governing body for Football but forms single all-Ireland sporting body for Rugby and some other sports. However, since the Irish Republic is outside the Commonwealth, Northern Ireland competes separately in the Commonwealth Games.

In the case of the Olympics though there is just one team. This is because the Olympic committee only allows independent sovereign states to compete. Confusingly the United Kingdom team is currently being called 'Team GB' for short. Of course 'Great Britain' geographically excludes Northern Ireland so this is really a bit misleading."


England has been the superpower of the british "sub-continent". Still, when it formed the (non desired by the Scottish people) Union with Scotland it changed to Great Britain. And when it formed the (non desired by the Irish people) Union with Ireland it turned to "United Kingdom". I personally find a lot of "diplomacy" in this "name shifting process", maybe an intelligent effort to "cover up" things.

To make you understand what I mean, I would like to point out some similar cases within the global frame: France did not turn into "Great France" when it annexed the region of Alsace nor the USA turned to "Great USA" when they annexed Texas or Alaska, nor China into "Great China" when it annexed Hong-Kong etc. Why this constant "name-shifting process" in the case of England/ Great Britain/ United Kingdom?

Definitely there is a difference between a "national consciousness" and a "State". It impresses me i.e. the fact that the Greek-Jewish I know (who have a strong Jewish national consiousness) are currently defining themselves as "Israelites"! They don't live in Israel, they live in Greece. And they prefer to call themselves "Israelites", as if this name was endowing them - now that there is a sovereign Israeli State - with some additional "value". Thus, apart their national Jewish consciousness it seems they have acquired now a sort of "Statal Jewish consciousness"! So, there is a clear distinction between "national consciousness" and "statal Consciousness" while apparently the "Statal identinty" is a more desirable one than the "identity stemming out of a national consciousness"...
_________________
Know Thyself
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thomas-Gazis wrote:


At some other point in his article Sheeran is writing: "In my analogy, and taking a leaf from C. G. Jung". He is taking a leaf from Jung but he is not taking in consideration Jung's major axiom: "whatever is born or done at a particular moment of time, has the quality of that moment of time". But this is a major astrological axiom too. "Things, situations, beings etc. are born at a specific moment in time and bear the quality of that moment in time"! That's elementary astrology dear Mark. Unless we want to impose a new "quantistic" astrology where things, situations, beings are born through an array of moments in time and in various parallel universes...



I wouldn't underestimate Bill, or assume you are on the same page.

To give an example, my mother born in 1931 in London. In the 1990's this City was almost unrecognisable from the place she had been brought up in. She felt very alienated or lost there. Multi-Culturalism! So can we suggest at some point in the 1970's or 80's some other quality was born ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4193
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Thomas,

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Are you sure you have read my article? Because you are bringing forth certain arguments that I have already addressed there (http://astro.getforum.org/post3194.html#p3194 )


To be fair I had forgotten you already quoted Heraclitus!
I think one of the most relevant bits of your piece is this paragraph:

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
But even if we knew with certainty the zodiacal sign of ancient Greece then a new question would arise: does the sign of a country remain the same as the millennia pass over? I think not! First of all, “everything is flux” as the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus stated. The correlation between a nation and the cosmic forces ever changes! On the other hand - if we follow the exact definition of what a “country” is - no country has ever managed to survive as an absolutely homogenous entity for thousands of years. Countries do dissolve and then reconstitute, incarnating each time under a different stately form. What has to do for example today’s Egypt with the Pharaohs’ one? What has to do today’s Greece with the 5th century BC “Golden Century” Greece? Ancient and modern Greece are quite different in spirit and consequently their charts should be different!


If we accept life is flux as Heraclitus said don’t major historical changes alter the relevance of a chart? You suggest millennia might need to pass for a foundation chart to become invalid but why? Shouldn’t we consider new charts as a state changes over time? I accept in terms of modern Greek national identity the chart you have focused has relevance as a pointer to Greek national consciousness. However, what of the first Greek constitution in 1822?

It seems to me there are two major camps amongst modern astrologers on the issue of ‘national charts’. Both sides usually passionately defend their version of the 'correct' national chart. I would describe them as the ‘Nationalist’ and ‘Constitutional’ approaches to charts for countries. The nationalist approach which you strongly advocate see charts for countries like birth charts in nativities. It is believed there is a key seed moment from which a modern nation was uniquely born.

For nationalists , the oldest possible chart is identified as the key foundational chart for a nation. In this perspective there can be only one national chart to symbolise a nation state. The logic seems to be that this remains the national chart in perpetuity unless some calamity literally destroys a nation!

Unfortunately, there can be considerable disagreement on which chart symbolizes the 'birth of a nation'.

The other outlook which I would typify as the constitutional' approach, is not interested in nationalist notions of ongoing identity and instead suggests major legal/political change can necessitate looking at a completely new chart for a country. There might be a consensus on the same foundational chart but this would be seen to lose relevance if major constitutional changes altered the basis of the state. This could be a new constitution making major changes , a move from a monarchy to republic or a revolution or military coup. Advocates of this approach also often argue their chosen chart is the most correct one too although they may give more consideration to older charts.

I think this difference depends on what we seek from a ‘national chart’. Some astrologers like you concentrate on a single moment which is seen as encapsulating national identity. Indeed your chosen chart could be described as a 'birth of a nation' moment. Hence you utilise quite mystical language discussing the ‘soul’ of a nation. Good examples of this approach are the declaration charts for Greece, or the USA. Whether a nation or sense of national consciousness can really be pinned down this narrowly is debateable.

The other 'constitutional' perspective uses charts for a country more to reflect the evolving nature of ‘states’ than nations. Hence a supporter of this view would favour the 1949 or 1990 charts for Germany rather than the 1871 unification chart. These kinds of charts are seldom based on declaration charts and instead often rely on the most recent significant formulation of a state. For example, Russia is a nation dating back centuries but its most recent constitutional formulation is the chart for the Russian Federation in 1991.

I have already indicated on Skyscript I think both approaches have their uses. Hence for the modern USA one can link American national consciousness or identity to the various 4th of July 1776 chart(s). However, in terms of its modern legal, constitutional structure the USA government chart only dates from 1789. The strong advocates of the ‘constitutional ’ approach might argue earlier charts are less relevant and we should be using the most recent chart to reflect modern reality. I have tended to favour the constitutional approach in the past (hence I favour the 1949 chart for Germany, 1789 chart for USA, or the 1927 chart for the UK.) However, I find Bill Sheeran's ideas intriguing and worth consideration.

I would suggest Bill Sheeran has proposed a third way which I would describe as an integrative approach to national charts where various national charts are compared to identify common trends that apply across the charts. In this outllook multiple moments in time can be astrologically relevant.

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
You have actually written two different posts with the same argument, so I am answering you here mostly in the same way I answered your in your other (6H Mars) post.


The post in the other thread was a short marker directing people to this one. I hadn’t expected you to repeat the same extended reply in both threads!

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
Let's see your major arguments: You wrote me: "My problem with your position is more fundamental than that. I simply don't agree that one chart can sum up a country".

First of all, that's not "my" position but the position of millions of astrologers all over the world.

You don't agree that a chart can sum up a country. That's your position dear Mark, a position you are backing up with Bill Sheeran's theory "there is no birth chart for a nation"!


Quite evidently I use national charts. Just check out my previous posts on Skyscript. I just think the analogy you keep insisting on of comparing nations to nativities is false. I think you are oversimplifying and misrepresenting Bill Sheeran’s position too. My view is not that states don’t have charts we can work with. Rather I think countries often have several decisive seed moments that leave astrological ripples through time. I accept these moments are quite rare but they do occur. Hence I support Sheeran’s suggestion that it is useful to look for a family of charts to find common themes. I could argue the 'birth' of the modern United Kingdom' only goes back legally to 1927. However, I am aware that the seeds of prior events also affect the astrology of the United Kingdom. You never find this kind of issue in natal charts (unless you want to look into reincarnation!). Seriously, though ancient and medieval astrologers looked a pre-natal lunations as part of natal analysis.

You seem to assume that you have the weight of astrological tradition behind your view that mundane charts should be simply treated like a nativity. I don’t agree. Traditionally, there were various types of mundane charts used: Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, Ingress charts, eclipse charts, lunation charts , coronation charts etc.

Moreover, the main tool to look at countries was the annual or quarterly ingress chart. On a longer term basis medieval astrologers like Abu’Mashar proposed foundational Aries ingress charts to encapsulate a dynasty. Also , there were coronation charts to reflect the reign of a king. The Seventeenth century astrloger William Ramesey suggested extending this principle to inauguration charts for a republican constitution. However, there was never a permanent chart for a country. As a dynasty ended or a King died the relevance of the old chart ended with it. I accept national charts are a modern technique but to me it seems the approach of astrologers who advocate an updated chart rather than a permanent one summing up a nation are much more in tune with the traditional approach to mundane astrology.

Of course we are discussing controversial examples. Some countries appear much more straightforward than others. I haven’t looked into this much but Canada seems to have one fairly clear foundation chart. Also South Sudan which came into existence last year is fairly straightforward at this stage. What will we say in 400 years time though? That is the problem with older states we face.

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
But as Bill Sheeran himself confesses, this theory was actually brewed in his mind after a years long failed attempt from his side to determine a proper national horoscope for Ireland! But how could he do that when Ireland is not currently a whole, entire Nation State but a "half" one, since it has been divided (by an external force) in two parts? Ultimately, the difficulty in determining Ireland's National Horoscope brilliantly mirrors the fact that there is no entire Ireland but a "severed" one currently!


Sheeran only ‘failed’ from your rather limited focus on one country=one valid chart. I think Sheeran is simply open minded enough to see that various charts can pick up key moments in Irish history. I find your notion that Sheeran's has 'failed' to identify a single chart for Ireland because the whole Island is not one state yet both eccentric and unconvincing. If you look at any mundane astrology forum you see the same problem magnified one hundred fold in discussions seeking to identify a single chart for the USA. Are you waiting for the USA to annex Canada before a clear single chart emerges for the USA? Laughing

Quote:
You see Mark if there is no birth chart for a nation then there shouldn't be a birth chart for a city, nor for an association, a corporation, nor for a shop. Maybe there shouldn't be birth charts for human beings too...Yes, maybe we are in that kind of illusion! Maybe it would suffice to study the prenatal Lunar eclipses or ingresses of a human being (as Sheeran instructs us to do in the case of nations) and NOT his birth chart!


It is ironic you choose to mock Sheeran for selecting a prior eclipse chart to reflect the origin of modern Irish nationalism. Medieval astrologers regarded the underlying 'birth' of later events in prior conjunctions, ingresses, eclipses etc. They would have recognised this kind of idea. You seem to be unaware of the traditional approach to mundane astrology and how it differed from nativities.

Sheeran's position is just as astrologically valid as yours. Moreover, on a practical level he is able to time an exact chart from that prior eclipse which you cannot provide for the chart you select. In contrast your chart requires a controversial rectification to obtain a timed chart. Even if the date you use was accepted as the one true chart as you wish there would be the same kind of interminable debate and discussion over the exact timing as we see for the 4th of July 1776 chart for the USA.

So while a traditional astrologer might look for a foundational chart for a country it would be more likely to be based on an Aries ingress, Jupiter-Saturn conjunction etc . This represents a fundamentally different conception of what gives 'birth' to a country. The exception would be the use of an inauguration chart for a government. Philosophically, the deeper issue is can astrology really capture something as intangible as a nation or should we be restricting ourselves to government or current political structures?

Of course I accept a government or state at various periods can be represented in charts. What I find more problematic is the idea of summing up a nation in a chart. Did 'Greekness' begin in 1822? Was nobody 'Greek' before then? Of course not. Did American identity start in 1776? What were the 'patriots' at the battles of battles of Lexington and Concord fighting over in 1775 then? And what of states that were never based on one exclusive ethnic identity in the first place like the former Yugoslavia after WWII? Look at the declaration chart for the People's Republic of China 1949. Nobody would claim this was the 'birth' of the Chinese nation which is very ancient. Instead what we have is a moment to represent the latest political structure of modern China. I haven't heard any astrologers suggest this chart might be invalid because we dont have an original birth chart for the Chinese nation. To return to the analogy of Heraclitus all we are doing is scooping up some of the flowing river in our hands. I think we all need to retain some humility here.

What is a nation? Can you define it? I think states have foundational charts. I just happen to believe that the political foundations of a state can change fundamentally over time!

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
At some other point in his article Sheeran is writing: "In my analogy, and taking a leaf from C. G. Jung". He is taking a leaf from Jung but he is not taking in consideration Jung's major axiom: "whatever is born or done at a particular moment of time, has the quality of that moment of time". But this is a major astrological axiom too. "Things, situations, beings etc. are born at a specific moment in time and bear the quality of that moment in time"! That's elementary astrology dear Mark. Unless we want to impose a new "quantistic" astrology where things, situations, beings are born through an array of moments in time and in various parallel universes...


Sorry but that is nothing but polemics. You dont seem to be acknowledging something quite fundamental here. The mundane branch of astrology has never operated like natal astrology. Traditionally in mundane astrology astrologers used multiple charts. Equally, while there might be a chart for a dynasty or coronation these charts would no longer have relevance after the end of a dynasty or reign of a King. Can you seriously maintain that the modern Greek political system (dynasty?) is synonymous with the political situation of 1822? Since WWII we have seen a military dictatorship and democracy did not return until 1974. As you acknowledge too the Greek people decided to end the monarchy established in 1830 and have a republican constitution. Greece seems to have crossed a few major rubicons since 1822!

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
So dear Mark you admire Bill Sheeran's theory but apparently you don't apply it! You have ventured - for example - on doing predictions for Greece and you always stick to the very same chart: the 1975 Greek constitutional "amendment" chart! This goes against Bill Sheeran's "structural coupling" theory! I have never seen you for example taking in consideration in your studies the 13th January 1822 (NS) chart, the one stemming out of the Declaration of Independence of the Greeks from the Turks (who had militarily occupied Greece for 4 centuries), the chart I propose as the "national horoscope" of Greece). There is no structural coupling in your Greek predictions but a unilateral use of a "Greek constitutional amendment" chart. Bill Sheeran would be mad with this kind of "unilateral" reasoning...


I have spent relatively little time studying Greek historical developments in the way I have studied developments in the United Kingdom, Scotland, USA or Germany. I have never had the time or inclination to do this with Greece. I offered a bi-wheel comparing the last Greek government with the 1975 chart. I cannot recall making any significant predictions as such. It was put up as much as anything in the spirit of experimentation and free enquiry. I simply suggested that the constitutional chart for 1975 was worth more study. I pointed out that there was a link to the 1974 chart as the former had Cancer rising while the latter had a Cancer Moon. I thought these might reflect modern Greek state better than older historical charts. For some reason this suggestion incensed you. You do seem rather defensive in fighting off suggestions that any other dates in Greek history might be highly significant and the basis of a chart!

I am currently looking at historical events for Scotland using Sheeran’s ‘structural coupling’ or cluster based approach. Having said that I don’t have a problem if people resonate with one particular chart and find it more accurate. Where I agree with Sheeran and Geoffrey Cornelius is that just as in horary our selections will reflect our subjective knowledge and perceptions and so the consciousness of the astrologer is an active participant in the moment of astrology. I believe this applies to mundane astrology too.

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus


Last edited by Mark on Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4193
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Thomas,

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
England has been the superpower of the british "sub-continent". Still, when it formed the (non desired by the Scottish people) Union with Scotland it changed to Great Britain. And when it formed the (non desired by the Irish people) Union with Ireland it turned to "United Kingdom". I personally find a lot of "diplomacy" in this "name shifting process", maybe an intelligent effort to "cover up" things.


It is undeniably true that that England was the dominant player in the Union with Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1801). I would agree that the populace in both countries were opposed to the idea and it was a pro-English elite in both countries that brought this about. Scotland was economically ravaged after the failure of the Darien scheme and many of the Scottish elite hoped to make good their losses following this financial disaster in the terms of compensation offered by England in the Act of Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707

The treaty also opened up the opportunity of extensive International trade for Scotland throughout the English Empire which had previously barred it from trading to the English colonies through legislation such as the English Regulation Acts.

Certainly in Ireland there was a sense of being effectively colonized by England. So I accept the political reality of Great Britain or the United Kingdom was a state dominated demographically, economically and politically by England. It is also the case that many English people today still slip into the tendency to describe the United Kingdom as England.
I do not deny there were efforts by the English political establishment to simply make Scotland an adjunct to England. Hence there were attempts to describe Scotland simply as 'North Britain' in the 19th century.

However, I do think things have changed a lot since the 1927 settlement. Nationalist political parties were founded in Scotland and Wales before WWII and the demands of the Catholic nationalist minority for 'civil rights' in Northern Ireland from the the 1960's led to years of terrorist violence by the IRA. The political settlement that emerged from the Good Friday or Belfast agreement of 1998 has gone a long way to satisfy nationalist grievances.

So much so that recent surveys indicate that even the majority of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland wish to remain in the United kingdom. The economic crisis in the Irish Republic has no doubt made ideas of Irish unification less attractive for the time being.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/17/life-and-times-survey-united-ireland

The United Kingdom has very gradually been moving in a federal direction. Especially with effective ‘home rule’ for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The only pieces missing are a parliament for England and a federal written constitution. I think the country has evolved towards becoming effectively a Federal Kingdom rather than a United Kingdom.

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
To make you understand what I mean, I would like to point out some similar cases within the global frame: France did not turn into "Great France" when it annexed the region of Alsace nor the USA turned to "Great USA" when they annexed Texas or Alaska, nor China into "Great China" when it annexed Hong-Kong etc. Why this constant "name-shifting process" in the case of England/ Great Britain/ United Kingdom?


Well England never became ‘Great England’ either. The term Britain dates back to the Roman term for the entire island off the coast of Europe which was called Brittania. The Britons were the original inhabitants of this land and most spoke a P Celtic language. Their culture survives today in Wales, Cornwall, and Briitany. In Roman times though their culture was predominant throughout the island of Great Britain.

Geographers were describing both England and Scotland as part of the island of 'Great Britain' long before the political union of the two countries. The term ‘Great’ in this context is not about a glorified England. It literally means ‘larger’ Britain and was used in olden times to differentiate the large number of Britons living in the island of 'Great Britain’ as opposed to ‘Lesser Britain’ which we know as Brittany in France today.

From wikipedia:

Quote:
Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) refers to the island of Great Britain as Britannia major ("Greater Britain"), to distinguish it from Britannia minor ("Lesser Britain"), the continental region which approximates to modern Brittany. The term Great Britain was first used officially in 1474, in the instrument drawing up the proposal for a marriage between Cecily the daughter of Edward IV of England, and James the son of James III of Scotland, which described it as "this Nobill Isle, callit Gret Britanee." As noted above it was used again in 1604, when King James VI and I styled himself "King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland."


A rather similar example would be the states of Haiti and the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean which jointly occupy what is called the island of 'Hispaniola' by geographers. In the unlikely event that these two states ever joined in a political union they could realistically call it 'Hispaniola' to reflect the fact it comprised the whole island.

Mark
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thomas-Gazis



Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 21

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:


I wouldn't underestimate Bill, or assume you are on the same page.

To give an example, my mother born in 1931 in London. In the 1990's this City was almost unrecognisable from the place she had been brought up in. She felt very alienated or lost there. Multi-Culturalism! So can we suggest at some point in the 1970's or 80's some other quality was born ?


Dear "Nixx" (is your username the greek word "Nyx" - "night"?) indeed today's London is quite different from the 1930's London. But this does not necessarily mean that we have to cast a new "natal chart" for London. An 80 years old gentleman has little to do with the 10 years old boy he used to be. But still we use the same natal chart to study this person - in both cases, when he was 10 years old and now that he is 80 years old!
_________________
Know Thyself
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thomas-Gazis



Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 21

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Mark and friends!

Mark wrote:

If we accept life is flux as Heraclitus said don’t major historical changes alter the relevance of a chart? You suggest millennia might need to pass for a foundation chart to become invalid but why? Shouldn’t we consider new charts as a state changes over time?


Yes, the major historical changes alter the relevance of a chart as long as they radically alter the constitution and the "soul" of the nation state in question.

Mark wrote:
I accept in terms of modern Greek national identity the chart you have focused has relevance as a pointer to Greek national consciousness. However, what of the first Greek constitution in 1822?


Dear Mark the 1822 First Greek Constitution was signed and published the very date the Greek declaration of independence from the Turks was proclaimed (both events on the 1st January 1822 OS).

Mark wrote:
It seems to me there are two major camps amongst modern astrologers on the issue of ‘national charts’. Both sides usually passionately defend their version of the 'correct' national chart. I would describe them as the ‘Nationalist’ and ‘Constitutional’ approaches to charts for countries.


As I explained you the two coincide in modern Greece's case. That's why I consider so pivotal the 1st January 1822 (OS) chart.

Mark wrote:
I think this difference depends on what we seek from a ‘national chart’. Some astrologers like you concentrate on a single moment which is seen as encapsulating national identity. Indeed your chosen chart could be described as a 'birth of a nation' moment. Hence you utilise quite mystical language discussing the ‘soul’ of a nation. Good examples of this approach are the declaration charts for Greece, or the USA. Whether a nation or sense of national consciousness can really be pinned down this narrowly is debateable.


Mark I don't think that "some astrologers concentrate on a single moment which is seen as encapsulating national identity". The overwhelming majority of astrologers world-wide does that! Nicholas Campion - who is an internationally recognised authority on mundane astrology - advocates A NATIONAL HOROSCOPE! Hundreds of thousands of astrologers world wide advocate A national horoscope! So, actually the reverse is in effect here: some astrologers are against the idea of a national horoscope. In dialectics though this sort of reasoning "the overwhelming majority supports that idea" is not valid, thus I keep following with interest your arguments.

Mark wrote:
You seem to assume that you have the weight of astrological tradition behind your view that mundane charts should be simply treated like a nativity. I don’t agree. Traditionally, there were various types of mundane charts used: Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, Ingress charts, eclipse charts, lunation charts , coronation charts etc.

Moreover, the main tool to look at countries was the annual or quarterly ingress chart. On a longer term basis medieval astrologers like Abu’Mashar proposed foundational Aries ingress charts to encapsulate a dynasty.


I am answering you quoting Nicholas Campion: "It is not often appreciated that the current emphasis on the national horoscope as a primary tool in mundane astrology is a relatively recent development. Prior to 1939 most mundane prediction proceeded via the simple use of ingress and lunation charts cast for the capital cities of the countries under consideration. This approach suffered from a number of major weaknessess. Specifically it was incapable of of distinguishing between different countries, for each capital shared exactly the the same planetary alignments..."

Mark wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
But as Bill Sheeran himself confesses, this theory was actually brewed in his mind after a years long failed attempt from his side to determine a proper national horoscope for Ireland! But how could he do that when Ireland is not currently a whole, entire Nation State but a "half" one, since it has been divided (by an external force) in two parts? Ultimately, the difficulty in determining Ireland's National Horoscope brilliantly mirrors the fact that there is no entire Ireland but a "severed" one currently!


Sheeran only ‘failed’ from your rather limited focus on one country=one valid chart. I think Sheeran is simply open minded enough to see that various charts can pick up key moments in Irish history. I find your notion that Sheeran's has 'failed' to identify a single chart for Ireland because the whole Island is not one state yet both eccentric and unconvincing. If you look at any mundane astrology forum you see the same problem magnified one hundred fold in discussions seeking to identify a single chart for the USA. Are you waiting for the USA to annex Canada before a clear single chart emerges for the USA? Laughing


Mark you put words on my mouth I have never spoken. I never said "one country=one valid chart" but rather "each country has a specific NATIONAL horoscope"! And that's not my "limited focus" as you say but the "focus" of the Nicholas Campion authority and of hundreds of thousands of other astrologers. Could you quote me please some major American astrologers who support the idea that the 4th of July chart IS NOT the USA National horoscope?

Mark wrote:
Quote:
You see Mark if there is no birth chart for a nation then there shouldn't be a birth chart for a city, nor for an association, a corporation, nor for a shop. Maybe there shouldn't be birth charts for human beings too...Yes, maybe we are in that kind of illusion! Maybe it would suffice to study the prenatal Lunar eclipses or ingresses of a human being (as Sheeran instructs us to do in the case of nations) and NOT his birth chart!


It is ironic you choose to mock Sheeran for selecting a prior eclipse chart to reflect the origin of modern Irish nationalism. Medieval astrologers regarded the underlying 'birth' of later events in prior conjunctions, ingresses, eclipses etc. They would have recognised this kind of idea. You seem to be unaware of the traditional approach to mundane astrology and how it differed from nativities.


Mark could you quote please the exact lines of mine where I AM MOCKING Bill Sheeran? Because I never mocked the man. I am just exchanging ideas and arguments and I never stepped on the undignified field of mocking or even "characterizing" people! I stick to dialectics and I refrain from releasing emotional stuff in my writings. Which you rather do dear Mark. You have already unfairly "characterized" me as "mocking" Sheeran and as doing "polemics"....

Mark wrote:
Did 'Greekness' begin in 1822? Was nobody 'Greek' before then? Of course not.


Actually modern "Greekness" indeed began in 1822! You see there was no Greece in the previous centuries, as the Turks had militarily occupied the country for 4 whole centuries! Four centuries of Turkish occupation is an awfully lot of time! In four centuries the "soul" of a people may be radically altered! And what came out as the 1822 Greece had little to do with the ancient or the medieval Greece!

Mark wrote:
Can you seriously maintain that the modern Greek political system (dynasty?) is synonymous with the political situation of 1822? Since WWII we have seen a military dictatorship and democracy did not return until 1974. As you acknowledge too the Greek people decided to end the monarchy established in 1830 and have a republican constitution. Greece seems to have crossed a few major rubicons since 1822!


Yes Mark, but monarchy was never the Greek people's choice! The major European powers established in 1822 a monarchy in Greece in order to better control this country and promote their interests there! In many instances the Greeks rebelled against this forced monarchy! So, in 1974 the Greek people did not "changed its mind" by voting against the monarchy! No rubicone was crossed then. The greek "soul" was not altered by the result of this 1974 referendum - it went the other way around, the greek "soul" finally expressed its will through this referendum. So, all in all 1974 and 1975 were not a very "big deal" years in the history of modern Greece.

Mark wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Quote:
So dear Mark you admire Bill Sheeran's theory but apparently you don't apply it! You have ventured - for example - on doing predictions for Greece and you always stick to the very same chart: the 1975 Greek constitutional "amendment" chart! This goes against Bill Sheeran's "structural coupling" theory! I have never seen you for example taking in consideration in your studies the 13th January 1822 (NS) chart, the one stemming out of the Declaration of Independence of the Greeks from the Turks (who had militarily occupied Greece for 4 centuries), the chart I propose as the "national horoscope" of Greece). There is no structural coupling in your Greek predictions but a unilateral use of a "Greek constitutional amendment" chart. Bill Sheeran would be mad with this kind of "unilateral" reasoning...


I have spent relatively little time studying Greek historical developments in the way I have studied developments in the United Kingdom, Scotland, USA or Germany. I have never had the time or inclination to do this with Greece. I offered a bi-wheel comparing the last Greek government with the 1975 chart. I cannot recall making any significant predictions as such. It was put up as much as anything in the spirit of experimentation and free enquiry. I simply suggested that the constitutional chart for 1975 was worth more study. I pointed out that there was a link to the 1974 chart as the former had Cancer rising while the latter had a Cancer Moon. I thought these might reflect modern Greek state better than older historical charts. For some reason this suggestion incensed you. You do seem rather defensive in fighting off suggestions that any other dates in Greek history might be highly significant and the basis of a chart!


Mark once more you are "characterizing" me on a personal level. Nothing ever incensed me nor I am "rather defensive in fighting off suggestions...". I highly enjoy dialectics, I am cool as ice in a burning hot Athens and I love exchanging ideas with you

Thomas Gazis
_________________
Know Thyself
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 445
Location: USA

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Thomas,

I think part of the problem here is that Mark is more focused on traditional mundane methods which are only recently being rediscovered, while you're using modern methods that came about as a reaction to the debased understanding of old mundane approaches. If you go about and read some old posts in this forum you'll see what I mean.
_________________
Gabe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Thomas-Gazis



Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 21

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you dear GR for your clarification! I don't think there is a problem with Mark. We are just exchanging ideas.
_________________
Know Thyself
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thomas-Gazis



Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 21

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:

Mundane astrology is one branch of astrology that especially appeals to would-be prophets. Cramming a nation into a single national chart makes it easier for them.


Dear Kirk you are "characterizing" too but you are not giving us sound arguments. I don't think that the hundreds of thousands of astrologers world-wide - who are in the "One National Horoscope" method - are all "wannabe prophets".

After all, isn't that the very essence of Astrology? To individuate the moment of an entity's birth? As Carl Jung puts it: " everything born or done at a particular moment of time has the quality of that moment of time"! Nation states are born at a particular moment of time and not at a "quantistic time sequence"....

To talk about Greece, I' ve seen many astrologers in Skyscript and elsewhere using just A chart when they do predictions for Greece (usually the 1975 constitution or the 1974 change of regime, which as I have explained in my relative article cannot be considered Greece's Natal Horoscopes). And these astrologers are using just A chart, as if it were Greece's National Horoscope!
_________________
Know Thyself
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Mundane Astrology & World Events All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated