« Love, Dad - Bereavement, Grief, and Healing After A Significant Death | Main | Universal Thought, Knowledge, and Dreams »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Astrological Rulership of Music Notes:



Hi, I am interested in the musical notes related to the signs. It makes sense to me that they are in order, but how do they relate to Don Robertson's theory of the trines (harmony) and squares (dischord)? Could you please read from the URL included ? I know I am asking your for your time, hoping you'll find this interesting. The reason I need to be sure is that I would like to include the notes within my revised Sun-Sign Mandala poster.

kind regards
Yvette Hill


Hi Yvette - a beautiful site, and of course mandalas are valuable meditation aids. Don't know Robertson's theory of trines and squares, but I know from my own experience as a songwriter and performer years ago that the above correlations fit. D, F, and B certainly seem discordant with each other, and the signs supposedly in harmony seem to correlate with harmony of notes, though other things spring to mind.

For example, the 1-6-4-5 progression (and variations) are famous throughout the last 50 years of pop music, especially in the early days. Assuming my memory isn't failing me, in the key of C that would be Aries-Capricorn (minor)-Virgo-Scorpio. In the key of A, Capricorn-Libra (minor)-Gemini-Leo.

As we can see, the first sequence of two notes seems like it would be discordant, though it is the progression for songs like "Maybe Baby" by Buddy Holly, "Respectable" by the Isley Brothers, and "It Won't Be Long" by the Beatles, all big hits. The resolving sequence, the 4-5, all seem harmonious with the relative minor 6th. Perhaps these can show us how tension gets resolved vibrationally in forms pleasing to our sound/nerve centers.

Anyway, I don't know if I've shed any light on your request, but it's been fun to discuss these things.

Kimbelry Goode

Could this be part of the answer to what Einstein was attempting to do by re-introducing "spiritual/to/science". I have some interesting concepts from personal exerience concerning a few topics and Unified Theory. I believe i have "bumped into" sensible explantions that are aroung us at all times. Problem is, I am having a similar difficulty as he did...putting things into words that reflect the consistant definitions without corrupting the integrity of purity through human emotions.

Kimbelry Goode

Kim Here...
anyone who wants to bare with my sad attempts to verbalize these ideas can contact me at my e-mail add.

Reality6 (at) rock.com

Just to let you know, I am not a formal scientist nor spiritual advisor.... so I may know something or just simply be "off". Who knows. I figure, why not ask. What could be the harm in that.


Hi Kim - I suspect it's all a question of you simply putting things down on paper, then adding what you know, then subtracting all that does not express what you want to express, while reintroducing the ideas you want to communicate using different language. You may be trying to capture the ocean in a teacup. It takes many teacups to capture even a part of the whole. And of course, perception of any element of the field automatically excludes all that is not perceived.

This site attempts to blend art, science, and philosophy within the crucible of global culture as pathways to direct experience of the Eternal One "field we all are together." Many have strived to do this in their own ways and times, from Roger Bacon to Da Vinci, Einstein to Salk. My friend, noted author Fred Alan Wolfe has blended quantum physics, Qabbalah, and shamanism in his quest for meaning. There is a science to art, to science, and to philosophy. All these are pathways to the "unified field." As is the art of art, the art of science, and the art of philosophy, and the philosophy of art, the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of philosophy. And I may turn this into an article.

The comments to this entry are closed.