Note. After reading my initial post to this thread tonight, written back in 2015, I was a bit surprised to see that I wrote that I found the pre-natal New Moon Hyleg type Part to be the true "radix vitae" of my natal chart.
I don't remember why I was so convinced of that at the time. I guess I never wanted to be so bold as to say that I was born for the purpose of, and have the intelligence and talent to, discern what are remnants of true knowledge that exist from the past.
I didn't want to have to hear from professional astrologers, well published "astrologers", and astrologers of renown, such words as "You dare have the audacity to think that you know better than us?" [as I did, more or less, hear, when the internet forum ACTastrology dot com. was in existence. In fact there are some that seem to think it was pulled off the internet because I overwhelmed it.] I have since come to terms with myself, and after much introspection, I have to concede that, yes, I do have the intelligence and talent [at least just enough of that] to make such discernment and have no excuse for not "owning up" to the fact and accepting the "badge" for that territory. There has always been more nay-sayers than believers when ever new ideas are introduced, when ever old customs and ways are declared to be outdated or in error... especially in error. [Yet, I will also Confess that I'm not infallible. I have made a few blunders, but I also caught those mistakes, and corrected them after I had more experience, and, or, additional knowledge... at least I believe I have. Regardless of my "batting average", it is the 3rd degree of Pisces that is surely my Part of Hyleg, my radix vitae. One should ever remind them self that just because your natal chart says this or that about what you were born to do, it doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be great at it. But one should at least try, don't you think?]
Just look at what the Vatican did to those astronomers that declared the earth orbited the Sun, or spoke up in opposition to any doctrine of that entity. It is not a step that I was ready to take, nor wanted to. This was not my chosen occupation, nor did I ever think that I would one day be called upon to write about it, or to speak about it, as I was back in the Fall of 2005 when, out of the blue, I got a phone call from the programmer for a major radio station, KOA a.m Denver, Colorado, and asked to give an hour long talk about what I had discovered, on a very well known, popular, radio program, i.e. the Rick Barber program, the very man that gave Art Bell his start in radio.
As that symbolism for my M.C. and Part of Fortune indicate, I am not indebted to any "school of thought" concerning astrology, nor any teacher, other than my brother for teaching me the rudiments. I do give credit where it is due but I am not indebted. That is a big part of the reason why I feel I am well qualified, as I am not bound to honor, or respect, any bit of "Traditional, or Classical" or any other kind of Astrology, that doesn't prove to be true, valid, or useful. I had to find my own path, a true path, of astrological knowledge. There is a great deal of "Trad" astrology that I haven't studied, and haven't addressed, and I don't expect to cover even half of it before my time is up [that is if I haven't already done so?] and that which I haven't is of the more occult, exceedingly technical, half of "Trad" astrology. But I also believe most of the corruption is to be found in that half of the craft as it is presently practiced. Astrological Parts as author, and astrologer, Robert Zoeller presented them, were very much corrupted, nor were they really understood as how to consult them... but it also seems that Zoeller had either never heard of the Sabian Symbols, or had never studied the use of them, and basically I have found that only the construct of the formulae to derive them to be unquestionably valid, and that pertains to only those that use the Asc., and those that use one of the House cusps, for the "personal point" to be valid pertaining to natal charts. I have also found that a great number of them have been labeled inappropriately for natal use... and it's questionable, to me, anyways, whether they are even appropriately titled for mundane and, or, horary use. As for I know little about horary astrology and am a relative "newbie" to the practice of mundane astrology [only at it the last twelve years, and only occasionally] ... but I am four for four as to correct predictions in that area of astrology, since 2012, with a possible 5th [as it does appear as so, but it's a long term prediction that was made concerning the USA's economic well being... which I gave a negative prognosis for in 2014. So far, it seems to be going the way I called it.] All of those predictions concerned the United States, and all were made by observing transits to Astrological Parts. The only prediction I've made for the USA, that is based on purely planetary aspects, is the one I made for the natal return of Pluto that is occurring this year, and that too is proving itself very noticeably, so far to date. There may be some truth to the Parts being related to certain Houses, but as I don't agree with a some of the planetary assignments as to rulerships of some Signs, nor agree with the belief that some are in detriment in certain Sings, and some exalted in a few others, while some seem proper as to both. That subject of astrology I have found to be so mucked up, so many conflicting opinions, as to render it worthless, at least presently. I thus have no use for such considerations in relation to Astrological Parts, and seem to have done alright in the understanding, and the use, of them. I also predicted that Trump would win both the Republican party nomination, and also the office, in January, 2016... and that was done by the use of Astrological Parts, but also with the Sabian Symbols. As far as I know, no one ever proposed that the Parts are symbolically relevant, until I produced that natal chart for Yeshu'a, and gave numerous demonstrations... although I think that Rudhyar knew of it, or at least suspected as much... he just didn't have enough proof to ever have come out a declare it, if he did.
I'm also ever ready to see a demonstration to prove that any technique is a valid one. I've always given demonstrations as to what I've asserted is valid, or proposed for consideration to which, and especially that which was previously unheard of, or had never been published. I expect the same consideration from those that cling to, what I've deemed to possibly be, dubious techniques and beliefs, such as switching formulae for the Parts of Fortune and the Part of Soul, depending on whether it was a birth at day, or at night. There are those that cling to that belief though there isn't one demonstration to prove it, not to my knowledge. Zoeller didn't provide any demonstrations for any Parts in his book, and neither did any of the medieval astrologers that wrote about them. Some, myself included, have come to believe that the Moslems' that wrote of them were merely scribes that recorded what they saw being performed in foreign cultures, yet I'm grateful that they did record those observations, otherwise more knowledge may have become lost by now.
So, if you will forgive my lengthy explanation, and my apology for having wrote what I did 9 years ago, then please note that, for what ever the reason may have been, I was in error back then for stating that I was certain that it was the pre-natal New Moon, the "ante-syzgy" as athenian 200 calls it, to have been the true "radix vitae" of my natal chart. The "Traditional given formula" is most evidently the correct one to use.
It may have also something to do, back then, with my having recently re-read Dane Rudhyar and Leyla Rael's book, "Astrological Aspects, A Process Oriented Approach", in which they make a very self assured presentation [I'm talking about Dane Rudhyar here, why shouldn't He have been so self assured. He may have been the greatest astrologer of the 20th century. I think He was.] about the cycle of the Moon from New Moon to New Moon, and that it is the cycle to be aware of as opposed to the cycle of Full Moons. But Dane, to my knowledge, has never written much about Astrological Parts, other than the Part of Fortune.
Most apologetically, and in humble gratitude for your patience, ptv
