On 15 Maj, 03:01, "Ray Murphy" <ray...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> RM: So far, very little is visible if we throw thousands of families
> into on melting pot, but a lot of that lack of success could be due to
> a lack of data.
I think the problem with large amounts of data is that they may HIDE
rather than show any patterns that might be active in that they might
even out. Patterns that are specific and not generic wont show up when
we are looking for generic patterns (which is what large data sets
will give), and I hesitate to think that Taurus Suns get children with
Taurus Moons more often than average. However, in specific family
patterns I am absolutely certain things like that could be found. I
do, however, somewhat illogically belive that shared birthdays (natal
Sun positions) occur more often than average.
I also think that to really identify patterns one need to look into
more than two generations. What does at best look like an interesting
coincidence or is not visible at all when looking only at parent/child-
relation****ps gets more perspective when at least one more generation
is added.
I think this could be compared with the idea of triangulation. With
two points, or sets of points (that is, two individuals/generations)
we can only relate so far. We don't see in 3D, so to speak. However,
with three points, we get not only points that seem to "speak" to one
another (Sun of one conjoining Moon of the other and things like that)
but that also work as reference points for one another. With three
points, or more, we get a web of relations rather than one-to-one-
relation****ps.
And actually, as far as I can see, this web might well extend beyond
your blood relatives. The points that are sensitive in-between
generations in your family are also likely to be sensitive when it
comes to relation****ps outside of the family.
If I take my own family, and extended family, for example I see that
there are two points in Cancer, 8 and 12 degrees, that complete two
aspect patterns. Eight degrees complete a trine with two ***tiles if a
planet is put at the midpoint, and twelve degrees completes a grand
trine.
This area in Cancer specifically, and in Cardinals generally, is
extremely active among friends and family. Suns, Moons, Ascendants and
what-not flock at these degrees, and inbetween them. And this is but
one example. However, would I look into a friends chart that point
might not be of particular interest to them outside of our
relation****p and their sensitive points may lie quite elsewhere.
Perhaps it is my boring ol' Mars (sorry pal, just to make an example!)
that they find interesting and not at all things like what I look for
in them.
So, it's not necessarily reciprocal and it is certainly not a general
truth that these are points of interest in people's horoscopes. It is
in mine, due to the specific configuration of my horoscope, but that's
it.
And these are the kind of things that I think does that large data
sets may cover rather than uncover. To make a general statement out of
this one would have to say something along these lines:
"A degree which if occupied in the horoscope of person A would
complete an aspect pattern, occupied significantly often in the
horoscopes of relatives and/or friends/partners to/of person A."
And perhaps that alone doesn't make it. Perhaps this happens in my
horoscope only because I have two midpoints relatively close to one
another, so that positions in-between conjoins one or the other. I
think it is likely that is so, because very few have placements
outside of the inner, mutual area of these two midpoints. So the true
statement one is looking for ("if A, then B") might turn out to be a
rather complicated one, with further levels within, if one would want
to make it generic.
"A degree which if occupied in the horoscope of person A would
complete an aspect pattern, occupied significantly often in the
horoscopes of relatives and/or friends/partners to/of person A -- in
conjunction with a similar midpoint pattern very close" (or similar).
And then perhaps it only goes for "positive" patterns, but that the
reverse is true for a Grand Cross or a T-Square, so that you'll need
to specify what kinds of patterns might come in question. Or perhaps
it is only true for exact or partile aspects (these midpoint patterns
in my chart are exact or partile), or only if one of the planets rule
MC, or... well, to stand out in a large set of data, the hypothesis
would need to be quite specific I think. Because at the individual
level, life IS very specific.
In the words of Alfred North Whitehead:
"We think in generalities, but we live in detail."
/Kjell
|
