College of Thelema: Thelemic Education

@Takamba said

"
@Frater 639 said
"
@Takamba said
"it could be that some can rise above culturally implanted prejudices and without vomit put a piece of human feces to their nose and diagnose the ailment of the infirm."

😀

I can sit through FOX News. Does it count if I throw up in my mouth?

😆"

It only counts if the blasphemy is relevant to your freedom from controls not willed by you."

Haha. 😆

Nah, through an act of will, I turned it on myself with the TV controls. 😀

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

@Surg said

"Bottom line: there is no hexagram on the card, period."

By my own estimation, there's an apparent hexagram here, but the traditional fire triangle has been replaced by the top point of a larger pentagram reaching outside the frame of the card (mostly below it). The pitch of the angle suggests this, as its the same as the inner upright pentagram with the child in it. The four cherubic, elemental points of the larger pentagram are, again, outside of the frame of the card. The highest horizontal line of this larger pentagram might be seen if it weren't for the robes of the Hierophant.

Aside from all that, what's interesting to me is bottom point of the proper water triangle is touching the apex of another polygon.

Love is the law, love under will.

This discussion should not be continued on this forum. It's appropriate place is on Solunars.net, which is devoted to the subject. It's also off-topic from the thread itself, and therefore is subject to being deleted without comment or notice. (The expectation here is that, while a bit of brief flitting off-topic naturally occurs, the thread should be brought back to its primary topic.)

However, I'll respond to this last post on the subject:

@Surg said

"Jim, I have doubts about this one - I was born on March 28th, this makes me an Aries."

No, it makes you a Pisces Sun - except in the fictional Equinox-based zodiac of pop astrology. The Sun doesn't reach the actual astrological constellation of Aries until mid-April.

And, of course, the Sun-sign is only one part of the horoscope. A very strong part, but only one part. It's not feasible to do a point-by-point rebuttal without the whole chart to reference.

"By the link you posted, I ought to be Pisces, however both the standard and the sidereal zodiac sign interpretations fit me more or less perfectly, so I can't really see why one would prefer one over the other."

While checking one's own chart is good to catch one's attention, that's not really the basis on which it's reasonable to decide. Anecdotal evidence is always a weak argument. But we have over half a century of statistical projects (some very small, some medium-sized and adequate, some huge and overwhelming) that document unequivocally where the actual boundaries of the signs are located. You may want to check the introductory essays available on www.solunars.com.

"Can you please explain to me why one would be preferred over the other? I don't seem to be able to get a good grasp of how this works."

See above (for this and other questions you asked).

"Why is Aries last?"

Convention. (It doesn't really matter what's first, last, or in the middle for most purposes.) Taurus was the original first sign of the zodiac.

"Is this fit into the Tarot? I always thought the Tarot was based on the Tropical Zodiac and houses, though admittedly, I know almost nothing about astrology."

Tarot's use of astrological symbols isn't exactly based on any kind of astrology. It's based on leveraging astrological symbols as a languagte for a different purpose.