"General Principles of Astrology" for Sidereal Astrologers?
-
Just hoping to solicit opinions from some of you Siderealists out there on what you think the value of Crowley and Adams' The General Principles of Astrology is for those working within the Sidereal system. I picked up the book before I discovered and became more or less convinced by the Sidereal system, and haven't picked it up since.
As I understand it, the more a Tropical astrologer bases her work on oberservation, the more adjustment will be necessary, since she will primarily be talking about the previous sign (i.e., a Tropacalist observing a "Leo" is--5 times out of 6, or thereabouts--actually observing a Cancer, and so on). How much does Crowley's work suffer from this issue? What sort of adjustments would need to be made while studying it?
The book looked quite promising and there are few authors I'd rather study the work of (plus, I shelled out a good chunk of cash for it!), so it'd be a shame if the book didn't turn out all that useful...
-
@Iamus said
"
The book looked quite promising and there are few authors I'd rather study the work of (plus, I shelled out a good chunk of cash for it!), so it'd be a shame if the book didn't turn out all that useful..."I didn't sell my own copy of it along with others Tropical books just because it's A.C.'s and I so very much love him as an author in general regardless of our disagreement over some specific topics
solunars.net forum has everything you need to start - and continue - working with Sidereal Astrology, and now even more so, since Jim added the section "Astrology glossary"
-
@danica said
"
@Iamus said
"
The book looked quite promising and there are few authors I'd rather study the work of (plus, I shelled out a good chunk of cash for it!), so it'd be a shame if the book didn't turn out all that useful..."I didn't sell my own copy of it along with others Tropical books just because it's A.C.'s and I so very much love him as an author in general regardless of our disagreement over some specific topics
"
Care to elaborate? Have you found the work useful in your sidereal work?"solunars.net forum has everything you need to start - and continue - working with Sidereal Astrology, and now even more so, since Jim added the section "Astrology glossary""
Yes, I'd encountered this site a while back when I was first researching sidereal astrology. Didn't see the glossary, I'll have to go back and take a look.I was considering reading Crowley side by side with Jim's material.
If not many people have looked at this work from a sidereal perspective, maybe I'll have something to report once I've done some work...
-
Crowley's astrological writings are a mixed bag. You almost have to be an experienced senior astrologer to sort through it.
Regarding interpretations, Crowley was an astute witness of character. So, when he wrote about Tropical Capricorn, it's usually at least 3/4 accurate for Sidereal Sagittarius - the thing he was actually lookng at. With a little discrimination and artfullness, you can get valuable insights from reading him "one sign back" that way, leaving out those places where he's obviously just playing to the Tropical sign-rulers. (E.g., read his Sun in Libra as a potential interpretation of Sideral Virgo, but leave out anything specifically playing to Venus symbolism, which is there just as theory.)
Some of his other concepts are insightful and original contributions, but, again, you need already to be pretty experienced to reasonably sort through those.
BTW, I don't have that book - wasn't going to spend the money for something that would be, to me, worthless. I have all of the original "Adams" books, and some of Crowleys private papers, including his copies of a large number of horoscopes he did for people around him.
-
Almost everything you need (except calculation instructions - which are mostly done by computer these days) is on <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.solunars.net">www.solunars.net</a><!-- w -->.
-
Iamus, regarding Crowley's book, in addition to what Jim has already said about A.C.'s observations on signs, I think it has good info about Neptune and Uranus angular - but he does not call them 'angular' as such, and the description is in the sections when he speaks about Neptune and Uranus in the 1st House. I find his descriptions of Uranus or Neptune in the 1st house accurate for angularity of those planets, regardless the particular angle.