Monozygotic twins and role of conception

[Kjell]

Now and then the topic of whether the birth or the conception is most
determining (astrologically). I was thinking of this and come to think
of twins from the same egg. Obviously, both of them were conceived at
the same time, as the egg becomes two embryos first after being
conceived.

The differences in the twin pair should then (again, astrologically)
be all due to the difference in birth time.

I get this to mean that the conception time is very important in
predicting the body of a person, but that for actual life
circumstances, the birth time is of greater importance.

Would you agree with this? Further thoughts?

/Kjell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin

[Hermes]

Kjell wrote:

: Now and then the topic of whether the birth or the conception is
most
: determining (astrologically). I was thinking of this and come to
think
: of twins from the same egg. Obviously, both of them were conceived
at
: the same time, as the egg becomes two embryos first after being
: conceived.
:
: The differences in the twin pair should then (again, astrologically)
: be all due to the difference in birth time.
:
: I get this to mean that the conception time is very important in
: predicting the body of a person, but that for actual life
: circumstances, the birth time is of greater importance.
:
: Would you agree with this? Further thoughts?

I am not sure if the conclusion can be drawn. Monozygotic
twins are often quite similar in many respects and often
have very similar birth charts - so what is alike for both
twins could a priori have come from the moment of birth
and/or conception.

What is different can in that sense not have come from the
moment of conception - there I agree.

On the other hand, I am not sure if an identical placement
for a planet in two birth (or conception) charts would
necessarily lead to the same properties. Maybe the drive in
twins to separate into distinguishable individuals could
create something like "spontaneous symmetry breaking",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking

But this is quite speculative. Here are some specifics about
two monozygotic twins (properties according to their mother):

Common: Pisces AC, Sagittarius MC, sun in Taurus
A: younger, righthanded, "rational, practical",
Mercury in 3rd, n.node in 1st
B: older, lefthanded, "intuitive, artistic",
Mercury in 2nd, n.node in 12th (rest in same houses)

In that sense, maybe slight differences in the birth charts
of twins are more emphasisized than would be for someone
born (without a twin) with either chart ?

)o+

[Hermes]

I wrote:

: two monozygotic twins (properties according to their mother):
:
: Common: Pisces AC, Sagittarius MC, sun in Taurus
: A: younger, righthanded, "rational, practical",
: Mercury in 3rd, n.node in 1st
: B: older, lefthanded, "intuitive, artistic",
: Mercury in 2nd, n.node in 12th (rest in same houses)

Correction: A was born earlier than B; so A is older than B.

)o+

[Silveen]

Post by Hermes
: Common: Pisces AC, Sagittarius MC, sun in Taurus
: A: younger, righthanded, "rational, practical",
: Mercury in 3rd, n.node in 1st
: B: older, lefthanded, "intuitive, artistic",
: Mercury in 2nd, n.node in 12th (rest in same houses)
Correction: A was born earlier than B; so A is older than B.
)o+

Hi there:

Could the scenario of "first breath" be more appropriate
to be the correct time ?

Be well,
IRH/Silveen

[Hannelore Goos]

Post by Silveen
Could the scenario of "first breath" be more appropriate
to be the correct time ?

To this I agree. Dane Rudyar defines that the owner of a natal chart ist a
"whole" in the sense of Holistic philosophy. An embryo is not a "whole".
This is shown by the so-called fetal apnoe, which means that the muscles
are without tense so that no breathing is possible, and this is the sign
that there is no discreet live before the first breath. The first breath
breaks the fetal apnoe and starts a lot of organic functions especially
also in hormon production.

[Hermes]

Hannelore Goos wrote:

: Am Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:50:41 -0600 schrieb Silveen:
:
: > Could the scenario of "first breath" be more appropriate
: > to be the correct time ?
:
: To this I agree. Dane Rudyar defines that the owner of a natal chart
ist a
: "whole" in the sense of Holistic philosophy. An embryo is not a
"whole".
: This is shown by the so-called fetal apnoe, which means that the
muscles
: are without tense so that no breathing is possible, and this is the
sign
: that there is no discreet live before the first breath. The first
breath
: breaks the fetal apnoe and starts a lot of organic functions
especially
: also in hormon production.

Thanks! Reminds me a lot of the Stoic views on breath:

* In Stoic philosophy, pneuma [...] is the concept of the
* "breath of life," a mixture of the elements air (in motion)
* and fire (as warmth). Originating among Greek medical
* writers who locate human vitality in the breath, pneuma
* for the Stoics is the active, generative principle that
* organizes both the individual and the cosmos. In its
* highest form, the pneuma constitutes the human soul
* (psyche), which is a fragment of the pneuma that is the
* soul of God (Zeus). As a force that structures matter,
* it exists even in inanimate objects.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneuma_(Stoic)

Side remark: The current perception in astrology that fire
and air are male/active and that water and earth are female/
passive originated apparently from that (see also my web
site). Too bad hardly any original works from Hellenistic
times have survived...

As a physicist, I also like the following a bit more abstract
idea, that when things separate or come together, the signature
of that moment (when/where) generally shapes the future. Hence
conception would be such a moment (egg cell + sperm cell => 1),
the moment at birth when the umbilical cord is cut (1 unit =>
2 people), or also the moment when two people first meet, etc.
But I am not dogmatic about this... :)

Also, maybe the moment of the first heart beat in an embryo
should also be considered a priori.

)o+

--
http://www.exactphilosophy.net/
http://www.google.com/profiles/alain.stalder.ch

[Hannelore Goos]

:> Could the scenario of "first breath" be more appropriate
:> to be the correct time ?
: To this I agree. Dane Rudyar defines that the owner of a natal chart
ist a
: "whole" in the sense of Holistic philosophy. An embryo is not a
"whole".
: This is shown by the so-called fetal apnoe, which means that the
muscles
: are without tense so that no breathing is possible, and this is the
sign
: that there is no discreet live before the first breath. The first
breath
: breaks the fetal apnoe and starts a lot of organic functions
especially
: also in hormon production.
As a physicist, I also like the following a bit more abstract
idea, that when things separate or come together, the signature
of that moment (when/where) generally shapes the future. Hence
conception would be such a moment (egg cell + sperm cell => 1),
the moment at birth when the umbilical cord is cut (1 unit =>
2 people), or also the moment when two people first meet, etc.
But I am not dogmatic about this... :)
Also, maybe the moment of the first heart beat in an embryo
should also be considered a priori.

I've studied biology. My point of view results from discoveries of
birth-medicine. The only starting point is the first breath. Everything
else follows.

[Hermes]

Hannelore Goos wrote:
: I've studied biology. My point of view results from discoveries of
: birth-medicine. The only starting point is the first breath.
Everything
: else follows.

I do not disagree with the biological facts, and I
acknowledge that a lot starts with the first breath,
which makes it at least likely that the moment of
first breath could be "the key moment" to use for
casting a chart for a newborn child. Actually, I
was not really aware of that before your first
post, so thanks a lot for that. :)

I would be scared, though, if biological facts would
be turned into _absolute dogma_ (I am not suggesting
that anyone here is doing that.), along the lines of
"before the first breath there is no life at all",
because then in ultimate consequence newborn (and
unborn) children might suffer from less protection
than they have now, as it apparently sadly was the
case in ancient Greece and Rome.

Allow me one further associative remark. Since Fire
and Air (the pneuma of the Stoics) are what has become
afterwards in astrology the male elements, maybe life
in that sense, of an individual being, can be seen in
contrast to a "passive"/"female"/"yin" living background
that persists all the time, a bit like Liz Greene writes
in "The Astrology of Fate" (Weiser, 1984), on page 261
in the section about Pisces:

* Kereny begins his _Dionysos_ by distinguishing between
* two Greek words for life, _zoe_ and _bios_. _Bios_
* carries the ring of characterized life; it is
* attributed to animals when their mode of existence is
* to be distinguished from that of plants. [...] _Zoe_,
* on the other hand, is life in general, without further
* characterization. Animals and plants each have their
* season and die; but life as _zoe_ is infinite, and
* does not encompass death. It is the life-force which
* sustains throughout the cyclical changes of forms.

)o+

: --
: Hannelore Goos
: http://www.neomarica.de

[Hannelore Goos]

Post by Hermes
I would be scared, though, if biological facts would
be turned into _absolute dogma_ (I am not suggesting
that anyone here is doing that.), along the lines of
"before the first breath there is no life at all",
because then in ultimate consequence newborn (and
unborn) children might suffer from less protection
than they have now, as it apparently sadly was the
case in ancient Greece and Rome.

In the German culture of the Tribes (several hundred years before the
vikings) a person started to exist with the naming 9 days after the birth.
Before this event, parents could leave the newborn in the woods if there
was not enough food for the community or if the child was handicapted.

Post by Hermes
Allow me one further associative remark. Since Fire
and Air (the pneuma of the Stoics) are what has become
afterwards in astrology the male elements, maybe life
in that sense, of an individual being, can be seen in
contrast to a "passive"/"female"/"yin" living background
that persists all the time, a bit like Liz Greene writes
in "The Astrology of Fate" (Weiser, 1984), on page 261

I do not agree.

In my opninion the + and - polarity can be defined as aktive and reactive
behavior. Reaction is as lively as action.
In the opposite life - means the birth - starts with a passive act: The
hormons of the mother start the birth act (even sometimes when the baby is
not yet ripe) and the baby has to be born (what is even in grammar a
passive construction).