Hi Kevin. I've been ruminating about this issue since you raised it, and something has occurred to me.

Perhaps we can relate involution and evolution to the concepts of dexter and sinister aspects, both of which (according to Robert Hand) were in place in Greek astrology, and well established in medieval astrology. Zoller's teacher in New York would have been familiar with these ideas.

In classical astrology, one way to divide the zodiac is by halves, assigning one side to the Sun and the other to the Moon; at the opposition aspect, the halves overlap. Aspects on the Sun's side of the circle move forward in the order of the zodiac, from Leo to (and including) Aquarius; on the Moon's side, they move backward against the order of the signs, from Cancer to (and including) Capricorn. Sinister or leftward motion (itoots, related here to the Sun) has long been associated with involution, or involvement with matter; dexter or rightward movement (atoots, linked in this context with the Moon), with evolution.

In esoteric astrology as taught by Bailey, the Sun is representative of the personality as a whole, and the Moon with the most tenacious and illusory aspects of that entity. When spirit precipitates as matter, it does so through the process of involution, eventually creating for itself a vehicle: the personality, the Sun -- overseer of the sinister, itoots, path. When the point of greatest density is achieved spiritually and astrologically, the opportunity for reversal occurs: opposition, at which point the lunar urges paradoxically alchemize a turnabout, and evolution commences on the dexter, atoots path.

In this schema, the Moon would be considered the portal out of dense experience, for the only way out is through; we must recapitulate the stages of involution as we leave the world of appearances, finally exiting the stage via the Moon -- through which we first entered. So sinister aspects move us forward along the lines of involution, and dexter backward in a process of evolution, toward the gateway of initial materialization -- a complete cycle.

These are just some ideas, presented as food for thought.

Astreae,

What a fascinating thought but before I consider more deeply, I need to get the principles straight. They seem to be incontradiction. You say,

Aspects on the Sun's side of the circle move forward in the order of the zodiac, from Leo to (and including) Aquarius; on the Moon's side, they move backward against the order of the signs, from Cancer to (and including) Capricorn. Sinister or leftward motion (itoots, related here to the Sun) has long been associated with involution, or involvement with matter; dexter or rightward movement (atoots, linked in this context with the Moon), with evolution.

It seems that in this quote you are associating both "forwards" and "backwards" motion with the Sun. Can you clarify this portion for me.
And thank you for giving so much thought to this issue.


Sincerely, Kevin

Kevin, I can see why it seems as if I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, because in my mind I'm seeing a picture of what I'm describing that is not self-evident, and thank you for pointing this out.

Visualize a circle divided in half, with the Sun governing the left half and the Moon, the right. The Sun is situated at the top of the left-hand (sinister) half of the circle, in its own sign, Leo, and from that point it moves leftward and forward through the zodiac (from Leo, to Virgo, to Libra, and so on through Aquarius). The Moon sits at the top of the right-hand (dexter) half of the circle, in her own sign, Cancer, and from there moves toward the the right but backward through the signs (from Cancer, to Gemini, to Taurus, etc. through to Capricorn). For purpose of examining the issue of dexter and sinister, the Sun and Moon halves of the circle are considered separately; this has to do with the classical understanding of relationships between sign rulers and aspects, and perhaps (at a subtler level still) to involution and evolution.

Esotericism usually involves a high degree of abstraction, and resists literal interpretation. So, of course the Sun in our earthly experience does move through every one of the signs of the zodiac, just as the Moon does, in order of the signs; however, when discussing such abstract concepts as involution and evolution, the Sun and Moon are seen more in their archetypal roles as king and queen of the cosmos, each operating within his or her own realm of spiritual function. Not only that, but the filters through which we see them are rarefied and enable us to perceive at the level of essence, rather than appearance. At least, this is how it seems to me at present.

Astraea,

Okay so I'm right there on board, following you exactly. So if the "Lunar"/dexter path is considered the "right" path, that is, "not sinister", why does it move against the signs? In what way does it move against the signs? It instinctively feels like we are blending two differnent models that may not be compatiable, but nonetheless it may be a noble thing to attempt to do. The main problem is that the "lunar" egobased movement in the one model is against the signs, and in bailey it is "with" the signs. Are you sure that in classical astrology the "solar" direction is sinister, this seems off-note considering the classical associations with the Sun and divinity? You mentioned Robert Hand as a source for this. What source might that be?


Kevin

Hi Kevin. I'm feeling my way here, too, and am not proposing that this theory is the answer, or even a likely candidate for same, to the original question posed by this thread. Like you, I wonder if the sinister/dexter and involution/evolution models are genuinely compatible. Even if there is not a one-to-one, point-for-point correspondence, my thought is that there might at least be a nexus or intersection here which could help us to grasp why esotericism holds this particular view of involution/evolution (with respect to the order of the signs).

What I'm thinking is that the Bailey "atoots" (borrowing that wonderful term from Zoller) concept of spiritual evolution -- to any extent that we can correlate it with classical aspect-ruler relationships and dexter motion -- has to do precisely with the ego retracing its steps (recapitulating, or moving backward) through the solar experience of manifestation (involution) on its return to Spirit. In other words, it moves "against the grain" precisely because it is processing and assimilating its prior experience on earth. The Sun, in this way of thinking, would concern itself with a more or less straightforward process of HAVING experiences; the Moon, with "metabolizing" and assimilating them to Spirit.

In terms of your question, "In what way does it [Moon] move against the signs?", I would say that this refers to another order of spiritual expression and level of reality altogether -- one that can be described in astrological terms, but not applied in a literal way. Rather, one would approach the signs in terms of their essences and archetypal natures (what they are in spirit, before they have "condensed" even into their etheric forms as twelve celestial templates). In other words, the process of involution/evolution would -- if the esoteric idea is correct -- concern itself more with the ideas underlying the signs, than their linear positions in our astrological charts. Since there is no way to ascertain a person's level of spiritual evolution from a horoscope, alone -- and since even the idea that there is such a thing as "spritual evolution" is a disputed point -- it seems to me that we are dealing with such high levels of abstraction that they have philosophical merit, but little to offer in the way of practical application.

My source for the discussion of dexter and sinister is Robert Hand (citing Bonatti) in Hand's small volume, Whole Sign Houses: the Oldest House System, published by Arhat in 2000, pp 7-8.

Astraea,

I appreciate you attempting to align these two worlds actually. It is something that can be fruitful, and something that I attempt to do with some frequency. (Its seems our minds works somewhat in concert here). But I must begin with primary principles and work upwards and when primary principles are in conflict we have to go even further down. For instance your idea that "sinister" is a "solar" direction seems to come in conflict with the summation I find on this website under the article on aspects.

The terms generally convey something of the ancient and widespread belief that the direction 'right' is manifest, strong and linked to diurnal qualities, while 'left' is hidden, passive and nocturnal.

This description certainly seems to set the "dexter"/right direction to be solar or at least diurnal and the "sinister"/left direction to be lunar, or at the very least "nocturnal". How do we align these descriptions with your opposite attributions? With the sinister being "hidden", this assumption seems more in line with Bailey's interpretation of it also being the journey of the adept. Also, here the two terms are exclusively presented as aspect interpretation alone, giving physical and manifesting quality to diurnal rising of signs and planets, i.e. dexter direction, and manifestation is not really a sign of Spiritualization over Involution. Does Hand directly attribute "involution" to the "sinister" direction?

Here is the article if you have not seen it: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/dexter.html

Sincerely, Kevin

Kevin, I agree that attributing the sinister direction to the Sun's half of the circle does seem to be counterintuitive. It is not my attribution, however, but Hand's (citing Bonatti, as in my post, above). The present discussion concerning ways in which sinister and dexter directions might -- might -- correspond to the issue of involution and evolution came about as a result of my own ruminations. This tentative theory occurred to me while reading Hand against the backdrop of our recent discussion of involution/evolution, with respect to the order of the signs. Hand, himself, draws no such correlations (at least, insofar as I am aware).

Since dexter and sinister aspects owe their existence directly to the order of the signs -- with and against, itoots and atoots -- it seemed to me that there might be an esoteric correspondence, above and beyond issues of classical sign rulership. I don't argue for or against that position, it is simply an idea that struck me in the course of my reading.

Thank you very much for providing a link to the article.

Astraea,

I think your intuitions beautiful and clear. I am thankful for them. What do you make of the opposite assignment of "solarity" to dexter directions in the article posted? They do seem to contradict Hand (Bonatti) don't they?


Kevin

Yes, I think that in aligning dexter aspects with diurnal motion, the article does contradict what Hand says in his book. At least the atoots and itoots correspond!

Astraea,

How do the "itoots" and "atoots" correspond? (I'm sorry I just don't follow Zoller's terms well. They have no derivation as far as I can tell, and the "a" and "i" mix in my mind.) In the article dexter is manifesting, but in Zoller it is Spiritual and hidden.


Kevin

I agree with you, in the article diurnal is manifesting. I didn't mean to bring Zoller into it at all, except that I find his terms, itoots and atoots, so charming that I like using them (even if he made them up). I only meant to say that in the article, manifestation is in the order of the signs -- itoots. Sorry, I was unclear about that.

Astraea,

It makes me laugh that you find them appealing and that they somehow irritate/confuse me. That's just the way it is in life and life is wonderful. Your Hand reference had me searching around for Bonatti information and then I suddenly realized that the same book by Zoller contains his translation of Bonatti's work on the Parts. So perhaps there is a connection, though if it is prominent in Bonatti I would suppose that this would be the very first thing he would turn to as an explanation. Perhaps Bonatti's dexter/sinister - lunar/solar directions was an unconscious influence. I think you have really touched on something though. In reading through the internet I also have come upon the sense that Scorpio/8th house lying "sinister" inconjunct to Aries/1st and Virgo/6th lying dexter inconjunct to Aries/1st may also have something to do with these associations. With the 8th house signifying death, that certainly sounds "sinister" to me, but not so "solar" really.

Not to confuse things further but Bailey had this to say about Virgo/Leo and the two paths. There seems for her to have been a time when Man commonly moved with the signs, now moving against them, something she equates with the fall:

I would like to pause here and make one point somewhat clearer in connection with the passage of human life around the zodiac. This progress or passage falls into three major divisions:
1. The passage or progress of humanity around and around the zodiac from Aries to Pisces, via Taurus, until in Virgo-Leo (for these two signs are regarded esoterically as inseparable) the mass movement releases the individual to a life of self-conscious progress and a changed mode of progression around the wheel of life. This lies far in the past.
2. The passage or progress of the individual man which runs counter to the mass advance; the individual at this stage proceeds clockwise from Aries to Taurus, via Pisces. His life is then and for long ages predominantly anti-social in the spiritual sense; he is selfish and self-centered. His efforts are for himself and for his own satisfaction and personality enterprises, and this becomes steadily stronger and stronger. This is the present situation for the masses.
3. The passage or progress of the reoriented man from Aries to Pisces, via Taurus. In this final stage, he returns to the same directed method, rhythm and measure of the earlier mass movement but this time with changed and changing attitudes of selfless service, a personality dedicated to the service of humanity and with a voluntary reorientation of his energies so that they are directed towards the production of synthesis and under standing. [262] This will be the situation in the future for the masses.

Kevin