skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

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

Skyscript Astrology Forum

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



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:

So what are the actual traits of the tropical signs that may pose a problem in the transfer to the southern hemisphere?


Here's one lens on it.

http://www.joannewickenburg.com/id6.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3518
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:


Making the serious point that if you say both Zodiacs 'work' in effect you are saying neither 'works'. (Same for house systems). In the way we usually mean work of course, as in real or applicable to the life of a singular, unique or distinct human being.


how does one cut out all the excess in astrology? it seems the practitioners only like adding to the excess, or beating each other over the head about how their astrology is the one true astrology and the others are mistaken.. it reminds me of religion in so many ways with fanatical adherents from different schools.. when will people grow up would be my next question, lol..

is astrology something that can't be taken apart to be analyzed separately? is saturn in scorpio the same as saturn in libra or is there one zodiac correct and the other wrong? ps - saturn is presently in scorpio and libra if you believe both are correct.. maybe the problem is in people being attached to being correct, or not wrong.. if people could get over that, maybe they would discover something beyond that..

how does one apply the tropical zodiac in the southern hemisphere (and is it a problem)? i think that is the general question of the thread.. we keep getting sidelined with the various conversations, mine included.

i haven't studied southern hemisphere charts a lot. i don't have a concrete definitive answer. my feeling at this point is to apply the tropical zodiac the same way to both hemispheres.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1483
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx, thanks for the link, a refresher course for me. A question is:

(1) Does the seasonal cycle Joanne describes need to be more than symbolic?

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

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

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

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

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

Taurus: "The house of Taurus in your birth chart describes the area of your life where you need to display this concern for getting results in various ways.

I think what is going on here is symbolic extrapolation without any research behind it. This is the type of astrological analysis that needs to be very carefully looked at and (in my opinion) discarded.

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

So I don't see that the seasonal zodiac cycle needs to be tied to the northern hemisphere. What can't it simply be symbolic of a general annual cycle?
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5023
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James_M wrote
Quote:
on the next mystery challenge i plan on offering a chart from the southern hemisphere.. whether someone will actually talk about the important role stars play in a delineation.. it never seems to get discussed


On using fixed stars in the tropical zodiac the main problem in utilising these in mystery chart exercises is quite basic: the lack of a timed chart! Two methods of working with fixed stars: parans and declination of stars to planets cannot be done without a timed chart. However, one very popular method of utilising fixed stars can be used in mystery chart delineation. This is ecliptical projection of a fixed star on to a zodiacal degree. With this approach stars only appear to move through the tropical zodiac a degree approximately every 72 years. We can therefore use the position of outer planets and nodes to arrive at an approximate year for a chart fairly easily. This allows us to accurately estimate the zodiacal placement of a fixed star.

To clarify here I mean fixed stars in constellations both on and outside the ecliptic. Tropicalists dont utilise a version of the sidereal zodiac to work with fixed stars. This is because the zodiacal constellations are not synonymous with the sidereal zodiac since the former are not of equal size. For example, in the night sky the constellation of Virgo is over twice the size of the constellation of Capricorn.

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


Last edited by Mark on Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:43 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1483
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Quote:
Tropicalists don't utilize a version of the sidereal zodiac to work with fixed stars. This is because the zodiacal constellations are not synonymous with the sidereal zodiac since the former are not of equal size.

The 27 lunar mansions do a much better job of isolating groups of stars if tropical astrologers want to use stars as influencing zodiac signs. The only problem (as in any star references in the tropical zodiac) is that the boundaries constantly shift over time.

A question I often wonder about is whether southern hemisphere births might reflect or "tune into" stars and constellations south of the ecliptic while northern hemisphere births respond to northern stars. The constellations of the zodiac, of course, lie on the ecliptic itself.

One example I give of lunar mansion influence in the tropical zodiac is the two halves of tropical Scorpio: The first half contains underlying stars of Virgo while the second half has the background stars of the scales of Libra. If you study the lives of persons with the Sun or planets in either of these two halves (in general as the boundaries keep shifting), you'll find two different types of people.

A number of Jyotish texts now cover stellar influence in the lunar mansions. This is a research area, however, as sometimes these characteristics need to be refined and adjusted. There is a table on my web site of tropical boundaries for the mansions and the underlying stars: http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/amansions.htm

I think I remember Rob Hand saying once that he found the general constellational or asterism (a smaller group of stars) meanings more helpful in delineation than individual fixed stars. But that's only a vague memory, so shouldn't be taken as indisputable fact.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5023
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Quote:
The 27 lunar mansions do a much better job of isolating groups of stars if tropical astrologers want to use stars as influencing zodiac signs. The only problem (as in any star references in the tropical zodiac) is that the boundaries constantly shift over time.


We dont need to get into the Indian mansions to do this. For want of a better word the 'western', astrological tradition can assist us. The tradition has never treated all the stars in a constellation as a lump as you seem to be suggesting. Ptolemy explains which planetary natures different parts of constellations have. Also we find reference to stars position within a constellation modifying their delineation. For example, Algol is literally the severed head of the Gorgon.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Quote:
A question I often wonder about is whether southern hemisphere births might reflect or "tune into" stars and constellations south of the ecliptic while northern hemisphere births respond to northern stars. The constellations of the zodiac, of course, lie on the ecliptic itself.


This is very relevant if you work with parans or stars co-arising with planets. Clearly, some stars are not visible from certain locations on earth.For example, because he was born in Hawaii Obama had the star Rigil Kentaurus (aka Alpha Centauri, Toliman, or Bungula) on his MC. However, this star is invisible in most of the northern hemisphere. So in terms of fixed stars southern hemisphere births are different. Another issue is that many of the southern constellations were discovered relatively recently to northern hemisphere explorers. Hence we dont have the amount of astrological lore in our tradition for these stars excluding ancient constellations such as Centaurus and Argo Navis. That is why I think in the case of these stars its especially useful to look at the lore of others cultures too i.e. India, China, Polynesia, Incas, Africa etc.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Quote:
One example I give of lunar mansion influence in the tropical zodiac is the two halves of tropical Scorpio: The first half contains underlying stars of Virgo while the second half has the background stars of the scales of Libra. If you study the lives of persons with the Sun or planets in either of these two halves (in general as the boundaries keep shifting), you'll find two different types of people.


I dont see how a detailed discussion of the Indian Nakshatras in comparison to the tropical signs really fits into this thread. I believe you have already set up threads on the sidereal forum that discuss the astrological influence of the Nakshatras if people want to explore that. Its not that the topic itself is unintersting. Its just that this particular thread doesn't seem the right place to get into this.

Your also suggesting the sidereal backdrop to a tropical sign changes its whole nature. I dont mean to be indelicate but this sounds like stealth siderealism by the backdoor.

That doesn't mean tropicalists can exclude the influence of the fixed stars of the traditional constellations in the signs. For example, the stars of Scorpius are currently contained within much of tropical Sagittarius. Some of the degrees of tropical Sagittarius are therefore influenced by these stars. However, tropicalists see this kind of influence in relation to specific fixed stars influencing particular degrees rather than entire constellations changing the nature of a tropical sign.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Quote:
I think I remember Rob Hand saying once that he found the general constellational or asterism (a smaller group of stars) meanings more helpful in delineation than individual fixed stars. But that's only a vague memory, so shouldn't be taken as indisputable fact.


What I have read Hand say is firstly, the fatalstic melodramatic delineations of fixed stars in Vivian Robson's book are not that useful. I agree with him its better to focus on a star's planetary nature than go with the highly prescriptive delineations of Robson. These frequently have little historical authenticity in terms of reflecting traditional attitudes.

Hand recommends going back to Ptolemy's description of stars by different planetary nature within each constellation. I suppose that does effectively reduce constellations to smaller groupings of asterisms. However, he never suggested that we shouldn't work with individual stars astrologically. I think you are misrepresenting him in that respect.

He also thinks that if you are going to use the method of ecliptical projection by putting a stars position on to a degree in the tropical zodiac you should work with stars fairly close to the ecliptic. Otherwise if you use stars well outside the ecliptic you end up with a real disconnect between the ecliptical projection degree and the degree the star might rise at in a specific location on earth.

I used to take that view too but I have to admit that my experience over the years is that ecliptical projection of stars well outside the ecliptic can still be uncannily accurate. As I see it ecliptical projection and local rising stars are totally different techniques which dont need to mix together. Ecliptical projection of stars gets a little silly though (in my view anyway) when astrologers link stars to zodiacal degrees when those stars are not even visible in the hemisphere in which a chart occurs.

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



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James,
Quote:
how does one cut out all the excess in astrology? it seems the practitioners only like adding to the excess, or beating each other over the head about how their astrology is the one true astrology and the others are mistaken.. it reminds me of religion in so many ways with fanatical adherents from different schools.. when will people grow up would be my next question, lol..


What do you mean by excess, or adding to?

It might help if astrologers refrained from saying their claims are real, true, work, etc. What we do find is an unknown celebrity birth time attracting certain times of birth from many astrologers with the small problem being s/he could have been born at numerous times on the same day. There is also the false ‘flat earth’ information put out by some astrologers. http://schoolofevolutionaryastrology.com/school/essence-of-ea/the-sou. The author seems to be arguing the autonomic nervous system, skin conductance responses , neurons, axons and synapses don't exist.

Quote:
is astrology something that can't be taken apart to be analyzed separately? is saturn in scorpio the same as saturn in libra or is there one zodiac correct and the other wrong? ps - saturn is presently in scorpio and libra if you believe both are correct.. maybe the problem is in people being attached to being correct, or not wrong.. if people could get over that, maybe they would discover something beyond that..


You could measure whether behaviour was supporting any of the 12 delineations for Saturn, from one astrologer at least as they can vary so widely. In the unlikely event the majority resonated to their tropical and. sidereal signs more so than the other 10, if the sample was large enough and results above chance this might warrant further investigation.

But the way most people get into astrology is probably the sun sign factor, and not seeing this as a chance 1/12 phenomena,, You might struggle to capture someone’s attention if you said they are both an Aries Sun - prefer to jump out of bed early in the morning, and a Pisces Sun -prefer to lie in bed all morning.

Quote:
how does one apply the tropical zodiac in the southern hemisphere (and is it a problem)? i think that is the general question of the thread.. we keep getting sidelined with the various conversations, mine included.


You can erect whatever model or create whatever system you want as we are operating with conventions not rules. Bogdan has recently knocked up another, perhaps unique, bunch of meanings on the sidereal forum. We, or most of us, like plausible and evidence based explanations. So it’s both a problem and not a problem.

If you are searching for a more detailed and clearer explanation of what horoscopy is, according to consensual reality at the moment, peruse Revilla’s posts within this related discussion. http://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?num=1352818842/0


Last edited by Nixx on Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:03 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1483
Location: California, USA

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx, those are not my quotes. They belong to someone else.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Nixx, those are not my quotes. They belong to someone else.


Thanks Therese corrected it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3518
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

just who do those mysterious quotes belong to! i don't know that i recognize any of it, LOL!

nixx - i enjoyed going to the link on the bottom of your last post and reading the first 2 pages on that thread. thanks for sharing that.

Nixx wrote:

It might help if astrologers refrained from saying their claims are real, true, work, etc.


it seems some of the people who practice astrology are very attached to their views - can't live without them.. this is why i liken astrology in the hands of these same people as much like a fundamental religion.. you are either with them or against them, even if you don't want to get caught up in their craziness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:


it seems some of the people who practice astrology are very attached to their views - can't live without them.. this is why i liken astrology in the hands of these same people as much like a fundamental religion.. you are either with them or against them, even if you don't want to get caught up in their craziness.


To seperate someone from their money with chart readings or books presupposes some attachment, you might argue without this attachment even more ethical considerations arise.

Astrology is a religion, or series of, or sometimes the cult of the one, which has a Monadian irony to it.

I don't see a lot of fundamentalism or entrenched positions in the more academic spheres although people have strong views, and disagree here and there. There is the attack is the best form of defence against anxiety behavior as well to factor in.


Last edited by Nixx on Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese,

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


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

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

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


Does she do this? Isn’t it the case the Aries (Sun) early riser and Pisces (Sun) later riser both have an attitude to their activity, or cognitions underpinning the behaviour. I think also we could argue these are the Sun's Arian or Piscean needs, within the normative language that the sign is the how a planet functions or expresses itself. Even though needs is not the word which best describes the solar principle. Need is often used to describe the Moon’s instinctual, impulsive, habitual ...responses to the environment. Whereas the Sun has more conscious objectives or wants. (fine line between a want and a need)

Perhaps you could provide 30 words on the Sun in Aries and we could analyse the content and use this information at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_%28psychology%29

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

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

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


What’s a cuspal sign ?

Initiator might evoke the emergent buds on the trees, pioneer and originator seems a bit looser as a seasonal - spring association. Maybe the first plant formations millions of years ago, then the first flower might be seen as pioneering/originating, or a new mutant flower.

Quote:
Taurus: "The house of Taurus in your birth chart describes the area of your life where you need to display this concern for getting results in various ways.

I think what is going on here is symbolic extrapolation without any research behind it. This is the type of astrological analysis that needs to be very carefully looked at and (in my opinion) discarded.


Good luck starting again. I've already posted on how the various Natal truth claims can be explored, (time, money, psychologists, and lots all of these things).

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

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

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

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


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

How or why did you become interested in astrology Therese? I think you said you switched zodiacs, or sort of. As you might know from your psychological studies when people change beliefs they were either not entertained all that seriously in the first place, or semantically encoded or new evidence appears which shatters them. Where do you fit in here?

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


I think it can be, but you might need to adopt a very clear spiritual attitude to astrology or see it as nobbling into a ‘Deep‘ cyclical memory or somesuch, as a justification for using a horoscope as a cognitive / therapeutic tool, Back to Revilla's ether - Steinerist ponderings perhaps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 520
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


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

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


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

This implies that when the Hellenistic astrologers were writing about the characteristics of the signs, they must have been describing something very different from our contemporary zodiac! Because what they were looking at was a tropical Taurus "underlied" by sidereal Taurus - which, by your logic, would have bestowed it with quite different characteristics from tropical Taurus nowadays. And these characteristics would then have had to sneakingly change over time when the sidereal signs gradually shifted their positions... You can just as well do away with the tropical zodiac altogether!

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

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


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

Starry greetings
Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5023
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


Ah you spotted that too. I suppose most siderealists take the same view so its hardly surprising Therese sees it that way.

Michael Sternach wrote:
Quote:
This implies that when the Hellenistic astrologers were writing about the characteristics of the signs, they must have been describing something very different from our contemporary zodiac! Because what they were looking at was a tropical Taurus "underlied" by sidereal Taurus - which, by your logic, would have bestowed it with quite different characteristics from tropical Taurus nowadays. And these characteristics would then have had to sneakingly change over time when the sidereal signs gradually shifted their positions... You can just as well do away with the tropical zodiac altogether!


Its worth pointing out Michael that before Ptolemy (and for quite a while after him too) the hellenistic astrologers were not following a purely tropical zodiac. Its quite hard to be a tropical astrologer if you dont understand the workings of precession! So the whole tropical-sidereal debate didn't exist for those astrologers. I would say they tended to blend together the two ideas of a zodiac with fixed star characteristics and equinox/solstices associated with the signs.

The early astrologers of the classical period came to regard the vernal equinox as fixed and stationary, falling somewhere in the early degrees of Aries. But there was clearly a great deal of confusion and debate as to where exactly in Aries it could be found. Manilius, in the 1st century AD, writes of how unsettled astrologers were on the issue:

Quote:
Some ascribe these powers to the 8th degree, some hold they belong to the 10th nor was an authority lacking to give the 1st degree the decisive influence and control of days.


The calculation of the start of the astrological zodiac was an offset from the equinox point itself i.e. 8, 10 or 12 degrees. Hence the Irish sidereal astrologer Cyril Fagan described the hellenistic zodiac as 'tropical' since there was quite clearly never any notion of a fiducial fixed star.

The Greek astronomers had started the astronomical zodiac from the equinox point for centuries before Ptolemy first suggested this for the astrological zodiac in his work the Tetrabiblos. Although if Manilius was correct it appears some astrologers even before Ptolemy were using the equinox point itself to start the astrological zodiac.

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



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1483
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:
Quote:
How or why did you become interested in astrology Therese? I think you said you switched zodiacs, or sort of. As you might know from your psychological studies when people change beliefs they were either not entertained all that seriously in the first place, or semantically encoded or new evidence appears which shatters them. Where do you fit in here?


I've been away today, and came home to posts that will need an answer. I'm having trouble deciding how to reply because Mark doesn't like me to discuss sidereal principles--as far as I can tell anyway. As I said before, I only joined this conversation to correct a misunderstanding about the sidereal zodiac. So I'll have to take some time to decide how to respond to posts.

But, Nixx, to reply to your question above. I fell in love with astrology with the first astrology book I read in 1965. (See, I'm quite an oldster!) I think it was one of Grant Lewi's books. After that I read every astrology book I could get my hands on, and learned how to cast a chart and interpret it from Jeff Mayo at the London Faculty of Astrological Studies. I have quite a nice library of all those older books in nice hardback editions.

I had been an art teacher in the public schools, but decided that I had to learn psychology to become a better astrologer. So I went back to school and got my two psychology degrees, B.A. and M.A.

I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area at that time, and was very fortunate that my forward looking professors allowed me to use astrology in my counseling intern work. I remember that one professor told me that my use of astrology made clients feel very comfortable. This was all tropical, as that's what I learned at the Faculty. I continued my professional counseling work with the help of astrology.

Then one day I had a dream. I was looking at a very large wall of glass that was broken into little squares and I was told to "look east." (The little squares were the subdivisions of sidereal signs.) Also (and this is funny...I had another dream during my counseling time when I was sitting on a cow paddy, and was told very graphically that the kind of astrology I was doing was so much s...t.

About that time I came into contact with western siderealists living in the San Francisco Bay Area. Ken Bowser was one of those astrologers. I don't remember exactly how it happened, but after ten years as a tropical astrologer, they converted me to the sidereal zodiac. Sometime after that I had the wall of glass dream, and began to study India's astrology. The rest is history except that since the 1990s I've been studying Hellenistic and Classical astrology, which I believe really does belong in the sidereal zodiac. (Except for some of Ptolemy's concepts.)

Well, long answer to a short question.

Therese
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm


Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:25 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

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

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