skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Tropical zodiac and the Southern hemisphere
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1228
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:
Quote:
Therese wrote:
(1) Does the seasonal cycle Joanne describes need to be more than symbolic?

Nixx replied:
Is this back to factual evidence of some kind? Or are you probing into metaphysical considerations here? Help me out.........

I'm just looking at the tropical astrology seasonal cycle. If the signs do align with seasonal energy, then why does it have to be tied to the northern hemisphere? So, for example, Aries is said to have a vibrant, energetic, enthusiastic energy. So that's Aries. So why should it matter what season any part of the world is having if the Sun is in Aries? Aries is Aries. It's just that in the northern hemisphere the energy of the signs (sort of) correlates with dark and light times of the year.

Quote:
Therese wrote:
(2) Another question is: Are these characteristics necessarily attitudes and needs as Joanne describes?? I have a big problem with any zodiac sign representing a "need." And another problem is seeing a sign as representing an "attitude."

It seems that these are simply layers that astrologers have mistaking placed on signs of the zodiac when attitudes and needs really belong to the planets. (I have found the signs linked to life activities, but not "needs" as such. Signs can be Manners of Spontaneous Expression.)

Nixx replied:
Perhaps you could provide 30 words on the Sun in Aries and we could analyse the content and use this information at the same time.

Actually that would be a good approach to any discussion of signs. Start with concrete attributes rather than theory. We'd need biographical data from people with stelliums in signs. (I've made an attempt on the sidereal forum here on Skyscript, but with the limited data available, mostly these are simply career choices.)

Quote:
Therese wrote:
In contrast, here are some of Joanne's examples of interpretation:

Aries: Similarly, the house cusp on which you find the sign Aries in your chart shows an area of your life where you are meant to be a trailblazer. Your job is that of the initiator, the pioneer, and the originator...

I doubt that interpretation has any truth to it as a cuspal sign.

Nixx replied:
What's a cuspal sign?

A sign on a house cusp.

Quote:
Something that interests me is how meanings were generated and understood circa 100BCE - 200 CE or thereabouts. In modern western books/articles seasonal associations and constellational ones seem to be quite visible, they are fused together. This doesn't seem to be denied often either, at least by the more upscale astrologers.

Ancient sign meanings seem to be a combination of traits of the sign ruler and various seasonal considerations plus the supposed influence of stars and constellations.

Quote:
When you look at Valens, (from Hand's CURA article) its hard for me at least to find todays Aries anywhere within it, once you remove what might be the Thema MC clue.

"Aries is the house of Ares, a masculine zoidion, tropical, terrestrial, authoritative, fiery, free, ascending, semi-vocal, good, changeable, administrative, public, civic, unprolific, servile, Midheaven of the cosmos and cause of repute, two-colored (since the Sun and the Moon make leprosies), skin-eruptions; it is also unconnected, a place for eclipses. . . ."

This is true. The very old sign traits have little to do with what astrologers note as sign traits today.

Quote:
Therese wrote:
The general symbolic cycle may work fairly well, but when we try to get specific with chart interpretation, problems crop up. There is no doubt in my mind that signs project a certain type of energy. (I see no zodiac conflict here because the sidereal signs are simply re-defined with different symbolic "reasons" for the observed energy. Example: Tropical Taurus is "fixed." Underlying sidereal Aries reflects an internalized Mars as concentrated energy that can be stubborn and non-communicative. The observed energy is the same in either case.)

Nixx replied:
You've lost me here with this ''underlying'', are you saying both signs are valid and in 10,000 yrs the underlying sidereal Libra (or whatever it will be) will give Tropical Taurus an internalised Venusian energy?

I'm saying that since the sidereal signs remain in one place through the eons (except for the proper motion of stars which will mean changes even in a sidereal zodiac, I expect...). IF sign meanings are partly related to the stars, the tropical signs will change their meaning as signs move further and further away from the stars of centuries ago when the two zodiacs coincided. But exactly what is an astrological zodiac? Some years ago i wrote an article on that question: http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aharmsign.htm (Signs of the Zodiac: What Are They?)

To see a visual diagram of how the two zodiacs overlap, it's at the beginning of this article (underlying stars: sidereal and overlaid tropical signs): http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aatriplicities2013.htm
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1228
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
Therese wrote: Mar 22, 2014 8:18 pm
There is no doubt in my mind that signs project a certain type of energy.

Michael replied:
Yes, and this "energy" is the same for the whole planet hence no need to modify the zodiac when moving into the Southern latitudes.

That is currently my view.

Therese wrote:
Quote:
I see no zodiac conflict here because the sidereal signs are simply re-defined with different symbolic "reasons" for the observed energy. Example: Tropical Taurus is "fixed." Underlying sidereal Aries reflects an internalized Mars as concentrated energy that can be stubborn and non-communicative. The observed energy is the Same in either case.

Michael replied:
Therese, with all respect, I do see a zodiac conflict here! You are in fact saying that what tropical astrologers think of as Taurus nature really needs to be attributed to "underlying" sidereal Aries.

That would be one sidereal viewpoint, but that concept has recently received criticism on the sidereal forum here. Certain younger astrologers see most or all of the topical zodiac as invalid, so I receive criticism for accepting contemporary tropical observations, but "adjusting" them to sidereal signs.

Quote:
This implies that when the Hellenistic astrologers were writing about the characteristics of the signs, they must have been describing something very different from our contemporary zodiac! Because what they were looking at was a tropical Taurus "underlied" by sidereal Taurus

There was really only one zodiac back then, and debate continues as to whether characteristics were originally tropical or sidereal.

(I'm sorry, Mark, but it seems that discussion of the sidereal zodiac is here to stay as reflected in questions here. The writing is on the wall. The two zodiacs are influencing each other. We are apparently moving toward a melding of symbolism and concepts. Already tropical concepts have made their way into modern Jyotish texts.)

Quote:
Which, by your logic, would have bestowed it with quite different characteristics from tropical Taurus nowadays. And these characteristics would then have had to sneakingly change over time when the sidereal signs gradually shifted their positions... You can just as well do away with the tropical zodiac altogether!

Which is what astrologers of the Fagan school would love to see. Cyril Fagan is perhaps one of the very few who truly believe there is no astrological tropical zodiac. It's interesting that very recently Ken Bowser has obtained legal guardianship of Fagan's writings, and plans to re-publish much of the material.

Quote:
What about the mythology attached to the zoidiac? For example, the
Golden Fleece is quite descriptive of tropical Aries themes then and now.

Mythologies related to the constellations is a whole big study that deserves attention.

Quote:
So I don't see that the seasonal zodiac cycle needs to be tied to the northern hemisphere. What can't it simply be symbolic of a general annual cycle?

That is what I'm asking.

Quote:
I like your thinking here, regarding the zodiac as being expressive simply of one annual cycle for the whole planet.

It's nice to see that someone agrees with something I'm saying! Even on the sidereal forum I get flack for bringing tropical observations to the sidereal zodiac. (What to do?? Uranus on Algol opposed to Mercury in my birth chart.) Here is what Charles Carter says about Mercury-Uranus inharmonious aspects:

"These must be considered serious obstacles to success, chiefly by reason of the unpopularity that they engender...It is perhaps most fair to say...that the native's opinions will be at variance with those of his associates and others; but it is not always easy to judge astrologically which view is correct. In some instances the beliefs of the Mercury-afflicted-by-Uranus native are almost universally rejected...In other cases posterity may justify the native as against his assailants." (The Astrological Aspects, revised and enlarged 1967, pp. 95-96)
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
they converted me to the sidereal zodiac.


Which in your case is potentially even more interesting as your story suggests an embracement of your Tropical psyche for many years before these square shaped dreams, and Bowser encounter? I think this is unusual, you do occasionally see people going from one to the other after briefer, much briefer, periods of time. Also the gravity of the shift depends on whether or not this is changing the signs of the Asc, Sun and Moon. However if it does they change element which from the Psychological perspective brings about a monkey quite alien to the one you are now perceiving as yourself. I would frame this as akin to a disassociate experience, although it might depend on the books one had read. I say this as the modern western cookbook mid 20th century material, perhaps Mayo fits in here, are from memory easier to Barnumise than some of the more precise literature which came after. So your self schema may not have been as tightly defined in the first place, all speculations of course.

Quote:
I'm just looking at the tropical astrology seasonal cycle. If the signs do align with seasonal energy, then why does it have to be tied to the northern hemisphere? So, for example, Aries is said to have a vibrant, energetic, enthusiastic energy. So that's Aries. So why should it matter what season any part of the world is having if the Sun is in Aries? Aries is Aries. It's just that in the northern hemisphere the energy of the signs (sort of) correlates with dark and light times of the year.


Are we covering old ground here,, Aries corresponds to how people feel when it gets lighter , warmer, namely more alert, active, even enthusiastic after the cold , gloomy winter. Simply just in the Northern Hemisphere more literally.

Quote:
Actually that would be a good approach to any discussion of signs. Start with concrete attributes rather than theory. We'd need biographical data from people with stelliums in signs. (I've made an attempt on the sidereal forum here on Skyscript, but with the limited data available, mostly these are simply career choices.)


A study of biographies where folks had stelliums in one or the other sign forensically analysed for traits from objective impartial researchers might be the way to go if you want to go down the bio road. Biographies are fictions, as are autobiographies. When we want to get to know someone well just talking to them can be productive, but 30 minutes in their house going through draws, the fridge, their library and so on tends to reveal more than them waffling on about their ‘’inner world’’ for 40 hours on the couch. (Forensic psychotherapy). Some biographers are more probing and have the psychological nous to go deep, and direct access to how someone lived, but many don't.

Quote:
I'm saying that since the sidereal signs remain in one place through the eons (except for the proper motion of stars which will mean changes even in a sidereal zodiac, I expect...). IF sign meanings are partly related to the stars, the tropical signs will change their meaning as signs move further and further away from the stars of centuries ago when the two zodiacs coincided. But exactly what is an astrological zodiac? Some years ago i wrote an article on that question: http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aharmsign.htm (Signs of the Zodiac: What Are They?)
To see a visual diagram of how the two zodiacs overlap, it's at the beginning of this article (underlying stars: sidereal and overlaid tropical signs): http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aatriplicities2013.htm


The resolution which seems to be embraced by many tropical astrologers is the stars functioned as patterned 'imaginal' inkblots, if you like, to inform or deepen ideas about periods of the year, in line with the thinking the horoscope had a calendrical or practical function. .

I read your articles which I found hard going. Your premise that both zodiacs ‘work’ as so many astrologers can’t be wrong, strikes me as fallacious. Confirmation bias due to previous cognitive conditioning and conformity to the thinkings of the time and place I suspect is a more likely explanation, and one you can probably expect were you to solicit or encounter some erudite opinions on this matter.

What might work better than biographies is the Myers Briggs test. I might expect re Woody Allen if the sidereal chart is on the money to reveal an ENFJ and the Tropical an ESTP. As you may know the MB is an interesting test to manipulate as it has an astrological heritage.

I wish you the best of luck Therese, but my sense is you are going to go round in ever more confusing and convoluted circles with this merging and supporting both zodiacs objective.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4980
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx,

Can I ask you to try to stay on topic please? Your meandering conversation with Therese may be interesting but I suggest much of this might be better aired by PM or on the philosophy forum. Your ongoing discussion here seems to have vanishingly little in common with the topic of this thread.

Thanks

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4980
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Quote:
I'm having trouble deciding how to reply because Mark doesn't like me to discuss sidereal principles--as far as I can tell anyway.


I do sound like a real spoil sport. Sad

Its really an issue of context not censorship. Hence any reference to sidereal astrology in a thread needs to be tailored to the topic of the thread in question.

I would have thought there was scant opportunity to state very much on the sidereal zodiac on a thread relating specifically to the tropical zodiac. Yet that doesn't seem to be the case judging by your posts here.

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:20 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1228
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Mark that we should stay on topic here. Nixx, I'm not supporting both zodiacs. My view is that the observed traits of tropical signs are only sidereal signs showing through as Cyril Fagan stated. So that's the final word on any support of two zodiacs. Any further discussion should take place on the sidereal forum. I won't reply futher here. If you like, Nixx, re-post your message on the sidereal forum if you want a more detailed reply.

I would like to see some discussion here on whether the traits of the tropical zodiac as outlined in relation to seasons can be seen as a cycle that isn't fixed to the northern hemisphere. Michael commented on this a short time ago, and I agreed with some of his questions.

Mark, if you read over the posts you'll see that I began only with the thought of correcting a misunderstanding of the sidereal zodiac. Then questions from others further brought up the zodiac topic. You misunderstand if you thought this was my fault or that I had it all planned. All I did was respond to the comments of others. Several times I tried to bring this thread back on topic.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4980
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton:
Quote:
I agree with Mark that we should stay on topic here. Nixx, I'm not supporting both zodiacs. My view is that the observed traits of tropical signs are only sidereal signs showing through as Cyril Fagan stated. So that's the final word on any support of two zodiacs. Any further discussion should take place on the sidereal forum. I won't reply futher here. If you like, Nixx, re-post your message on the sidereal forum if you want a more detailed reply.


Thanks Therese. Nixx if you want to follow this up further please do so privately or as Therese suggests on the sidereal forum.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Quote:
I would like to see some discussion here on whether the traits of the tropical zodiac as outlined in relation to seasons can be seen as a cycle that isn't fixed to the northern hemisphere. Michael commented on this a short time ago, and I agreed with some of his questions.


amen to getting back to our topic! Also it might be interesting to tie this into the origin of the domicile rulerships?

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Quote:
Mark, if you read over the posts you'll see that I began only with the thought of correcting a misunderstanding of the sidereal zodiac. Then questions from others further brought up the zodiac topic. You misunderstand if you thought this was my fault or that I had it all planned. All I did was respond to the posts of others.


Sounds like we have a sidereal feeder-feedee dynamic developing then. Very Happy

Seriously, though I just want to pull this thread back on focus before it goes off even further off topic.

Thanks

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4980
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have raised the issue of looking at the origin of domicile rulerships on this thread a couple of times before but noone has taken me up on this.

Earlier, today I replied to someone on the sidereal forum on the issue of southern hemisphere charts and whether they should be reversed or not came up again. The point about seasonal associations not working in both hemispheres was raised again.

I have decided to repeat most of my reply on the sidereal forum here in the hope it may get other astrologers thinking about the issue of domicile rulerships.

First of all it needs to be acknowledged that the domicile rulerships are a comparatively late development. We dont find them in Babylonian astrology at all. While we owe the zodiac to the Babylonians the domicile rulerships seem to have been very much a Hellenistic development.

Although Ptolemy sought to rationalise astrology and use seasonal analogies for the domicile rulerships the idea is probably taken too far in his work the Tetrabiblos. The seasonal zodiac shifts ie equinoxes or solstices are still fundamental for tropicalists to calculate the beginning of signs but these occur in both hemispheres simultaneously. The exclusive focus on northern hemisphere climatic issues to explain sign rulership is certainly problematic for tropicalists. Many tropicalists make such naive arguments without considering the implications for southern hemisphere astrology. I know because I used to do this myself!

However, there is a non-seasonal justification for the zodiac rulerships (sidereal or tropical) which is astrological but not necessarily seasonal at all.

This relates to the speed or velocity of the planets and their distance from the earth (in ancient thought). This can be seen in the Chaldean order of the planets. However, it fundamentally relates to the ancient notion of celestial spheres from the Earth out to Saturn. I think Michael Sternbach may have mentioned this somewhere earlier but noone has developed the point. I intend to do so now and invite more debate on this.

The ancient geocentric view would see the planets in the following order from earth: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

We see the Moon as the swiftest planet and closest body to the earth and Saturn as the slowest and furthest away body. The question remains why was the Sun assigned a sign next to Cancer? I would suggest the logic of this is based on the fundamental nature of the lunation cycle to astrology. Maybe there was a hemispheric bias in assigning the Moon to Cancer. Cancer is a sign north of the ecliptic so they probably perceived it made more sense to assign the Moon to it there than in a sign (or constellation) south of the ecliptic. Once the Moon was assigned a domicile everything else fell into place.

So I suppose it could be argued both tropical and sidereal astrology have an inherent northern hemisphere bias in how the domicile rulerships were originally assigned. Sidereal astrology is not completely immune from this criticism.

Once you assign the Moon to Cancer and the Sun to Leo you can see clear aspectual relationships between the signs.

I cannot do better than give the link to Deborah Houlding's article on this:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html

While the southern hemisphere issue appears a theoretical objection to the tropical zodiac I am not aware of any working astrologers who actually think it works better reversed.

Although, as an attention grabbing point I guess this could give such an astrologer prominence. In the naked marketing culture of the 21st century being the only astrologer to use a 13 sign zodiac or a reversed tropical zodiac could get you more attention in the media.

I have made a point of studying numerous southern hemisphere charts with a heavy sign emphasis and the traditional zodiac seems to work well while reversing the signs seems to totally conflict with the dominant natal characteristics. If there are any southern hemisphere astrologers reversing the tropical zodiac they must be very few and far between. I have discussed this with Latin Americans, South Africans and those from Australia and New Zealand.

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 506
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote: Apr 06, 2014 4:31 pm
Quote:
However, there is a non-seasonal justification for the zodiac rulerships (sidereal or tropical) which is astrological but not necessarily seasonal at all.

This relates to the speed or velocity of the planets and their distance from the earth (in ancient thought). This can be seen in the Chaldean order of the planets. I think Michael Sternbach may have mentioned this somewhere earlier but noone has developed the point. I intend to do so now and invite more debate on this.


Hi Mark,

I'm glad you bring this subject to the fore once again.

I totally agree with you regarding the importance of the domicile scheme in its relation to the solar system. All of astrology (traditional and modern) can be approached from such a perspective. The rulership scheme should be studied inside and out.

It's important to be astute and creative here. We shouldn't neglect what Ptolemy wrote but we should be careful not to let his rationalizations (based on Aristotelian science) bias the freedom of our perception.

More to follow...

Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 506
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark

For one thing, you could simply take Firmicus' Thema mundi and assign its sign rulers in their given order to the celestial spheres. This order (Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn) was in fact commonly used by pre-Ptolemaic astronomers. Perhaps, it even served as the model for the Thema mundi?

However, a more sophisticated approach, taking into consideration the whole domicile scheme, will reveal that its solar hairesis (Leo to Capricorn) shows the planets in their true heliocentric order:
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
On the other hand, its lunar hairesis (from Cancer backwards to Aquarius) shows them in the Ptolemaic / Chaldean / geocentric order:
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

Inbetween Venus and Mars, in the first series, however, planet Earth is missing (since it's what we are standing on!), in the second series it's the Sun that is left out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4980
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
For one thing, you could simply take Firmicus' Thema mundi and assign its sign rulers in their given order to the celestial spheres. This order (Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn) was in fact commonly used by pre-Ptolemaic astronomers. Perhaps, it even served as the model for the Thema mundi?


That is a nice insight about the Thema Mundi.



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

Which ancient astronomers have you found setting out the luminaries together?

The Thema Mundi does seem very old. Later Roman sources such as Macrobius and Firmucus Maternus mention it. Vettius Valens in the 2nd century CE also discusses it in reference to the zodiac signs. The first astrologer we have a record of discussing it appears to be Tiberius Claudius Thrasyllus (d. 36 CE) who was the personal astrologer and advisor of the Emperor Tiberius (b.42 BCE–d.37 CE).

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
However, a more sophisticated approach, taking into consideration the whole domicile scheme, will reveal that its solar hairesis (Leo to Capricorn) shows the planets in their true heliocentric order:
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
On the other hand, its lunar hairesis (from Cancer backwards to Aquarius) shows them in the Ptolemaic / Chaldean / geocentric order:
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

Inbetween Venus and Mars, in the first series, however, planet Earth is missing (since it's what we are standing on!), in the second series it's the Sun that is left out.




Brilliant! I am in your debt. Up to now I have never been able to really get a handle on the idea behind the concept of solar and lunar halves of zodiac. I understood the aspectual dimension of each luminary to signs but I confess I hadn't really thought out how both the solar and lunar halves of the zodiac related to the traditional order of the celestial spheres.

Your explanation makes perfect sense. It seems blindingly obvious the way you present it but I confess its escaped my notice before now. Have you come across any ancient sources explicitly giving this explanation for the scheme? Alternatively, any academic research setting out this view? I find it very interesting.

Thanks

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:01 pm; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3055
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

michael - those are good insights.. where if anywhere, did you pick them up? perhaps you thought that up on your own - either way they are good insights. thanks for sharing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 506
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote: Apr 07, 2014 7:31 pm
Quote:
Which ancient astronomers have you found setting out the luminaries together?


If you ask the question this way, to my knowledge, the answer would have to be: All of them (up to the the Chaldeans)!

Already in the oldest Babylonian astronomy the luminaries were set out together (next to the Earth). But the order of the following planets is quite funny to our Greek-schooled eyes!

The Pythagorean system (as depicted by Philolaus) is special in that all the bodies of our solar system (including Sun and Earth) are revolving around a somewhat mysterious "central fire". Their order is: Earth, Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

This is also the order of the older geocentric model, which was the one taken for granted by Greek astronomers like Eudoxos, Callippus, Chrysippus, Eratosthenes, Plato and Aristotle (according to Nilson: Geschichte der griechischen Religion, S. 272).

It seems that in some instances, Mercury and Venus would reverse their places, however. Certainly as far as Plato is concerned, it is not entirely clear whether he believed the order to be Mercury, Venus, or vice versa, for his sentence structure in the Timaios leaves this ambiguous. Which led to an academic debate lasting since the publication of the work to the present! Laughing

Mark wrote: Apr 07, 2014 7:31 pm
Quote:
The Thema Mundi does seem very old. Later Roman sources such as Macrobius and Firmucus Maternus mention it. Vettius Valens in the 2nd century CE also discusses it in reference to the zodiac signs. The first astrologer we have a record of discussing it appears to be Tiberius Claudius Thrasyllus (d. 36 CE) who was the personal astrologer and advisor of the Emperor Tiberius (b.42 BCE–d.37 CE).


Thanks for this interesting information about the history of the Thema Mundi.

Michael Sternbach wrote: Apr 07, 2014 6:50 pm
Quote:
However, a more sophisticated approach, taking into consideration the whole domicile scheme, will reveal that its solar hairesis (Leo to Capricorn) shows the planets in their true heliocentric order:
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
On the other hand, its lunar hairesis (from Cancer backwards to Aquarius) shows them in the Ptolemaic / Chaldean / geocentric order:
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

Inbetween Venus and Mars, in the first series, however, planet Earth is missing (since it's what we are standing on!), in the second series it's the Sun that is left out.


Mark replied: Apr 07, 2014 7:31 pm
Quote:
Brilliant! I am in your debt.


Oh well, don't mention it. - But if you do insist on doing me something good in return, please consider giving me a late answer to the request I quite miserably ended my "Zodiac with 24 sectors" thread with. Rolling Eyes I have hope that you as a Valens-wise astrologer could help me here... Very Happy This issue is quite important for my further research...

Mark wrote: Apr 07, 2014 7:31 pm
Quote:
Up to now I have never been able to really get a handle on the idea behind the concept of solar and lunar halves of zodiac. I understood the aspectual dimension of each luminary to signs but I confess I hadn't really thought out how both the solar and lunar halves of the zodiac related to the traditional order of the celestial spheres.

Your explanation makes perfect sense. It seems blindingly obvious the way you present it but I confess its escaped my notice before now. Have you come across any ancient sources explicitly giving this explanation for the scheme? Alternatively, any academic research setting out this view? I find it very interesting.


James wrote: Apr 07, 2014 8:30 pm
Quote:
michael - those are good insights.. where if anywhere, did you pick them up? perhaps you thought that up on your own - either way they are good insights. thanks for sharing.


Copyright by Michael Sternbach. Very Happy

There seems to be no research into this view other than my own.

However, I am looking forward to exchange further thoughts on this topic with you!

Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 506
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A few additional thoughts for you to ponder:

To see the Thema mundi as correlated with the pre-Ptolemaic geocentric system is just a first step.

Ptolemy's complete domicile scheme however leads us to a depiction of the geocentric order vis-à-vis the heliocentric view as I have demonstrated above.

In light of this, it may be no coincidence that the domicile scheme was introduced by the man who also presented the geocentric order with the Sun on the middle circle.

Of course, from a rigorous astronomical perspective, neither model holds true. But the Ptolemaic geocentric system comes closer to astronomical reality in that it is showing the planets in their correct order, except that the Sun and the Earth switch their positions mutually. As a matter of fact, Copernicus purposefully modelled his heliocentric system staying as close to Ptolemy's geocentric cosmos as possible.

The “interchangeability” of the Sun and the Earth, that the domicile scheme hints at, is highly significant metaphysically. This is remarkably in line with Robert Hand (in “Horoscope Symbols”) saying that the Earth and the Sun are the two centres of the solar system, the former correlated with the archetypal Mother, the latter with the Father: The Earth is bearing and nurturing the life that gets vitalized by the rays of the Sun.

Personally, I like to think of the Earth and the Sun as the “physical centre” and the “energetic centre” of the solar system, respectively. At least to our present knowledge, nowhere else in the solar system did matter reach the highly complex state of organization that we call life; however this order is maintained by the Sun's light (as Fritz Popp's research into biophotonics clearly demonstrated).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4980
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
If you ask the question this way, to my knowledge, the answer would have to be: All of them (up to the the Chaldeans)!

Already in the oldest Babylonian astronomy the luminaries were set out together (next to the Earth). But the order of the following planets is quite funny to our Greek-schooled eyes!

The Pythagorean system (as depicted by Philolaus) is special in that all the bodies of our solar system (including Sun and Earth) are revolving around a somewhat mysterious "central fire". Their order is: Earth, Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

This is also the order of the older geocentric model, which was the one taken for granted by Greek astronomers like Eudoxos, Callippus, Chrysippus, Eratosthenes, Plato and Aristotle (according to Nilson: Geschichte der griechischen Religion, S. 272).

It seems that in some instances, Mercury and Venus would reverse their places, however. Certainly as far as Plato is concerned, it is not entirely clear whether he believed the order to be Mercury, Venus, or vice versa, for his sentence structure in the Timaios leaves this ambiguous. Which led to an academic debate lasting since the publication of the work to the present!


Fantastic stuff. That is all very thought provoking. From a brief check myself the main difference in planetary lists regarding the luminaries between the Mesopotamians and Greeks seems to be that while both listed the luminaries together the Greeks usually start with the Moon (See Plato's Timaeus or Aristotle's On The Heavens (De Caelo) ) while the Babylonians seem to list the Sun first. Would you agree?

Here are a couple of useful links that discuss the ancient theory of planetary spheres and the Pythagorean astronomical system.

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

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

For anyone wanting to do more research in this area a few recommended books on the history of ancient astronomy written in English:

-Greek Astronomy by Sir Thomas L. Heath

-Aristarchus of Samos: The Ancient Copernicus by Sir Thomas L. Heath

-Plato's Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato by Francis MacDonald Cornford

-A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler by J. L. E. Dreyer

-A History of Astronomy by A. Pannekoek

-Cosmology: Historical, Literary,Philosophical, Religous and Scientific Perspectives-Norriss S. Hetherington (Editor)

-The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy by James Evans

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
Copyright by Michael Sternbach. There seems to be no research into this view other than my own.


In that case my sincere congratulations for some genuinely original and highly insightful research. I would suggest getting an article out on this asap. You deserve the full credit for this. I hate to say it but there are some totally unscrupulous types out there who will happily acquire such pioneering theories and pass it off as their own.

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
But if you do insist on doing me something good in return, please consider giving me a late answer to the request I quite miserably ended my "Zodiac with 24 sectors" thread with. I have hope that you as a Valens-wise astrologer could help me here... Very Happy This issue is quite important for my further research..
.

I'm sorry Michael. I think you may have an inflated idea of my Valens credentials. Much as I like hellenistic astrology I am no authority on him. I think both Deborah Houlding and Curtis Manwaring have had a go at answering your query over on the traditional forum. Beyond them there are about 4 inactive but highly knowledgeable members on Skyscript who may just be able to assist you. There are a few academics off this site that occur to me too. I will send you a private message with some people worth contacting by PM here. However, do bear in mind this is a very obscure topic and your answer may neither come easily or fast.

regards

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated