I think what should be added to the definition of Libra is apart from the fact that its concerned with relationships with other individuals, that its more concerned or holds in higher value, the relationship to it's self and ultimately to the Universe and thus existence as a whole.

This is often overlooked in a lot of "cookbook" style interpretations of this zodiac sun sign.

This is often misinterpreted as being a sun sign of "weakness" and tropical astrologers add the justification that the Sun is in its "fall" as viewed from the plane of the Northern Hemisphere. This viewpoint can be seen in other sections of the Sidereal Astrology discussions on this forum and elsewhere on the internet. This is an oversimplification. To really understand relationships in all there caliber and scope, one has to be objective to the utmost. That simple aspect in itself requires or should I say demands a type of ego strength that other zodiac signs just can't cut.

Call me biased, I don't really care..its all relative..

RodJM wrote:I think what should be added to the definition of Libra is apart from the fact that its concerned with relationships with other individuals, that its more concerned or holds in higher value, the relationship to it's self and ultimately to the Universe and thus existence as a whole.

This is often overlooked in a lot of "cookbook" style interpretations of this zodiac sun sign.

I hear ya'. I don't like cookbook style interpretations either. Your ideas on Libra sound very archetypically Venusian, which is not surprising since Venus is it's ruler. I don't like how people oversimplify the signs at all, and here I tried my best to be unbiased and informative, and to stick to my sources. If you want to research further, you can always access my links. They're literally only a click away. Here's one. Be sure the check the others. There's a lot more information out there.

http://westernsiderealastrology.wordpre ... eal-libra/

I have a particular bad experience with generic cookbook style interpretations. When I used to be into tropical astrology I said to myself "If someone says Sagittarius is blindly optimistic or freedom-loving again I'm going to kill someone." Not only was it extremely banal but I hardly noticed those traits in a myriad of Sagittarius in my lives. Turns out they were really Scorpios anyway. Then I learned that Sidereal Sagittarius isn't too much like Tropical Sagittarius either. Go figure.

RodJM wrote:This is often misinterpreted as being a sun sign of "weakness" and tropical astrologers add the justification that the Sun is in its "fall" as viewed from the plane of the Northern Hemisphere. This viewpoint can be seen in other sections of the Sidereal Astrology discussions on this forum and elsewhere on the internet. This is an oversimplification. To really understand relationships in all there caliber and scope, one has to be objective to the utmost. That simple aspect in itself requires or should I say demands a type of ego strength that other zodiac signs just can't cut.

Call me biased, I don't really care..its all relative..

I agree here. I don't think Libra and the air signs are "weak". I even wrote how the air signs are distinguished by their individualism and endurance, which reflects Saturn. The Malefic planets Mars and Saturn in general are strange in the sense that though they give a lot of grief and challenges to people they give a lot of strong qualities to overcome them.****

But that's just me. Like I said, I don't like the signs being oversimplified like you don't. If we want to really understand people's behavior and how their signs influence that we should seriously study people's lives in depth. That would include reading biographies and doing serious research on the people in question. Writing off people with such cliches as "mystic" or "social climbers" or "freedom loving" or "ceaselessly active" really doesn't cut it. Such shallow interpretations often go against the facts.

**** P.S. The griefs and misfortunes the malefic provide are different. Saturn's hardships seem to focus on things that are "natural" and beyond your control, like childlessness, loss of estate from a bad economy, or having a terminal illness. Mars' hardships on the other hand emphasizes deliberate acts of evil from other humans, like having your house robbed by a drug addict or being raped and murdered by a jealous lover.

P.S.S. Rod_JM, I took into account your ideas on Libra and added them to my Lost Zodiac.

Hi Bogdan

I'm confused by what you're trying to achieve here. Is it an investigation into the 'lost zodiac' (which assumes there was one) or is it an investigation into how you propose to use a future astrology? Or a research into how sidereal astrologers currently use astrology?

Also I'm confused to what extent you are divorcing tropical western astrology as well.

My main confusion is probably that in whilst attesting to look at traditional authors, many of your examples and reference points are thoroughly modern.

Taurus, not Aries, is the traditional leader of the zodiac, as it was the Age of Taurus when the Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians first formed astrology.

I find this idea interesting, do you have any references for this? That the Babylonians themselves remark that Taurus is the first sign of the zodiac?

Often tropical astrology will speak of Taurus being stubborn and fearful in temper, but this is a really Aries?s martial tendency mixed with Taurus. It is surely a Taurus adage ?Beauty is in truth, truth is in beauty.?

I'm also curious what references you are using for this idea of tropical Taurus being, effectively, sidereal Aries in disguise. Do you have some ancient source perhaps which describes Taurus as being something which is not stubborn, and for Aries to have those traits?

Her detriment body is Mars, most unfitting for Taurus, while her fall body is most likely Saturn or Uranus (Scorpio?s exultant).

I'm confused by what you mean here, especially the "most likely". What sources are you drawing from here? Exaltations and fall are among some of the oldest parts of our store lore, with Saturn exalting in Libra, and therefore in fall in aries, or are you supposing some mix match again from tropical astrology?

Likewise for the other signs, like where you say

Gemini?s ruling planet is Mercury while his exulting body has been proposed to be Neptune and perhaps Jupiter also (Pisces?s ruler).

Proposed by whom to be Jupiter? Throughout the tradition of astrology Jupiter has been in detriment in Gemini, and exalted in Cancer, so I wonder about whether you believe this is from tropical astrology?

The Gauquelin Sector Chart in particular goes so far as having the houses represent the twelve signs themselves. For instance, under this scheme, having the Moon in House 9 puts your Moon in Sagittarius

Huh? Can you cite some reference to what you're referring to here?

In Ancient Egypt however the signs and the houses are the opposite of what we are accustomed to. House 3 is really the house of Sagittarius while House 9 is really the house of Gemini.

What do we mean by Ancient Egypt? Can you cite any example of houses in use in Egypt prior to the Hellenistic era?



I'm hoping you can address some of my questions here, as you say you "simply went to the source material of the ancient astrologers ".

Also with that in mind, to what extent are you incorporating the modern planets with this in mind?

I'm confused by what you're trying to achieve here. Is it an investigation into the 'lost zodiac' (which assumes there was one) or is it an investigation into how you propose to use a future astrology? Or a research into how sidereal astrologers currently use astrology?

Also I'm confused to what extent you are divorcing tropical western astrology as well.

It is both the 1st and 2nd reason, but not the third. I was partly motivated by the confusing messages I was given by different schools of sidereal astrology, and I was also a bit disillusioned by how some sidereal astrologers seem to just be repackaging tropical signs under new labels, which contradicted the descriptions of ancient philosophers. So I wanted to do my own research, to find out a way of using astrology in the future. It was to resolve my conflicting contradictions.

The "Lost Zodiac" name was a challenge to said astrologers who rehashed mainstream tropical astrology while ignoring a lot of the original ideas used by said ancients, and then acted like they discovered the original ideas about astrology "as they were". I wanted to (ideally) build my thread as close to the original texts as possible.

Regarding tropical astrology I decided not to rely on it at all. I wanted to clear my brain of all preconceptions and prejudices I learned about astrology over many years, especially from the tropical zodiac. I wanted to approach this astrology thing as if I never came across it before, and go back to original sources and contemporary sources that supported the originals.

To be continued...

My main confusion is probably that in whilst attesting to look at traditional authors, many of your examples and reference points are thoroughly modern.

Ideally, I wanted to rely ONLY on ancient sources. Among those, I relied on Valens, Firmicius, and Rhetorius. I asked Jim Eshelman over at Soluners if there were any other texts from ancient astrologers, but he said no. Nothing before the aforementioned three apparently. Apparently they salvaged the traditions of Egypt and Babylon, and that's all that's left.

Most, if not all, of modern sources I use are all from modern sidereal astrologers whose work reference the pioneering works of Fagen, Bradley, and others. Fagen and co. themselves did a lot of research into ancient astrology as it was practiced by the Egyptians such as Astrological Origins. I "screened" every piece I took from the modern sources by the standards of Valens, Firmicius, and Rhetorius. If they did not match the ancients I did not include it.

If you have any other writings from ancient astrologers please send me links or recommend books. I would love to read them.

To be continued...

I find this idea interesting, do you have any references for this? That the Babylonians themselves remark that Taurus is the first sign of the zodiac?

They come from Fagen's Astrological Origins.

I'm also curious what references you are using for this idea of tropical Taurus being, effectively, sidereal Aries in disguise. Do you have some ancient source perhaps which describes Taurus as being something which is not stubborn, and for Aries to have those traits?

I DO NOT believe the tropical signs are truly sidereal signs in disguise. Sidereal astrologers seem to agree that the tropical signs are mixtures of two neighboring signs together due to misinterpretations. How far that mixture goes depends on the sidereal astrologer in question.

I can't speak for everyone, but from my work (analyzing Valens etc., reading the writings from Soluners and other websites, Papretis' statistics, and my own experiences) I have concluded that the similarities between sidereal signs and the antecedent tropical signs are only similar on superficial level. However, look deeper and they are really not alike.

A few examples...

Tropical Gemini and Sidereal Taurus are both amiable and sociable. However, look deeper and they are very different. Tropical Gemini is described as hyperactive, scatterbrained, and flighty. But Sidereal Taurus is different; she is gentle, sweet, concentrated and thorough in her thought, and likes to stay in one place. Taurus ultimately evokes Venus and archetypes of beauty and fertility, very different from Tropical Gemini.

Tropical Scorpio and Sidereal Libra are both cold, shut-in, and sullen. But Tropical Scorpio has Mars attributes of forcefulness and domination, qualities that are lacking in Sidereal Libra. Instead Libra concerns himself with relationships and the arts, evoking Venus. Libra evokes archetypes of love, but also responsibility, and careful, unbiased thinking and judgement. This is not Tropical Scorpio.

Tropical Sagittarius and Sidereal Scorpio are both active, bold, and impetuous. But Tropical Sagittarius is carefree, optimistic, joyful, and intellectual. Sidereal Scorpio on the other hand is sharp and critical, bitter and irascible, and prefers the dramatic and visceral over intellect and abstractions. Scorpio ultimately evokes Mars and thus conflict, violence, disease, and ruination, but also the courage and endurance to survive. This is not like Tropical Sagittarius.

Tropical Capricorn and Sidereal Sagittarius are both social climbers, liking authority, and neat-nicks. But Tropical Capricorn is very practical and is limited to money and business. Sidereal Sagittarius is more grand and mystical, whose domain covers religious and academic institutions, as well high ranking government. Sagittarius evokes the archetypes of the priest and academic and philosopher, and evokes meditations and prayers to contact the Divine. This is not like Tropical Capricorn.

And so on and so on. I know this is lengthy, but these nuances are important and help illustrate the point I was making for you. I hope they help.

Continued...

I'm confused by what you mean here, especially the "most likely". What sources are you drawing from here? Exaltations and fall are among some of the oldest parts of our store lore, with Saturn exalting in Libra, and therefore in fall in aries, or are you supposing some mix match again from tropical astrology?

According to the graph below, there is definitely a pattern to how planetary rulerships and exhalations (detriments and falls) as well. With this graph, the rulerships etc. of outer planets can be predicted. Ex. Pluto is assigned to Aries and thus is exalted in Sagittarius. Uranus is assigned to Aquarius and thus is exalted in Scorpio.

Addition by Deb - This image has been removed out of copyright concerns.

By logic is this: Why do we need to have "permission" of outer planets to assign exaltation to signs and fill in the missing blanks. Ex. Mars can simply be exalted in Sagittarius. Saturn can simply be exalted in Scorpio. I don't understand why signs like Sagittarius, Scorpio, Gemini etc. are not given exaltations in the first place. Why not fill in the missing blanks?

Of course, AND THIS IS A BIG DISCLAIMER HERE; THIS IS A SPECULATION AND NOT AN IDEA I SERIOUSLY ENDORSE.

This is why I always use "maybe" and "possible" to describe these ideas about exaltations, because they are not ideas I have great certainty in. They are only suggestions, if you can even call them that.

For your last two questions...

Huh? Can you cite some reference to what you're referring to here?

What do we mean by Ancient Egypt? Can you cite any example of houses in use in Egypt prior to the Hellenistic era?

Those ideas come from Fagen's Astrological Origins. In it, he describes how the parts of the body and houses assigned to the signs were reversed in Egypt. Taurus really ruled over the sex organs and House 8, Gemini really ruled over the thighs and House 9, Cancer really ruled over the knees and shins and House 10 and so forth.

None of the ideas I mentioned above are from tropical astrology.

I hope my series of posts helped answer your questions.

Bogdan574 wrote:**** P.S. The griefs and misfortunes the malefic provide are different. Saturn's hardships seem to focus on things that are "natural" and beyond your control, like childlessness, loss of estate from a bad economy, or having a terminal illness. Mars' hardships on the other hand emphasizes deliberate acts of evil from other humans, like having your house robbed by a drug addict or being raped and murdered by a jealous lover.

P.S.S. Rod_JM, I took into account your ideas on Libra and added them to my Lost Zodiac.

That's a very interesting take on so called traditional "malefics" . I can attest to the influence of Saturn in my own life and its effect on my vocal abilities by not only house placement but aspects to Mercury, however that's another topic.

Thanks for considering some of my points on sun sign Libra, another interesting insight to add is also the fact that the symbol for Libra as we all know is the scales or weighing device. Its the only inanimate object or entity in the zodiac, hence being in that class, one could say it adds to the impartiality and thus mental detachment as is necessary in such professions as Law for example.

"Justice" symbolically, is often portrayed as a blindfolded lady holding a set of scales in her hand. Further evidence to consider.

On another point, I read long time ago, think it was Linda Goodman in her classic sun signs book, stating how she considered Uranus exalted in Scorpio too? just going by memory here...

Bogdan574 wrote: It is both the 1st and 2nd reason, but not the third. I was partly motivated by the confusing messages I was given by different schools of sidereal astrology, and I was also a bit disillusioned by how some sidereal astrologers seem to just be repackaging tropical signs under new labels, which contradicted the descriptions of ancient philosophers.
...
I wanted to (ideally) build my thread as close to the original texts as possible.
...
I wanted to approach this astrology thing as if I never came across it before, and go back to original sources and contemporary sources that supported the originals.

Hi Bogdan

Thanks for the replies, I think that if you're primarily interested in the use of ancient astrology then it ought to really be the ancient astrologers which serve the basis of astrological understanding. And therefore any descriptions of signs etc should be from those sources, and not from modern authors, even if those authors are inspired by ancient astrology as well.
One of the confusing things for me in reading your posts is that so much of it is modern whilst the premise sets out to discover and focus on ancient delineations and approaches (as opposed, presumably, to modern ones). To be clearer, individuals like Cyril Fagan are no less modern than, say, the Dane Rudhyars of modern tropical astrology - both are modern astrologers who have a particular focus and shape their modern astrology around that focus. For Cyril Fagan it is his inspiration from Egypt, but we should not conclude that Fagan's astrology, and those others who follow him, is therefore a faithful rendition of astrology as practiced by ancient egyptians.

Keeping this idea of going back to the source material - the ancient astrologers themselves, do you believe that you could look back over your descriptions etc. find a match for them in some traditional text? What dating would that text be? What time period would we need to be thinking of for an idea of the 'original zodiac' or the 'lost zodiac'? I think all these questions need to be answered before an investigation like this can take place.

Otherwise all we have is modern astrology which is inspired by the tradition - which is really the latter option from my quote that you state you are not setting out to focus on.

You say "Ideally, I wanted to rely ONLY on ancient sources. Among those, I relied on Valens, Firmicius, and Rhetorius." (Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:06 am) so maybe a better challenge is to just synthesise what these astrologers are saying, being agnostic as to the interpretations that modern astrologers say about these signs and see what you can extract from them?

I asked Jim Eshelman over at Soluners if there were any other texts from ancient astrologers, but he said no. Nothing before the aforementioned three apparently. Apparently they salvaged the traditions of Egypt and Babylon, and that's all that's left.

Can you explain what you mean by "other texts from ancient astrologers" as obviously there are many more texts from ancient astrologers. So there's obviously some other criterion involved here? Again it's worth clarifying what "ancient" means.
Valens is 2nd century AD, Firmicus is 4th century AD and Rhetorius is 6th century AD. If we're denoting "texts from ancient astrologers" to be of a similar time period then I wonder why we are not including people like Manillius (1st century AD), Dorotheus (1st century AD) or even Ptolemy (2nd century AD) or Hepaistion (5th century AD) and others. There seems to be some other qualifier for what determines what is ancient and what is not.

Most, if not all, of modern sources I use are all from modern sidereal astrologers whose work reference the pioneering works of Fagen, Bradley, and others. Fagen and co. themselves did a lot of research into ancient astrology as it was practiced by the Egyptians such as Astrological Origins. I "screened" every piece I took from the modern sources by the standards of Valens, Firmicius, and Rhetorius. If they did not match the ancients I did not include it.

(emphasis mine)

With respect, I do find this difficult if not impossible to believe. For example, I wonder what sources you used for some of the following - keeping in mind the source ought to be ancient (Valens, Firmicus, Rhetorius):

The Moon controls and directs not only the Sun?s light but the very course the Sun travels

Strangely enough, research shows the Moon influences people to have aggressive ?masculine? professions such as business executives, military careers, and politicians.

Her detriment body is Mars, most unfitting for Taurus, while her fall body is most likely Saturn or Uranus (Scorpio?s exultant).

she [Taurus] rules the sexual organs

Gemini is insecure and needs the attention and acceptance of others, is very afraid of losing friends, companions, and family.

Gemini?s ruling planet is Mercury while his exulting body has been proposed to be Neptune and perhaps Jupiter also (Pisces?s ruler). Likewise, Gemini?s fall is Pluto and maybe Mars (the exultant bodies of Sagittarius), while his detriment is paradoxically Jupiter and Neptune

Cancer is ruled by the female luminary the Moon and exalted by Jupiter and maybe Neptune (the other ruler of Sagittarius). Her detriment is in Saturn and perhaps Uranus (Capricorn?s other ruler) and her fall is in Mars and maybe Pluto (Capricorn?s exultant). In Egypt the lunar month of Cancer (Sun in Capricorn) was the winter solstice and as such celebrated the hopes of the Sun and nature returning to life

Leo is ruled by the Sun, with possibly Mercury (Gemini?s ruler) as the exalted body. His detriment body is Saturn and maybe Uranus (Aquarius?s ruler) and his fall body may be Venus (Aquarius?s possible exalted body).

Unfortunately Virgo is often ridiculed and bullied as a child, often scapegoated for others? problems. She isn?t too fit for authority positions and is best as an employee. She even possesses quite a martyr complex, and generally is hyperactive and neurotic. However, when she needs to stand up for herself she can be very brave. Virgo has a strong touch with the ?common man? and thus is often liberal and seeks to improve everyone?s life.

etc. for the rest of the signs, plus everything you mentioned about modern planets. There's no point in listing them all off as you probably get the point.
Also,

The Gauquelin Sector Chart in particular goes so far as having the houses represent the twelve signs themselves. For instance, under this scheme, having the Moon in House 9 puts your Moon in Sagittarius. In Ancient Egypt however the signs and the houses are the opposite of what we are accustomed to. House 3 is really the house of Sagittarius while House 9 is really the house of Gemini.

When we juxtapose this against the claim of having searched for a reference in an ancient text before acceptance I think we can agree quickly that this is not the case, even if those authors serve often as inspiration.

Instead we have a modern astrologer, namely you, coming up with a form of astrology, rather than a summarisation of ancient texts and I think it's important to highlight this point.

In addition, it seems to me that at least a part of what you are setting out to achieve is not to look at astrology with fresh eyes, agnostic of what is said about it by others, but instead to juxtapose in places against tropical astrology to highlight perceived failings of tropical astrology (without providing references to support the views proposed).


This is why I am confused by your posts. It seems that whilst you are stating that you are examining ancient authors and looking at astrology without preconceptions and prejudice, what you appear to be actually doing is focusing primarily on modern authors, comparing constantly to modern tropical astrology and ignoring entire schemes of ancient astrology as practiced by those authors you claim to be focusing on (such as the schema of exaltation and domicile).

Bogdan574 wrote: They come from Fagen's Astrological Origins.

Can you quote where he posits that the Babylonians explicitly state or implicitly demonstrate that their zodiac begins with Taurus, as it would be interesting from a tropical perspective to see the emphasis that ancient cultures place on the sign of the equinox.

I DO NOT believe the tropical signs are truly sidereal signs in disguise.

And yet you made reference time and again to the mistakes tropical astrologer make by suggesting that actually the traits that tropical astrologers assign to their tropical signs are mistakes and are actually sidereal traits from the previous tropical sign, which would be the sidereal sign.
Let me ask again, do you have clear references from an ancient text which shows that the traits tropical astrologers assign to signs are actually the sidereal ones from those ancient sources in the manner you were portraying? This idea has been used many times but I am not sure anyone has actually demonstrated that this is the case, and as a control, it could be interesting to see if the reverse could not be argued as being true?

According to the graph below, there is definitely a pattern to how planetary rulerships and exhalations (detriments and falls) as well. With this graph, the rulerships etc. of outer planets can be predicted

But your own posts don't follow this scheme :S
(Btw do you have a reference for this chart? Can you cite where you sourced it from, as it may be copyrighted to someone)

Ex. Mars can simply be exalted in Sagittarius. Saturn can simply be exalted in Scorpio. I don't understand why signs like Sagittarius, Scorpio, Gemini etc. are not given exaltations in the first place. Why not fill in the missing blanks?

There are many theories, but again, note the focus, the focus here isn't on establishing what the ancient astrologers used. Clearly no ancient astrology said that Mars can simply be exalted in Sagittarius - it is exalted in Capricorn. We do not need to go into why that might be, my point is that what we're doing here isn't establishing what ancients used, we're inventing a new 'brand' of astrology instead. And yet this isn't what you said you were setting out to achieve. This is a good example of why I am confused between what you are claiming to do, and what you subsequently appear to be doing. You say that you are not endorsing these ideas and they are just theories, but what are we theorising? A new sidereal astrology? Because earlier you say we're looking for the 'lost zodiac' and only accepting those points which have been established in one of our three ancient authors (Valens, Firmicus or Rhetorius).

Those ideas come from Fagen's Astrological Origins. In it, he describes how the parts of the body and houses assigned to the signs were reversed in Egypt. Taurus really ruled over the sex organs and House 8, Gemini really ruled over the thighs and House 9, Cancer really ruled over the knees and shins and House 10 and so forth.

None of the ideas I mentioned above are from tropical astrology.

But you say you went to the source material and only included that which you yourself observed to be true, so ignoring what Fagan said, or where you first were introduced to the idea, do we have any ancient references which demonstrate this?

Again we need to decide on when in "egypt" we're referring too.

Paul wrote:

Bogdan574 wrote: They come from Fagen's Astrological Origins.

Can you quote where he posits that the Babylonians explicitly state or implicitly demonstrate that their zodiac begins with Taurus, as it would be interesting from a tropical perspective to see the emphasis that ancient cultures place on the sign of the equinox.

Here it is, from Astrological Origins page 118. It discusses Taurus' role in the Egyptian calendar. The last paragraph is especially important because it answers your question: the lunar month of Taurus was the new year to the Egyptians.

In the decan list from Aysut, three pentades which ended Aries and commenced Taurus were known to the Egyptians as 3hwy (Akhuy), the "shining ones", because about the Pyramdic period, the Sun rose in one or other of them on New Year's day of the lunar calendar. In other words they marked the place of the vernal equinox, Taurus 11 degrees, 12 minutes, B.C 2767. The feminine form of Akhu, namely Akhot, means the "place of sunrise", or the Ascendant.

(Edited to replace copyrighted imagery which had been inserted - Paul)

I DO NOT believe the tropical signs are truly sidereal signs in disguise.

And yet you made reference time and again to the mistakes tropical astrologer make by suggesting that actually the traits that tropical astrologers assign to their tropical signs are mistakes and are actually sidereal traits from the previous tropical sign, which would be the sidereal sign.
Let me ask again, do you have clear references from an ancient text which shows that the traits tropical astrologers assign to signs are actually the sidereal ones from those ancient sources in the manner you were portraying? This idea has been used many times but I am not sure anyone has actually demonstrated that this is the case, and as a control, it could be interesting to see if the reverse could not be argued as being true?

No. These ideas do not come from ancient texts but are ideas from modern sidereal astrologers. It is Fagen who first proposed the idea, and how much that idea is followed depends on the sidereal astrologer in question. There is no centralized consensus like there is with tropical astrology. We are kind of a minority after all.

Some sidereal astrologers like Eric Seligson do not describe the sidereal signs as being any different from the tropical ones. Others, like Therese Hamilton, go very far with the "tropical signs are just disguised sidereal signs" line.

As for me, I tried my best to keep it close to the ancients (Valens, Rhetorius, Firmicius). I followed the writings of Jim Eshelman and Alex Blaire-Ewart (the two big names) and Papretis as far as modern sidereal astrologers were concerned. BUT, everything they wrote I "screened" through the writings of Valens and co. to make sure their ideas were accurate in accordance to the ancients.

Let me use Scorpio as an example for how my thinking works:

A huge majority of tropical astrologers describe Scorpio as very mysterious and profound, as dignified, and romanticizing aggression and violence to show how oh-so deep and mysterious Scorpio is. However, no ancient astrologer at all (at least from what I've read) describes Scorpio as either mysterious or profound. Instead, they describe Scorpio as martial, because Scorpio's ruling planet is Mars and because of the malevolent omens of war and pestilence both the planet Mars and the Scorpio constellation brought.

Likewise, Valens and Rhetorius describe Scorpio as being bitter, irascible, rapacious, and wicked. They also, like Firmicius, describe Scorpio as cunning, having sharp minds and sharp tongues (critical), courageous (engaging in difficult and dangerous tasks), and highly sexed. Firmicius especially highlights Scorpio as being pursued by a bad reputation. But mysterious and profound? Nope.

As of now, if we take the two extremes from earlier, I am leaning much more to the Eric Seligson side than Therese Hamilton side.

According to the graph below, there is definitely a pattern to how planetary rulerships and exhalations (detriments and falls) as well. With this graph, the rulerships etc. of outer planets can be predicted

But your own posts don't follow this scheme :S
(Btw do you have a reference for this chart? Can you cite where you sourced it from, as it may be copyrighted to someone)

Yes they do...

Ex. Mars can simply be exalted in Sagittarius. Saturn can simply be exalted in Scorpio. I don't understand why signs like Sagittarius, Scorpio, Gemini etc. are not given exaltations in the first place. Why not fill in the missing blanks?

There are many theories, but again, note the focus, the focus here isn't on establishing what the ancient astrologers used. Clearly no ancient astrology said that Mars can simply be exalted in Sagittarius - it is exalted in Capricorn. We do not need to go into why that might be, my point is that what we're doing here isn't establishing what ancients used, we're inventing a new 'brand' of astrology instead. And yet this isn't what you said you were setting out to achieve. This is a good example of why I am confused between what you are claiming to do, and what you subsequently appear to be doing. You say that you are not endorsing these ideas and they are just theories, but what are we theorising? A new sidereal astrology? Because earlier you say we're looking for the 'lost zodiac' and only accepting those points which have been established in one of our three ancient authors (Valens, Firmicus or Rhetorius).

No, it's not a good example. These possible exhalations are nowhere near the most prominent points of my thread. They're really just afterthoughts and suggestions, not the corpus of my ideas. You're confusing this as if the possible exaltations are something big that I am proposing to be true when it is not. You're acting as if these suggestions are my big ideas to base my entire work on.

And no, I am not proposing a new sidereal astrology as an improved one (if I may be so presumptuous). Like I said, I use modern sources as well as ancient ones, BUT it was very important that the modern sources pan out in accordance to the ancient sources.

My exaltations are the rare (if not only) ideas that don't do that. That is why they are just speculations and not a serious "thesis" of mine in this thread.