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

The Lost Zodiac
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1409

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



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

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



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

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



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

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...


Last edited by Bogdan574 on Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:07 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



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

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RodJM



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

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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...
_________________
Libra Sun/ Pisces Moon/ Sagittarius Rising
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1409

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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):
Quote:
The Moon controls and directs not only the Sun’s light but the very course the Sun travels

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

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

Quote:
she [Taurus] rules the sexual organs

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

Quote:
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

Quote:
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

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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,

Quote:
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).


Last edited by Paul on Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1409

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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)

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



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

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

Quote:
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)


Quote:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
Quote:
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...

Quote:
Quote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1409

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan

I've removed one of your posts and amended another so that I could remove copyrighted material, the scans from Astrological Origins by Cyril Fagan.

I've PM'd you to include the post I removed so you can re-edit it and just quote the relevant parts.

Let me know when you see the PM and I'll remove this post, or will do so when you repost the one I removed!

Sorry, I know it's a pain!

Paul
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1409

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogdan574 wrote:

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.


Thanks for the reference Bogdan, I understand that it may have been the time of the new year, but this doesn't mean that the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians specified that Taurus begun the zodiac, which is a different thing, even if it seems subtle at first. I'm just curious if there's a reference which suggests the zodiac begins with Taurus.
To expand upon what I was thinking privately is that if we're saying that the constellation in which the equinox is placed should determine the beginning of the zodiac, then surely sidereal astrologers ought to use Pisces as their first sign of the zodiac today?

Quote:
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.


But are they supported by ancient texts, in your view? I took it to be that you were only 'including' that which you verified yourself - you said that you screened the data and if it didn't match you didn't include, which made me think you had done this screening with this idea too. So in your view is this idea actually supported by the ancient texts? As I've heard this a few times by individuals, mostly inspired by Fagan, but I cannot say for myself that the idea is justified. What do you think?

Quote:
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.


Right, but this brings us to the first problem, are we comparing traditional sidereal astrology with modern tropical astrology? Should we compare traditional sidereal astrology with traditionally inclined tropical astrology? We can look at late medieval astrologers or rennaissance astrologers for example (to allow for precession etc.). The problem can be that modern western astrology, in my opinion, tended to rose tint all the signs so that they all read slightly more romanticised. Can we do the reverse, as a control, and see if for example Scorpio had traits of Sagittarius as well?

For me, this idea is far from demonstrated, it would be nice if someone actually demonstrated this to be the case with clarity, rather than, what I think Fagan does, which is to state it as a probable truth, and then take one or two obvious examples to support it. But really we should see Capricorn becoming more like Sagittarius, and Aries becoming like Pisces as well.

Quote:
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.


Right, but, just to reiterate my point, that is true of both tropical and sidereal astrologers. So really what we may discover is that modern western astrology has airbrushed sign descriptors, and indeed placed emphasis on sign descriptions, in a way that traditionally inclined astrologers didn't - whether those astrologers used tropical or sidereal being less important!

Something else to consider I think.

Quote:
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.


Just to consider this, as I think it's an important point to make, the case would be altogether more compelling if, for example, in addition to tropical astrologers apparently, as is attested, giving Scorpio traits from Libra, that they also gave traits to Scorpio from Sagittarius, namely that modern western astrologers suggest that Sagittarius is "bitter, irascible, rapacious and wicked" etc. And yet we don't see this happen.

Quote:
Yes they do...


No, just taking one example as the same thing applies to the others.
Regarding Taurus, you say:
Quote:
Her detriment body is Mars, most unfitting for Taurus, while her fall body is most likely Saturn or Uranus (Scorpio’s exultant).


So Mars is in detriment in Taurus, and Saturn or Uranus are likely in fall. However the table shows something else. We see Saturn exalting in Libra. Which would put its fall in Aries.

Quote:
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.


Well really I am taking that what you are putting forth is a lost zodiac which each idea screened against the three ancient authors - which is what you suggested. Really I am only going by what you are saying, but clearly there is more than what you were saying originally which is my whole point. In juxtaposing things from ancient sources alongside things which really are not, we are inferring something about them as we're not clear in which point is established from an ancient source and which is not. This is really my whole point for posting.

If we are going by what ancient astrologers did with regards the zodiac (which is what you suggested you were doing) then we do not need to imagine or reinvent what the exaltation may be, we already know. But if instead we're inventing A NEW way to use the zodiac, as opposed to recovering a 'lost' one, then your theories become more a focus.

I hope this makes sense. Btw you mention the exaltations etc. in every summary of the signs of the zodiac so I took them to be of at least relative importance.

Quote:

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.


So what is the most important part?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1171
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
Quote:
Instead we have a modern astrologer, namely you [Bogdan] 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).

This is a good summation of what Bogdan is doing here, despite what he might otherwise say.

And Bogdan, you need to reference the diagram you lifted from my web site, posted on 22 April (cite web site, article and author) or delete all reference to that diagram of planet alignment with the zodiac. Professional writers know that it's important to cite the work of others if they are taking ideas from those authors or teachers.

You don't seem to be aware of your responsibility when using the words and ideas of others. You haven't cited references except for a list of sources at the end of the 12 signs you crafted within a few days of concentrated writing. There is no way of knowing whose ideas you are copying, as there are no specific references throughout the writing. This is, strictly speaking, legally questionable. This type of omission wouldn't be allowed in professional journals.

The nature of the 12 astrological signs isn't a topic that can be easily summarized in a few days of stream-of-consciousness writing, especially if concepts are lifted from various undocumented sources and authors.

However, Bogdan, you seem to enjoy writing. There are many literary avenues that might appreciate your contributions on other topics. But writing with authority on astrological topics will take a great deal more study and practical application on your part.
_________________
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: Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Thanks for the reference Bogdan, I understand that it may have been the time of the new year, but this doesn't mean that the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians specified that Taurus begun the zodiac, which is a different thing, even if it seems subtle at first. I'm just curious if there's a reference which suggests the zodiac begins with Taurus.
To expand upon what I was thinking privately is that if we're saying that the constellation in which the equinox is placed should determine the beginning of the zodiac, then surely sidereal astrologers ought to use Pisces as their first sign of the zodiac today?


Yes, by that logic Pisces would indeed be the first sign today. That is why when I described Taurus I said "traditionally" such as "Taurus was traditionally regarded as the first sign." It arguably isn't now, but it was definitely so in the past.

Quote:
But are they supported by ancient texts, in your view? I took it to be that you were only 'including' that which you verified yourself - you said that you screened the data and if it didn't match you didn't include, which made me think you had done this screening with this idea too. So in your view is this idea actually supported by the ancient texts? As I've heard this a few times by individuals, mostly inspired by Fagan, but I cannot say for myself that the idea is justified. What do you think?


What idea? Taurus being the first sign? Well, yes, because Fagen did his research into astrology as it was practiced in Ancient Egypt. And according to the research he had done, Taurus was given the role as the first sign in Ancient Egypt. Unfortunately, the Ancient Egyptians didn't give us any primary sources. We have to deal with Rhetorius, Valens etc. who don't have comments in that area. But Fagen's research into Ancient Egypt was sound. It makes sense, since the Ancient Egyptians based astrology by observing the night sky.

Quote:
Right, but this brings us to the first problem, are we comparing traditional sidereal astrology with modern tropical astrology? Should we compare traditional sidereal astrology with traditionally inclined tropical astrology? We can look at late medieval astrologers or rennaissance astrologers for example (to allow for precession etc.). The problem can be that modern western astrology, in my opinion, tended to rose tint all the signs so that they all read slightly more romanticised. Can we do the reverse, as a control, and see if for example Scorpio had traits of Sagittarius as well?

For me, this idea is far from demonstrated, it would be nice if someone actually demonstrated this to be the case with clarity, rather than, what I think Fagan does, which is to state it as a probable truth, and then take one or two obvious examples to support it. But really we should see Capricorn becoming more like Sagittarius, and Aries becoming like Pisces as well.


For the first paragraph, no there was no traditional tropical astrology. Astrology began as sidereal astrology because it was based on observing the actual night sky. It wasn't until Ptolemy when things changed. Then, astrologers decided to fix the night sky on Aries starting on March 21, ignoring the constellations changing their positions for millennia. That is how tropical astrology came to be.

For your second paragraph, research could be done in that area to see if, for instance, Sagittarius becoming like Scorpio and Capricorn becoming like Sagittarius. I have no problem with research. However, as I am forced to give an answer now, from this point it seems unlikely. It doesn't make sense because the signs have processed "backwards" over time, not "forwards". March 21 used to be when the sun was in Aries, now the sun is in Pisces, 2000 years later the sun will be in Aquarius.

Quote:
Right, but, just to reiterate my point, that is true of both tropical and sidereal astrologers. So really what we may discover is that modern western astrology has airbrushed sign descriptors, and indeed placed emphasis on sign descriptions, in a way that traditionally inclined astrologers didn't - whether those astrologers used tropical or sidereal being less important!

Something else to consider I think.


Sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately I don't fully understand it. What is the difference between sign descriptors and sign descriptions?

Quote:
So Mars is in detriment in Taurus, and Saturn or Uranus are likely in fall. However the table shows something else. We see Saturn exalting in Libra. Which would put its fall in Aries.


Supposing my suggestions are in fact correct, then Saturn would be in fall in both Aries and Taurus. But as it stands right now, Saturn is exalted in Libra and Scorpio has no exultant (some would say Uranus though). For instance what bodies are exalted in Libra, in this case Saturn, would be in fall in the opposite sign, Aries. That same logic applies to all the signs.

Quote:
In juxtaposing things from ancient sources alongside things which really are not, we are inferring something about them as we're not clear in which point is established from an ancient source and which is not. This is really my whole point for posting.


I'll have to devote an entire new post for that.

Quote:
If we are going by what ancient astrologers did with regards the zodiac (which is what you suggested you were doing) then we do not need to imagine or reinvent what the exaltation may be, we already know. But if instead we're inventing A NEW way to use the zodiac, as opposed to recovering a 'lost' one, then your theories become more a focus.


I see what you're saying here. If you want to go to only the ancient sources that is fine by me. In fact, I would even like it if you bring up all the ancient sources and compare them to the descriptions I made of the planets and signs in this very thread. Test my ideas for yourself! See which ones are true to the words of the ancient astrologers and which aren't. I invite you.

If you want to base your own astrology solely on what ancient astrologers said, that's fine by me too. That is actually my second option. I would have just read the ancient astrologers if only I had more ancient sources.

Speaking of which, do you have any ancient sources I could research also. I would love to peruse over more ancient sources. I wish there was more out there.

Thanks for your comments. I hope they cleared things up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



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

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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).


No, I really did remove all conceptions of astrology beforehand. That mostly ended up being tropical astrology because tropical astrology was what I "grew up with" and they were ideas I was most ingrained with. In my entire thread, I bring tropical astrology comparatively briefly. It is there, but it wasn't like I spent all my time arguing against tropical astrology not even close.

My descriptions of the planets (their characteristics and domains) for instance, are brought up from Valens. (The link to Valen's description of the planets is there. Check it out.) The part where I talk about the archetypes are brought from a variety of different myths and legends. It makes sense, since I was at those sections talking about the various myths and archetypes inspired by the planets. However, the parts that describe the planets' characters and what parts of life they rule over comes from Valens. I do not bring up tropical astrology once when discussing the planets.

My sources for the sign trigons (or elements if you prefer to call them that) come from the statistics conducted by Pareptis (whose links are also available). My descriptions of the signs qualities (fixed, mutable, cardinal) come from Fagen's astrological origins. Once more, I do not mention tropical astrology at all, let alone make constant comparisons.

The only place you can remotely claim I did such a thing is when I describe the signs. But the comparisons of how the signs are originally described and how tropical astrology describes them are brief. Most last only a sentence. I do not, for instance, constantly compare how the ancients originally described Taurus with tropical Taurus, nor do I do that for any other sign.

My descriptions of the signs are sourced from the writings of Valens, Rhetorius, Firmicius, and Mannilius. I do also source the descriptions from modern sources like Soluners.net and Alex-Blaire's website. But, like I said, they are pretty consistent with the writings of the ancient astrologers above.

Once again, you are fully welcome to go over the writings of Valens and the rest, and compare their descriptions to the descriptions I gave to the planets and signs. Using any other ancient sources would also really be appreciated.

One more thing...

Quote:
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).


Where am I ignoring entire schemes of ancient astrology? Point it out. If you are referring to the schemes of exaltation and domicile, I'm not ignoring it at all. It's all there. (I describe Aries as being ruled by Mars and exalted by the Sun. Likewise, I describe Libra as being ruled by Venus and exalted by Saturn while the Sun is in fall and Mars is in detriment. And likewise, I also write that Venus is in detriment in Aries and Saturn in fall in Aries.) I give the same thorough treatment to all the signs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogdan574



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

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You don't seem to be aware of your responsibility when using the words and ideas of others. You haven't cited references except for a list of sources at the end of the 12 signs you crafted within a few days of concentrated writing. There is no way of knowing whose ideas you are copying, as there are no specific references throughout the writing. This is, strictly speaking, legally questionable. This type of omission wouldn't be allowed in professional journals.


The signs can be said to be "crafted" in the sense that I took the many points made on Soluners and other web sites, verified them in comparison to Valens and the other ancient astrologers, and then glued them together to form an overall picture or archetype, which is represented well by the picture before each sign. All I really did was take a bunch of bullet points and notes and rewrote them into a cohesive paragraph.

However, I ultimately did not change or distort anything. My descriptions are pretty consistent with that of the ancient astrologers. The modern sources I used are pretty consistent with the ancient astrologers also, as they are consistent with each other.

True, I didn't site every single little reference, but this is more a complaint of formality than of substance. Anyway, plenty of nonfiction books such as biographies include their sources at the end but don't quote every point they draw from a source. At most they might mark a number that references to a source in the bibliography.

Quote:
The nature of the 12 astrological signs isn't a topic that can be easily summarized in a few days of stream-of-consciousness writing, especially if concepts are lifted from various undocumented sources and authors.

However, Bogdan, you seem to enjoy writing. There are many literary avenues that might appreciate your contributions on other topics. But writing with authority on astrological topics will take a great deal more study and practical application on your part.


Agreed. That is why I said my Lost Zodiac was only a beginning at one of the earliest paragraphs. I wrote that the Lost Zodiac was to begin a discussion, and we're having one right now.


Last edited by Bogdan574 on Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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