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

Sidereal Signs
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Good. Let's leave it there, and I won't have to start deleting posts or locking the thread.


Why should the thread strictly remain on one topic? Let it grow. Sidereal astrologers are a minority already as it is. Strict regulations on how discussions are allowed to develop will only restrict us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1268
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan574 wrote:
Why should the thread strictly remain on one topic? Let it grow. Sidereal astrologers are a minority already as it is. Strict regulations on how discussions are allowed to develop will only restrict us.

The point of my comment was not that the thread should remain on one topic, though I can see how you read it that way, as I kept it very brief. In the context of the preceding posts, it was about not going off into a quasi-political discussion on seeing things from 'the National Socialist point of view'. I think most of us are agreed that this is not something we want or need to do in this forum.

Apart from this, please feel free to let the thread grow and branch off (apologies for the mixed metaphors). I personally appreciate and share your interest in ancient source texts. (It may seem like an odd thing for a moderator to say, but in a sense I regret that the need was felt to create a separate sidereal forum on Skyscript: it would be so much nicer if traditional techniques, practised in a fixed zodiac -- as they were long before, and long after, Ptolemy -- could be discussed in the ancient & traditional forum without some of the tropicalists feeling threatened or offended.)
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3479
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i agree with your comments towards the end martin.. it seems to work in reverse as well.. once the categories are created there is always someone wanting to enforce them as opposed to having a wider conversation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1439
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan 574 wrote:
Quote:
But the problem comes when sidereal astrologers simply rename the tropical signs under different labels. It doesn't matter, for example, if you try to describe Taurus as talkative and that being a trait of Venus.

No, that's not the way the symbolism works. Being talkative doesn't belong to Venus. It's actually a Mercurial trait due to Taurus belonging to the same trigon as Virgo, Mercury's domicile and exaltation sign. Also the sidereal Taurus trigon is the most social and interactive of the four trigons. Its triplicity lords are Venus and the Moon. Venus likes equal interaction with others, and the Moon is always seeking reflection and connections outside itself.

Astrologers aren't "re-naming" sidereal signs. They are merely noting that observed (not fictitious or theoretical) traits better suit the rulership and exalted planets of sidereal signs. In my opinion, sign traits are also closely linked to triplicity lords, though generally these planets already belong to each triplicity via rulership or exaltation.

Quote:
Sidereal Taurus is not like tropical Taurus, but neither is it like tropical Gemini either. Sidereal Scorpio is not tropical Scorpio, but neither is it tropical Sagittarius either.

Any area of the ecliptic/sky has an observable energy that can influence planets. It doesn't matter what name you call it. Bogdan, you keep playing the same tune over and over without considering that valid observations are indeed part of astrology.

Quote:
A lot of the traits that are attributed to signs these days are simply made up and never existed. Take Sagittarius for example. The sign as described by Valens and Rhetorius bares little resemblance to Sagittarius described now. BUT, and this is a large but, it little resembles tropical Capricorn either.

So the next step is to study charts with signs prominent in some way. I'll be posting charts on the "Saturn, Jupiter and Sagittarius" topic soon. It becomes very obvious how little belongs to Sagittarius as a sign and how most traits are connected to the planets. In these modern research minded times, rhetoric and opinion mean little. What matters is studying actual horoscopes while trying to excerpt the symbolism that may be valid.

Bogdan, you are displaying one trait that (so far) can be observed in the sidereal odd [edited] signs. You keep repeating your own view (motivation from within). But you haven't referenced any of the articles or posts I've mentioned on the topic of sidereal signs except for Chiria, because you can use her comments to support your personal argument.

But you haven't given a single example of a person with Sagittarius traits (as you see them), not even yourself. Bogdan, the traits you mentioned about yourself on Solunars are connected to the planets, as I noted in an earlier post. We can re-visit these traits on the "Sagittarius" topic since you have made your chart public on Solunars.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm


Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:02 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1439
Location: California, USA

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin wrote:
Quote:
...in a sense I regret that the need was felt to create a separate sidereal forum on Skyscript: it would be so much nicer if traditional techniques, practised in a fixed zodiac -- as they were long before, and long after, Ptolemy -- could be discussed in the ancient & traditional forum without some of the tropicalists feeling threatened or offended.)

Yes, in a way we are placed in a straight-jacket here on the Sidereal forum. We can't speak freely on the traditional forum where we might have had some exciting and enlightening discussions. But -- at least we have a place to post messages which I appreciate! I only wish there were more responses.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Astrologers aren't "re-naming" sidereal signs. They are merely noting that observed (not fictitious or theoretical) traits better suit the rulership and exalted planets of sidereal signs. In my opinion, sign traits are also closely linked to triplicity lords, though generally these planets already belong to each triplicity via rulership or exaltation.

...

Any area of the ecliptic/sky has an observable energy that can influence planets. It doesn't matter what name you call it. Bogdan, you keep playing the same tune over and over without considering that valid observations are indeed part of astrology.


Those "observable traits" and "observable energies" you keep mentioning are just stories from the tropical zodiac we are used to hearing, that we have so much ingrained in our minds, that we take them for fact.

I agree that valid observations are indeed a part of astrology but that the "valid observations" I have so far seen seem an awful lot like the usual stories we hear from the tropical zodiac, which makes me very suspicious.

You said it yourself. They're mostly dogmas and stereotypes, but you also think they have valid observations that should be parsed through and salvaged. But those valid observations seem an awful lot like the dogmas and stereotypes.

Our conversation is pretty much a broken record at this point. I claim "A lot of sidereal astrology is just tropical astrology renamed. And that tropical astrology is a bunch of dogmas and stereotypes that have little basis on what the original astrologers wrote."

You counter, "No, these traits aren't tropical astrology traits renamed. They're really valid observations."

And its just a back and forth where I say, "No they aren't" and you say, "Yes they are."

I saw your two articles. The first is about how the signs are varied energy waves. I agree to this general principle. I also saw your other article about the planetary trigons. I feel ambivalent towards this though. While they do make sense I think that constantly trying to compare them with tropical signs is a bad idea, because well... I said it a million times already why the tropical zodiac is messed up. The dogmas of tropical astrology will just distort and limit the sidereal signs etc.

It's far better to let the sidereal trigons "express" themselves in their own terms, so to speak. Rather than, for instance, constantly trying to make comparisons of how Cancer is like tropical Leo, it's better to just let Cancer "be herself". Because, as I said, sidereal signs are not like their tropical counterparts OR the tropical sign ahead of them.

When you constantly try to compare sidereal signs to tropical signs research will become very biased as you will constantly skewer your findings and theory to make it match the tropical zodiac.

Quote:
Bogdan, you are displaying one trait that (so far) can be observed in the sidereal even signs. You keep repeating your own view (motivation from within). But you haven't referenced any of the articles or posts I've mentioned on the topic of sidereal signs except for Chiria, because you can use her comments to support your personal argument.


Anyway, shouldn't the traits coming from within be a trait of the odd signs under your theory? I have problems with even those configurations of masculine (odd) and feminine (even) signs. They're patriarchal inversions of what the masculine and feminine originally were. I could describe this with your own terminology.

Originally, it is the female that "comes from within". Her color is red, blood from life as well as childbirth and menstrual blood. The female is hot and active. This refers to both the ancient idea of women being origins of life as well as the "feminine" needed for creativity. These are virtues Nietzsche, who had a plethora of feminine signs (Sun, Mercury, Mars in Virgo. Moon, north node, ASC in Scorpio. Jupiter and Uranus in Pisces) exonerated: The body, emotions, the subconscious, passion, ordeal, childbirth, dancing, laughter etc.

By contrast the male is passive because he needs the outside world to create life. His color is white, associated with semen, and is associated with death.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But you haven't given a single example of a person with Sagittarius traits (as you see them), not even yourself. Bogdan, the traits you mentioned about yourself on Solunars are connected to the planets, as I noted in an earlier post. We can re-visit these traits on the "Sagittarius" topic since you have made your chart public on Solunars.


I can't with Sagittarius because I simply haven't paid that much attention to Sagittarius. I did show my Soluners (and jamescondor's) ideas on Scorpio though. I can list some friends I know well with various signs to show you, perhaps how the signs and planets reflect themselves in a more "pure" way, without the tropical astrology baggage. I will change their names to protect their identity. I don't know their rising signs though but you can still make a natal chart.

You often speak of observations. Well, here are mine.

Sophia (Dec 10, 1991): She has a rich and complex personality. She is quirky, energetic, and outgoing. Lively, cheerful, optimistic, and has a very bright smile. She often refers to herself as an extrovert. She is also quiet and brooding. She is rather introspective and has strong emotional intelligence. She also says she broods and thinks too much. What I like most about her is her way of thinking. She is nuanced and she goes to the heart of the matter of an issue, and also thinks outside the box. Often talks about the depth something has and about unpacking things. Her interests are an eclectic blend: Russian history, linguistics, philosophy, anarchism.

She is very warm and caring, but also extremely self-critical and self-effacing. She suffers from anxiety and depression. She is a dedicated activist, hard working, and professional in demeanor. Very worldly and sophisticated, especially regarding sex. Likes BDSM and alternative beauty. She is passionate and intense, has a strong presence belying her small and frail body. I shook her hand once. She was a very strong grip, even though her hands are small and bony.

Hannah (August 5, 1987) is a rather compassionate and nurturing person. She has a very sweet disposition, and I think of her as very maternal. Most of her work is devoted to reaching out and helping people who are disabled. She loves pet animals and possesses many pet cats and turtles. Corporeal body. Last time I saw her in person she completely glomped me (big, smothering hug). Her writing is intelligent and eloquent, often lengthy and detailed, and has many sources.

Mary (February 24, 1991) is chipper and cheerful usually but also can be cantankerous. She often labels herself as an introvert, which is interesting because she is much more forthright and aggressive than Sophia is. I notice that her mental processing is more abstract. Takes graduate school in psychology and thus her attention is focused on therapy. Focuses heavily on feminism and takes it very seriously. Draws a clear line from what is expected of partners, at least on OKCupid. Is polyamorous.

Maya (December 15, 1986) has a difficult personality. She is quiet, brooding, unassuming, a bit closed off. She is also reserved and mistrusting of most people, but if she counts you as a friend she is caring, selfless, and devotional. Her intellect is penetrating and goes to the heart of the matter. Often talks about the depth something has and about unpacking things. Her thinking is very intuitive and spacial. Her abilities in music, philosophy, and chess are versatile and broad ranging. Has a small body but has a powerful aura. Unfortunately she has a violent streak and is a very jealous person. Kinky. She is also rather diabolical and manipulative.


Last edited by Bogdan574 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1439
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan574 wrote:
Quote:
Anyway, shouldn't the traits coming from within be a trait of the odd signs under your theory? I have problems with even those configurations of masculine (odd) and feminine (even) signs. They're patriarchal inversions of what the masculine and feminine originally were. I could describe this with your own terminology

Yes, my mistake. The sidereal odd signs tend to act from their own motivation. Sidereal even signs tend to look to others for support and verification. Even signs are more comfortable with interaction with others. Of course the planets have the final say. Sidereal odd signs are more solar, even signs more lunar. That is why I began the discussion of signs on the Lost Zodiac site with a discussion of these two lights.

Bogdan, we need to have the complete birth data in order to judge a horoscope. The day of birth isn't enough. The ascendant degree is the key to the chart because the ascendant ruler, its position and aspects are all very important. You'll find ample support for this principle in ancient texts. Also we need the ascendant degree to note the position, degree and aspects of the all-imortant Moon. Experienced astrologers can't properly judge a chart without a birth time. The ascendant degree also marks the houses and whether planets are placed in positions favoring success in life.

Today I hope to post charts on the "Saturn, Jupiter, Sagittarius" topic with published biographical information on the charts. If you have the timed birth data for charts with Sagittarius emphasis, it would be helpful to post one or two of them there.

Thank you,
Therese
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Bogdan574



Joined: 06 Nov 2013
Posts: 59
Location: United States

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And one more reply Therese:

Quote:
Any area of the ecliptic/sky has an observable energy that can influence planets. It doesn't matter what name you call it. Bogdan, you keep playing the same tune over and over without considering that valid observations are indeed part of astrology.


I'm not denying that observations are a valid part of astrology. I just think that many "observations" people make are heavily skewed in the dogmas of tropical astrology. And the "observations" made by tropical astrologers is largely unsound. It is a result of erroneously judging what people's signs are on the one hand and on the other hand of downright making things up.

And I already spoke of how making "observations" of the sidereal signs based on the tropical zodiac is bad. I agree that there is some similarities you can gleam between the tropical signs and the sidereal signs whose place they stand in, but it is small. I hope I made myself clearer.

The reason why I wrote about a bunch of people's personality traits and listed their DOB is to talk about people's character with none of the baggage of astrology with it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RodJM



Joined: 02 Feb 2014
Posts: 82
Location: Tasmania!

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a fascinating discussion this is! Smile

Bogdan574 wrote:

The reason why I wrote about a bunch of people's personality traits and listed their DOB is to talk about people's character with none of the baggage of astrology with it.


That is the best way to verify and substantiate any of the zodiac sign personality traits. One has to be objective in analyzing human behavior, of course a computer would be the "best" way to do it, in order to be completely objective. However, to do that, it would require extensive and very broad social analysis techniques, we should be approaching this subject of human behavior without the distortion of preconceived ideas about "fitting" personality traits to zodiac signs.
_________________
Libra Sun/ Pisces Moon/ Sagittarius Rising
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil



Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 51

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan,

Interesting thread. My question to you (and anyone else) is about odd vs. even numbers. In antiquity, odd numbers were considered masculine, and even numbers feminine. This is almost universally noted. Numbers: Their History and Meaning, by Graham Flegg, gives a typical discussion of this in terms of Pythagorean theory. This can also be explored here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta16.htm Jim Tester’s acclaimed and widely cited academic work, The History of Western Astrology, also notes the masculinity of odd numbers and the femininity of even numbers as related to the zodiac.

Very interestingly, it seems that people today tend to subconsciously associate the odd and even numbers with masculine and feminine, respectively: http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2011/08/05/are-numbers-male-and-female/

In your “Lost Zodiac” thread, you describe each sign with their traditional gender associations, alternating between male and female in accordance with the typical traditional scheme: Aries is Masculine, Taurus feminine, Gemini masculine, etc. (This is done via your use of “his” or “her” within each sign description.) However, you begin your sign descriptions by noting that “Taurus, not Aries, is the traditional leader of the zodiac”, and you conclude by noting that “Aries was traditionally the last sign of the zodiac, and not first as the moderns often believe”. (I'd interject that many traditional western astrologers actually are familiar with the MUL.APIN, for instance, and might feel their "tropical" viewpoint supported there.) In any event, wouldn’t this make Taurus, the "true" first sign, not Aries, masculine? Why wouldn’t all the signs be of switched gender, if we are shifting their order by one?

Phil

PS- Konrad, thanks for the info you mention below. I just removed the trailing "." from each link.


Last edited by Phil on Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:12 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 685

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
This can also be explored here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta16.htm.


Phil,

this link isn't working for me, can you give another?

EDIT: actually, it is fine. There is a '.' at the end of the address nullifying the link.
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 685

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You make a good point, Phil. I have actually been sitting on this for a number of months, but I may as well communicate it now.

I had a problem with the Tropical zodiac as it struck me as a calendar and not much else, so I went Sidereal. I then couldn't rationalise the rulership scheme or the genders (or sect) of signs. I have now melded the inlfuences together in the spirit that I believe the Mesopotamians and early Hellenes were living in.

I still use the Babylonian measurement of Aldebaran at 15 Taurus but I count the sign of the Equinox as "one". So in my system, Pisces is ruled by Mars; Aries by Venus and so on. I have a theory on why the Sun rules the sign after the Summer Solstice but that isn't really anything other than an intuition at this time. Obviously, the rulership scheme is derived from that point.

My thinking was really related to Bogdan's claim that the ancients saw Taurus as the first sign - it is quite obvious from their existing seals that the Bull was considered so important because it was the constellation in which the Sun and Moon traversed at the time of their New Year. I merely have updated the rulership scheme to fit with where the Equinox falls, and I am seeing good results with it. It bothered me that the Sun would eventually rule a sign in which is was at its lowest point in the sky, and I no longer have that issue!
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1439
Location: California, USA

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
Quote:
Interesting thread. My question to you (and anyone else) is about odd vs. even numbers. In antiquity, odd numbers were considered masculine, and even numbers feminine. This is almost universally noted...

Phil, on my web site I've gone into great detail about the symbolism of odd and even numbers and signs in the sidereal zodiac. My view of the sidereal zodiac is very different from Bogdan's. I don't know why Bogdan chose "lost zodiac" as the title of his thread since "Lost Zodiac of the Stars" has been the title of my web site for many years.

In the sidereal zodiac Aries is the first sign, and it is odd--masculine, Taurus is even, feminine, and so on with the remaining signs of the zodiac. Bogdan has referred to western sidereal writings of the Fagan school for his thread. I don't believe Cyril Fagan considered number symbolism in his writings.

Please realize that Bogdan's view of signs is unique to himself. He has combined symbolism from diverse sources without consideration of a theoretical foundation. I have dealt with sidereal foundation principles in my writings which I believe reflect the true nature of the sidereal zodiac. My work with the sidereal zodiac has been in process for many years (from 1974), and now incorporates principles from recent interpretations of classical texts. Bogdan is fairly new to astrology (Born in 1990---his chart is on the Solunars web site.)

I have no desire to debate the zodiac issue with Bogdan. I only wanted to note that number symbolism is as important in the sidereal zodiac as in the tropical zodiac, but has not been considered by the Fagan school of astrology. "Male" and "female" have different interpretations in the sidereal zodiac as noted on my web site. In the discussion of each sign of the zodiac I've taken number symbolism into consideration.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm


Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1439
Location: California, USA

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As number symbolism is an important part of astrology, I've opened another thread for discussion of this topic. Phil, I've copied part of your question to that thread. I hope that is O.K.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=87545#87545
Number Symbolism and the Sidereal Zodiac
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
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