107
Deb wrote: I think the Southern hemisphere inversion of seasonal symbolism is very philosophically problematic. The only defensive principle we have is that the original view remains pertinent for the greater part of the Earth's inhabitable regions, so we can use it as the most pertinent Earth-centred influence. I know that is probably not satisfactory for many, but at the moment it seems to be the only justifiable argument on the table.
Hi Deb,

Wouldn't the plain geometry of it just settle the matter? Then again, I think the seasonal aspect of the tropical zodiac is only accidental, in the sense that it is not the essential part of it; the Sun's path crossing over the equator is the important thing, I think.
Gabe

108
If you have the patience to read it, the physics presented in the "Concepts" document at http://www.levante.org/ give a pretty convincing rationale for why the signs should be defined along the ecliptic in counter-clockwise order, regardless of which of the northern or southern hemispheres the native resides in. It's a bit more "catholic" as to what the zero point can be. But there is no reason for any discontinuity between north and south.

- Ed

109
This one is also interesting Olivia:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200902 ... _sys.shtml

The matter of inversion of the zodiac in the sourthern hemisphere has been tackled in the below thread before, if anyone wishs to re-take a look:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

I must say that living in the sourthern hemisphere I'm not unconfortable with the signs order of domiciles, as they reflect planetay speed among other things, and for the reasons stated under the above thread in my posts. But I always was at odds with the exaltation system of dignities, that seems to me older and more local related. But in practice, we (sourthern astrologers) still get results - or are mass-delusional.
Paulo Felipe Noronha

110
PFN wrote:
The matter of inversion of the zodiac in the sourthern hemisphere has been tackled in the below thread before, if anyone wishs to re-take a look:
Your explanation in that thread was one of the most interesting contributions and presents an innovative perspective. Although I personally think the origins of the domicile rulerships was probably more prosaic than that.

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

112
"I guess it depends upon which sidereal zodiac, oh lets just invent one so that "we're right" and we don't have to admit that we goofed. "

I propose the "new" sidereal zodiac begin with the confluence of the Galactic Center and the capricorn solstice (mula nakshatra) (2227 ad) ... we are now more in the Galactic Force Field (since December 1999)

I think this has boiled to the top of the conscious zeitgeist because of the unusual type of extreme events that have been piling up ... and people are becoming aware of possible correlations between cosmic & terrestial event.

No argument about the tropical zodiac however, since it is basically defined by the equinoxes & solstices.

Incidentally, Time is Geocentric -- eg pretty much defined by the earth's axis of rotation -- day/night -- mutual barycentric rotation with moon = month, its revolution about the sun = year, and its 26K year precessional wobble throughout establishing the aeon

113
Thanks for the compliments Mark.

Eddy, thanks for that info. Actually, that defeats a little the purpose of my post in that previous thread, but anyway, living and learning.
Paulo Felipe Noronha

114
Sorry Paulo, I can imagine it hurts a bit. However it's still useful to think about the ideas of planets in perihelion/aphelion. It introduces the concept of distance and seeing in depth.