Parker's Planets
Mailbag
Home | Bulletins | Oracle | USA Horoscope | Void Moon | Planets | Mercury Retrograde | Data | Archives | Archives 2 | About Me | Mailbag | Contact Me | Favorite Links

Here's a chance for you to contribute.

What I love about the web is the opportunity to share my thoughts with others. But I also like to hear what others think, and to exchange ideas.

On this page, I'll share some of the comments I've received in my guestbook and via e-mail. Where appropriate, I'll include a link to the original log entry or essay that inspired the comment. In some cases, I may also respond to the comments.
 
Question:  "If astrologers can predict tendencies, then why aren't astrologers rich?" -- New York.
 
Answer: Money can't buy happiness (even if it can get you out of jail early).  On the other hand, I don't know of too many astrologers who are dumpster-diving.  If money means a lot to you, it's a fair barometer of success but it's not a measure of a person's value.
 
The planet (or planets) in one's Second House -- the house of earnings and tangible assets -- tells a lot about one's attitude (and luck) with money.  With Neptune in the Second house, money slips through your fingers.  Jupiter there lines your pockets.  Saturn means you have to work for what you get.  With Pluto there you could be a stock broker or a bank robber.  Astrologers have uniquely different natal charts just like everybody else.  You can't generalize.
 
But captain of industry J. P. Morgan was once quoted as saying, "Astrology isn't for millionaires, it's for billionaires."

Thanks for yr blog, fascinating, Star of Bethlehem etc.  i used to like astrology but i was put off it in college by a physics major who said the sun signs are all wrong.  He said they were OK a few thousand years ago but like he was called Taurus but when he was born the sun was actually in Aries or Gemini or something.  He said it was because of the precession of the equinoxes, he made it sound plausible but he didn't explain it thoroughly.  i wrote to the astrologer in the newspaper, she answered in effect i should just shut up and trust her.
                So without digging into it i've wondered about like horoscopes, do they show the sun in the real or in the oldtime conventional constellation, and same for all the planets and conjunctions and quartiles etc.?  Is this a nuisance question you get all the time or is it just me?
                Anyhow i had a lot of fun and information reading 3 of yr articles in yr blog and i'm going to go back to it frequently, prodesse et delectare as Horace said.
 
laurie
 
 
Thanks for the note, Laurie.  The physics major was partially correct.  Because of the precession of the equinox, the astrological signs and their namesake constellations have indeed diverged.  The astrological signs are measured from the Vernal Point, 0 degrees of Aries, when the hours of daylight and darkness are equal (this is the Vernal Equinox, "equinox" meaning "equal night).  This is the "tropical zodiac," based on seasons.  Most Western astrologers favor this system, myself included, but there is another branch of astrology based on the constellations.  This branch is "sidereal astrology," practiced in the East, particularly India, though there are also Western practitioners.  (It is sometimes called Vedic or Hindu astrology.)  They use constellations, not signs.  The one drawback is that for them the solar system stops with Saturn -- Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are not considered; neither are other celestial bodies.  Western astrologers have learned from experience, however, that these planets can't be ignored.
 
In some instances, however, one can come up with the same Sun sign in both systems if born "late" in a sign.  For example, I'm a Sagittarian in both the tropical and sidereal zodiacs (I was born hours before the Winter Solstice).  But there has been way too much emphasis placed on "signs" by pop astrologers since one's Sun sign is only part of an astrological profile.  (Read "Planets Are People, Too" in my blog.) 
 
Far more significant are the connections (aspects) between planets.  A planet will always behave according to its nature, no matter what sign it is in -- its aspects show how it will behave.  Those aspect relationships will always be the same in whichever zodiac (tropical or sidereal) is used.  Think of it as a cosmic drama: the planets are the actors, aspects write the script, and the signs are the scenery against which the drama plays out.
 
A horoscope -- literally "picture of the hour" -- should not be confused with the Sun sign drivel in the daily paper or online.  (The astrologers who write those things know better; they do it for the money).  Because of the confusion, practicing astrologers prefer the term "natal chart" or "birth chart."  This chart, the real horoscope, is a map of the solar system as it existed on the day and hour of birth, as seen from the place of birth.  In order to prepare a forecast, the chart is superimposed on the solar system as it is now (or will be in the future) to see the relationships between a person's natal array and current formations.  The signs are of very little importance in this case; aspects are everything.  And aspects will always be the same, whatever zodiac (tropical or sidereal) is used.
 

Astrology only indicates the future -- it's up to us to create it.