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

Do Tropical Traits Reflect Underlying 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
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1251
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
[...] This thread, as I understand, is the examination of a particular idea, namely that actually both sidereal and tropical are valid because, unbeknownst to tropical astrologers, they are actually using the sidereal zodiac. [...]

Yes, my understanding of the topic is the same. (Incidentally, I don't happen to agree with that particular position, but that's a different question.) But even if we were all to agree on the qualities embodied by a certain section of the zodiac, whether we call it Pisces or Aries, there would still be a difference with regard to the rulership of that section. The one post that I did remove argued for using tropical rather than sidereal rulerships, which of course is anyone's prerogative, but makes the post inappropriate to the sidereal forum. It is rather like arguing against traditional rulerships on the traditional forum.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
map



Joined: 23 Nov 2013
Posts: 20

Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sorry if anyone got hurt by my post and i am very sure i have not written anything in that way. I was just trying to share what i felt in justifying the racing career. Anyway, it is ok with me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1138
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
Quote:
This thread, as I understand, is the examination of a particular idea, namely that actually both sidereal and tropical are valid because, unbeknownst to tropical astrologers, they are actually using the sidereal zodiac. It is just about this, and it is not, to be clear, about whether sidereal is superior to tropical, or, for that matter, necessitates some counter-position whereby anyone ought to feel the need to come back with some argument that tropical is superior to sidereal. We do not need those arguments here and they help nobody and serve only to divide and distance ourselves from the very people who may be the most useful in serving to expand our own understanding and knowledge of the zodiac and the different ways people employ it.

I'm replying to this post first because it takes less time than responding to your long post, Paul. Yes, I think you've summarized the main concepts and ideas nicely here.

I would personally like to see a separate thread on the Indian forum that deals with Ernst Wilhelm's ideas about zodiacs. I'm familiar with his views and have carefully studied his "Mystery of the Zodiac' article.

It's unfortunate that we have the time difference between Europe and America. Often by the time I can work at the computer, Europe is going into late evening hours.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1138
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
Quote:
I guess what I'm trying to show is that throughout some period of time you have been consistent with claiming that the tropical signs are basically the underlying sidereal signs. That hasn't changed, what has changed is the logic employed to show it, and as I was trying to show from that example from your previous article, in some cases the logic has done a complete 180º turn.

Paul, let’s just say that my understanding of concepts has developed over the years, partly due to studying recent translations of ancient texts. We do change over time, you know... So I don’t think it’s productive to continue on this track. I am at the age where memory is failing, and it’s been a long time since I reviewed my past articles. As I’ve said, my current view is expressed in recent posts and in my Triplicity article. I do maintain that solar and lunar symbolism forms the rock solid basis for understanding the sidereal zodiac.

Quote:
I maintain that it has never been demonstrated that tropical astrologers are really using the sidereal zodiac, such that tropical signs have changed over time to reflect the sidereal signs.

Psychological traits of signs weren’t discovered until going into the 20th centry. Therefore, signs haven’t changed so much as discovered. I mentioned this earlier in this thread. I’m not talking about triplicities and the three modes, only about psychological traits now recognized by tropical astrologers.

Quote:
Therese wrote:
By internal focus I mean that motivation and strength comes from within. The person doesn’t look outside him or herself for verification or approval of his or her actions.

Paul replied:
Okay so to go back to what you said originally, the reason you assign the qualities of stubbornness to Aries is that it is the internalised variant of Mars? In that case are those qualities not true of Scorpio?

This relates to the dual domicile rulership of planets and signs. Each planet has an internal and external focus. So in Aries Mars is internal strength (masculine) and in Scorpio (a feminine sign) the focus of Mars is activity and linking with others. (I see how the term ‘activity’ can be confusing as to focus.)

Quote:
Considering that you believe that tropical astrologers have gotten this wrong...

I wish you would stop making statements like “tropical astrologers have gotten it wrong.” From the solar/lunar perspective, that view may be correct, but from the current tropical perspective male signs are activity oriented and female signs more internal.
Quote:

...can you point me to some source which demonstrates that the reason that Aries is stubborn is due to it being a masculine sign? At least in this way we can start to demonstrate your points effectively.

What kind of source are you looking for? Aries would tend toward stubbornness due to it being the sign of internal focus of Mars. That is, power and strength. So we combine the internal strength of the masculine with the driving force of Mars. Dale Earnhardt: a driven, determined, focused icon of car racing.

Quote:
Not quite, in the story of the blind men and the elephant, each blind man was perceiving a different part of the whole, and by only perceiving one part and not the whole, they all formed different conclusions about what it is they were experiencing.

O.K. point taken...bad analogy. (Note to self: Don’t try to think when you’re tired.)

Quote:
Therese wrote:
We won’t get far with finger pointing and telling the other person that they’re not getting it right. That only sets up an antagonistic platform.

Paul replied:
But isn't that exactly what you're saying? - that tropical astrologers have gotten it wrong, and really the sidereal zodiac is the 'true' one but tropical astrologers are secretly using it without knowing?

I’m not personally criticizing anyone, but only showing the underlying structure of the sidereal zodiac. It’s up to the tropical community to provide the underlying structure for their zodiac and to symbolically explain the traits they have observed in signs.

Quote:
But I do think it is completely without merit that tropical astrologers have altered the meaning of their signs consistently coinciding with precession such that over time tropical astrologers have been using the sidereal zodiac.

Paul, do you read what I write in these posts? Tropical astrologers haven’t altered sign meanings. Traits were only discovered in the 20th century. There is no alteration, only discovery.

Quote:
For example I remember a sidereal astrologer pointing out that Mars in Sidereal Aries for Hitler's chart is much more descriptive of his violent behaviour than fluffy Tropical Taurus which is tropical astrologers describe as being patient and calm.

Sidereal astrologers are considering the nature of Mars when they say this, since Aries is the domicile of Mars.

Quote:
But, for me, Mars in Taurus makes more sense, as I would expect more dignity from Mars in Aries. But I would expect Lord 1 corrupted/maltreated by Mars, a malefic out of dignity and Saturn, a malefic out of dignity and so on to be more descriptive.

This is, of course, a tropical view. But (a sidereal astrologer would reply), what about the supposed affinity of Taurus with the Moon and Venus?

Quote:
What do we end up with? All we can establish is that we each have interpretive differences, but just because we can establish a difference in focus and a difference in interpretive focus does not imply that the REASON for that difference is that one zodiac is secretly another zodiac in disguise, and even if we did, we haven't established that it's the sidereal zodiac with tropical not realising that it is secretly sidereal.

To develop this type of research we’d need to study a number of charts with (say) emphasis in sidereal Aries/tropical Taurus to see if (a) a Martial tone shows through in most cases or (b) other factors cited by tropical astrologers seem to be more important.

I would personally stay with standard symbolism: the nature of the ruling and exalted planet and the placement of planets in Egyptian terms. I wouldn’t consider such ideas as a ‘corrupted’ Mars in a sign of Venus. Theoretically in my view, Mars in a sign of Venus would be somewhat softened.

Quote:
Cyril Fagan, as far as I know, did not run a statistical analysis in order to arrive at his conclusion. Nor did you in your article, nor does people like Kenneth Bowser who casually states on the FAQ of his site that:
http://www.westernsiderealastrology.com/#!faq/c1s4j

For example, most of what is called Scorpio in terms of tropical zodiac reckoning is the constellation of Libra.

That’s not really true. Only a third of sidereal Libra has the stars of Libra.

Quote:
All I can say with certainty is that when I read your arguments about what tropical astrologers believe I do not recognise myself in there at all.

Then isn’t it time for you to set down your understanding of the tropical zodiac, noting the underlying theoretical structure? Then we’ll all understand the basis for your remarks.

I stand firm on solar/lunar symbolism as a key basis for the sidereal zodiac. That, and the reflection of ruling and exalted planets in individual signs plus triplicity lords. So basically I'm dealing with planetary symbolism. I consider Egyptian terms to be significant as well. That is, if (say) Mars is in its fall in the zodiac, but in its own terms, then that is a fortified Mars.

These are my basic principles used in interpretation.

Paul, if you set down the basis of the tropical zodiac as you understand it, then we can take any birth charts you suggest, and each of us can attempt to explain how the symbolism we support explains the lives of the chart owners.

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


Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:07 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1138
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
Paul wrote:
[...] This thread, as I understand, is the examination of a particular idea, namely that actually both sidereal and tropical are valid because, unbeknownst to tropical astrologers, they are actually using the sidereal zodiac. [...]

Yes, my understanding of the topic is the same. (Incidentally, I don't happen to agree with that particular position, but that's a different question...)

Martin, are you going to leave us with this tantalizing remark? I would certainly like to know your views on this subject.

I wouldn't say that both zodiacs are valid in the same way. I'd say that tropical astrologers have apparently done a fairly good job of utilizing observed traits in counseling situations. Tropical astrologers aren't using the sidereal zodiac as such. They're using observed traits in (I would assume) a productive way. Also, certain cycles as measured from solstices and equinoxes are valid (as apart from zodiac signs).
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Saturnhead



Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Posts: 503

Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:

This thread, as I understand, is the examination of a particular idea, namely that actually both sidereal and tropical are valid because, unbeknownst to tropical astrologers, they are actually using the sidereal zodiac. It is just about this, and it is not, to be clear, about whether sidereal is superior to tropical, or, for that matter, necessitates some counter-position whereby anyone ought to feel the need to come back with some argument that tropical is superior to sidereal. We do not need those arguments here and they help nobody and serve only to divide and distance ourselves from the very people who may be the most useful in serving to expand our own understanding and knowledge of the zodiac and the different ways people employ it.


Astrology is the sacred science. It must be up to each and every serious practitioner to agree on what works, and prove it through a scientific and mathematically precise analysis. There is no way to agree on what Zodiac is correct by using human psychological behavioural patterns.

Why can't the vastly experienced astrological minds on skyscript devise a predictive test using all the sophisticated Vedic techniques like Astavarga and Muhurta, through a Sidereal & Tropical Zodiac, and see which scores the highest?

There is so much astrological experience and knowledge on this forum - it's the only one I visit, and I learn new stuff every week.

It must be time to finally concoct an experiment, rather than spend endless hours pontificating via who has the largest astrological library.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1138
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:11 am    Post subject: Correcting a Misunderstanding Reply with quote

Paul, I see what you did in your critique of my Polarity article, claiming that I had done a reversal in my perspective. Actually, that's not true at all. Basically the polarity article is solid. What you did was jump on one set of terms in the article: Static and Dynamic. I see that I took those terms from John Gray, but in re-reading they aren't really appropriate for the focus of the article. I have changed them to 'Fixidity, Change and Gender.' I'm still making the same points today that I made in 2004. You focused on terms, but neglected to get the gist of what I was saying. Here are some examples from the article:

The actions of men are geared toward developing power and skills. Men are achievement oriented—they want to be competent and efficient in what they do. Self-satisfaction and a sense of power come from personal success and accomplishment.

As a sign of male polarity, Sagittarius is concerned with measures that can be practically applied in the real world. This sign is also extremely good at mobilizing its energies in the chosen direction to achieve the desired goal. [i.e. uses its own center of power]

Tropical Virgo: As sidereal Leo, this sign is very content to involve itself in its chosen work. As a sign of male polarity, the quality of creative work is much more important than praise and approval from others.

A man under stress or working on a problem will become very quiet, retreat to his cave and tune out the world. He will focus one-pointedly on his problem until it is solved. Asking someone else for help shows how weak and incompetent he is. If you offer him advice, he feels humiliated. A man wants to achieve his objectives by himself. His motto is "I can do it myself."

Here is the change I'm making in the article:

"John Gray also emphasizes what he calls the static/dynamic principle in relation to men and women. This is better described as tending to remain in one place (comfortable with habits) or welcoming change. In general women are very much at home with change and diversity, which can be shown in many ways. For example, women often enjoy changing their clothing or hair styles to suit their feelings. Men are much more likely to wear uniforms to show their status and position in the world. Over a period of many years men's clothing styles remain basically the same... (etc.)"

I've had to make only one change in the final table in the article. Static and Dynamic have become:
Male: Focus on self as the power center
Female: Tendency to look outside the self for advice and verification.

So I haven't done a 180 degree about face as you claimed. I only used terms that didn't really describe well what I was talking about. I made the error of taking those terms from John Gray. Below is the Polarity summery from the article. (Remembering that male and female relate to solar and lunar principles.)


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


Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:25 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
map



Joined: 23 Nov 2013
Posts: 20

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my observation, it is first the planets influence on the ascendant and its lord that decide the traits of a person and then of secondary importance are the signs. If such planets are in their favourite signs, effects will be much more pronounced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1251
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Martin, are you going to leave us with this tantalizing remark? I would certainly like to know your views on this subject.

Well, perhaps I spoke (or wrote) too hastily. I can't claim to know in much detail how modern(ist), psychologically oriented tropical astrologers interpret the signs, as my main interest is in traditional astrology. But among the vast majority of traditional authors, from Hellenistic times to modernity and across cultures (including India), I think there is a remarkable continuity and unanimity in the description of the zodiacal signs, irrespective of whether a particular author uses a tropical or sidereal zodiac. I would suspect that modern tropicalist authors were building on such traditional descriptions, adapting them to their needs, rather than starting from scratch using empirical observation.

In all of this, we should remember that the divergence between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs is far greater today than ever before in the history of horoscopic astrology. In the early centuries CE, it would have been almost entirely academic (in the popular sense of that word).
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1398

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

map wrote:
I am sorry if anyone got hurt by my post and i am very sure i have not written anything in that way. I was just trying to share what i felt in justifying the racing career. Anyway, it is ok with me.


Map

It's okay, I don't think anyone was hurt by your post. The reality is that here on skyscript we have many forums in which tropical astrology can be used, and, presumably, promoted, however this is explicitly the sidereal forum and the topic under discussion isn't to compete the two zodiacs. That's really important as this forum is a 'safe haven' for sidereal astrologers to practice their astrology free from external criticism from people like tropical astrologers. It may seem, on one level, that this very thread criticises tropical astrology and we may feel inclined to therefore defend it, but that is not, how I at least, understand it. Instead this is an attempt to, basically, reconcile the two zodiacs with the assertion that they're both measuring the same thing, but that it just happens to be sidereal.

But I don't think anyone was offended by the post, it's just that it doesn't tie into the spirit/ethos of this particular forum and this particular thread.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
It's unfortunate that we have the time difference between Europe and America. Often by the time I can work at the computer, Europe is going into late evening hours.


Therese

Yes, but for what it's worth, I don't expect immediate replies, even within the same day or several days. It may not be possible for me to reply to everything so timely either, but we can come back to our points as and when we get time at our own leisure. Obviously, as always happens, from time to time real life stuff and work commitments and so on can get in the way and we can need to spend less time on forums like these, and at other times have more time available to us.

Neptunehead wrote:
Why can't the vastly experienced astrological minds on skyscript devise a predictive test using all the sophisticated Vedic techniques like Astavarga and Muhurta, through a Sidereal & Tropical Zodiac, and see which scores the highest?


Neptunehead

I would say astrology is more of an art, with various ways to utilise that art and various opinions on the best approach to employing it. I would much rather we have the freedom to discern for ourselves which techniques to employ, which zodiac we get satisfaction from etc. than have some authoritative approach which would, out of necessity, ignore context and nuance. Needless to say astrology, whether tropical or sidereal, has never been satisfied by scientific or even statistical standards. Even if we ignore the zodiac altogether we can find plenty of room to disagree on. Ultimately skyscript's forums allow us to debate and 'compare notes' and try to recognise other views and understand why others think and feel as they do. Perhaps we can learn something from this, perhaps we just learn that we still prefer our own method/approach.

In any event, that's not what's being discussed here.

Martin Gansten wrote:
I can't claim to know in much detail how modern(ist), psychologically oriented tropical astrologers interpret the signs, as my main interest is in traditional astrology. But among the vast majority of traditional authors, from Hellenistic times to modernity and across cultures (including India), I think there is a remarkable continuity and unanimity in the description of the zodiacal signs, irrespective of whether a particular author uses a tropical or sidereal zodiac. I would suspect that modern tropicalist authors were building on such traditional descriptions, adapting them to their needs, rather than starting from scratch using empirical observation.


Martin

I pretty much echo your view entirely here. I likewise think that vast majority of traditional astrologers show great continuity in regards the zodiacal signs. I would just add to this that there is some change in modern western astrology in regards how signs/houses/planets are viewed and this is primarily as a result of the simplification and blending from the mnemonic devices by, chiefly, the Theosophical astrologers through the astrological alphabet. In this way signs can have their meanings altered by houses, houses have their meanings altered by signs, and both can have their meanings altered by planets.

If there is any change/discrepancy between sidereal signs and modern western tropical signs, it is not as a result of tropical astrologers using sidereal signs, and is a result of modern tropical astrologers having the boundaries blurred between signs, houses and planets.

However, this myth seems to persist and so I'm curious what the evidence is for it in case I have missed it.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1398

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Paul, let’s just say that my understanding of concepts has developed over the years, partly due to studying recent translations of ancient texts. We do change over time, you know...


Right, apologies if you felt I meant that change is indicative of contradiction. Instead I was trying to demonstrate not that the articles have changed, but that the logic has, in places, completely reversed, whilst the conclusion remains the same. It is as though the conclusion came first, and the evidence/logic used to support it is of secondary importance.

I'm going to stick to this point first. You take this up in your next post so I'm going to focus on this one first and explain why I'm using the previous article in more detail, and why I think that there is a contradiction inherent in it. It is not, to me at least, that your views have remained the same.

Now keep in mind that you've now updated the article. But what I was focusing on wasn't just one word, static/dynamic, as you claim, but rather on the exact reversal for the short description of, for example, female. Luckily I took a copy of the original article. In the original article this is how you summarise female, which we can take to be passive intellect, in so far as it relates to Aristotelian philosophy:

Quote:
Dynamic principle (moves outward)


This is the only time movement appears to be mentioned in the article. My point is that actually this is masculine/active intellect - a point I have reinforced by quoting from an external author better familiar with Aristotelian philosophy than we are. You conclude from this:

Quote:
These signs belong to the feminine polarity, and we see that the typical traits of tropical fire—acting from feelings, being at home with change, very expressive in relationships—all belong to the feminine gender
...
The point is that action from feelings and the concept of change belong to the Moon rather than the Sun. This is a key point of any discussion on gender preferences and behavior.


Hence we see it's not just a poorly worded definition, but actually we form a major conclusion from this idea of action or movement and associating it to the female gender, you describe this as a key point. But what I'm trying to show is that this idea of action from feelings as you put it here is an example of this dynamic outward moving association you have with the feminine back in 2004.

But all this disappears in the later article, yet the conclusions remain the same, namely that it's tropical astrologers who have it the wrong way around, when in fact if we take that 2004 quote and juxtapose it against the quote I provided from the Classics article I think it's more likely that we'd suggest that the 2004 article is incorrect.

So let's now look at the latest article too.

Quote:
One understanding is that the active intellect relates to a fixed and stable set of concepts


But compare this to my quote from the Classics article and we'll see that for Aristotle links the active intellect not necessarily with things fixed and stable, which implies a lack of dynamism or motion, but instead it is a principle/force which moves outward. In fact if you were to have taken your female description from 2004 of being dynamic and outward moving, and applied it to the masculine then we'd be much closer.

This is really important to understand, because when you say that tropical astrology considers aristotle's active intellect to be feminine. And I do not recognise that one bit. Instead I recognise that your article took the adjectives that we might associate with the active intellect, namely dynamism and moving outwards, and applied it to the feminine, and backed that up with a sense of dynamism and movement with your examples. So if anything, as I concluded above, it is your 2004 article which has gotten it reversed.

We can now look to see what the situation is in your current one and we see that this whole idea is dropped, which is probably a good thing, but the conclusion still remains the same.

This time the idea of the solar/lunar symbolism is more fully brought to bear, which is only teased at or hinted at in the 2004 article. But in focusing on this, we don't have any sense of difference between the sidereal and tropical. In the 2004 article you compared the two. Incidentally as I said before you validate your views before, not based on the sun and moon, but based on the rulership of signs as to whether they were masculine and feminine, but in doing so made some odd logical twists. This is exactly the criticism that Michael made of you twisting logic like a pretzel, and it has to be said insofar as the rulership issue goes, that really is true. Surely you admit this now? I understand you're distancing yourself from this article, and have edited it, but much of it remains the same, and we can't discount it entirely as it's the article Michael cited which lead to this discussion in the first place.

For example let me take this example again, in case I didn't make the point clearly enough before:
Quote:
Tropical Gemini is often an avid conversationalist, is curious about the world, sociable and friendly. This sign overlays sidereal Taurus, ruled by Venus and also the Moon’s exaltation sign. The Moon and Venus are sociable and friendly. As a sign, Taurus traditionally rules the throat and tongue used in speech.


You associate this area as being indicative of being Sidereal because Taurus, being feminine, is found under the rulership of Venus, a feminine planet.

But this makes two logical errors, as per my previous post, you then ignore tropical venus when it rules the same area of the sky, which would be a sidereally feminine sign, in favour of Mercury, which doesn't appear to be noteworthy for when it ruled tropical Gemini.

Secondly all the arguments you make for the signs rulership can be applied either way anyway. For example I could say that tropical Taurus is spot on because Taurus is a feminine sign and ruled by feminine planets, for example Venus. But insofar as this would precess back to Aries, clearly Mars is an inappropriate ruler for this feminine sign.

Do you understand what I mean?

This is why the logic is highly flawed and is formed from comparing apples to pears and basically making non-sequitor conclusions. And all of this is based on the same logic you employ in the latest article, namely that the only logical conclusion, as per Mr Spock, is that we're using the same 'energy', to use your term, when observing the zodiac - but by doing so you conflate the two zodiacs, and then simply pick and choose examples which support you, using a particular logic, which then systematically fails when you apply that logic across the board.

So it's not JUST about dynamic and static. This is about the idea that the tropical zodiac is secretly using the sidereal zodiac.

You have suggested in part this is due to masculine/feminine being reversed but, as I've demonstrated from my Classics citation, actually it is your 2004 article which is clearly reversed, and the latest article seems to adopt an entirely different approach which focuses more or less on simply stating that it's wrong rather than attempting to demonstrate it.

But let's take that statement and rationale used by it.

Quote:
One understanding is that the active intellect relates to a fixed and stable set of concepts, a link to a universal mainframe (hard drive), so to speak. A modern commentary states: "The active intellect...is more properly called the Agent Intellect, as it is the force...causing thoughts to pass from the potential to the actual."


Right but even the very citation you use here doesn't seem to be describing anything as fixed and stable. Rather those ideas are not the primary concern. As we can see from your citation, the idea of force which extends out to manifest or change something else (that something else being passive). So it is an outwardly moving/dynamic concept. I believe that concept is lost when we describe something as fixed. What you really mean, I think, is that the active intellect is immutable, whilst, in comparison, the passive is the mutable. But using words like fixed removes the sense of motion involved. And as a result, when you run with it later, you focus more on this fixity quality.

Quote:
Aristotle’s Passive is external to the active, and is related more to the outer world. (Thus, the usual astrological understanding of "active" is what Aristotle might term passive!)


But it isn't at all. The weird thing is that I agree that active relates to the Sun, and passive to the Moon, but notice that it informs us nothing at all about the zodiacs.

It is not that the passive, being external to the active tells us anything about the astrological understanding. Because, the other way of saying this is that the active is external to the passive and both statements are true.

Instead by wording it like this you miss the sense of application or dynamism that is associated with masculine and the sense of receptivity that is associated with feminine, which, incidentally, seem like better analogies for your sun/moon description of active/passive.

But, as a tropical astrologer, that's exactly how I see the concepts of masculine and feminine anyway. I would be in 100% agreement that we can liken, to a point, the sun with active and the moon with passive. I see the masculine as being outwardly moving, or emanating/projecting/dispersing, and the feminine as being receptive/changing/containing or being inwardly moved. Which is pretty much how the Classics article I cited describes it - moving and moved.

You don't like those, but surely then the problem is in how you view it, and not how tropical astrologers view it!?

I can't speak for other tropical astrologers obviously. All I can go by is how I understand these things as a tropical astrologer. And I suspect that many tropical astrologers think along the same lines as me.

You say

Quote:
This is an important distinction because it solves the apparent tropical-sidereal contradiction of signs which tend either to extroversion or introversion. For example a sign with a primary inward focus is called Active in Aristotle’s philosophy (the mainframe), but passive (feminine) in the western astrological system.


So a large part of understanding the tropical-sidereal issue seems to be based on this if I understand you right, not all of it, but a significant portion.

But the problem is that Aristotle is not, as I understand it, saying that Active has an inward focus at all. That's why I cited the article I did. It has an outward focus, in that it moves outward. That's why I cited the 2004 article too, as we can see the sudden reversal in logic.

You seem to have some misunderstanding with this, and I'm not sure to what level I can explain it better.

Because then later you start saying things like this

Quote:
In particular the Gemini trigon requires an explanation. Though these signs are grouped with the other three odd numbered signs which are termed masculine, they have a strong feminine component. This was recognized in antiquity where Valens refers to these signs as "feminizing" (Riley translation), "effeminate" (Schmidt translation) or "womanish" (Gehrz translation). So this trigon shares the Active quality (inward focus) with Aries, Leo and Sagittarius, but the nature is toward feminine psychology.


And here you are literally taking something which is described as masculine and deciding that it actually has a feminine psychology. But what we need to do here is remove psychology from the concept of Active/Passive Intellect. Valens describes the signs as masculine. By which we mean the 'positive' pole of the magnet or the active intellect type.

The psychology is a separate thing.

And yet in other instances, despite using this logic here and accepting it, you instead decide to determine whether a planet is masculine/feminine based on the psychology part which you admit here is separate.

Why the special treatment?

Well it's only used when it supports the argument you want to make. When it doesn't it's not used.

You then describe all the elements in a manner which seems to alter how they're described through history.

Namely we have earth signs being with a focus on the mind. This is due to an unclear separation between masculine/feminine and active/passive. Here a trigon can be Active and Feminine, Passive and Masculine, and if you have explained why you've done this, it really isn't clear to me.

I wasn't going to bring this up yet, I was saving this for later until we got active/passive out of the way, but I suspect that won't happen, if even taking a citation from a Classics article to support my view isn't enough.

I will respond to your other comments in my next post. I just wanted to focus on the two articles, explain why I used them and why the focus isn't just on one word.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1398

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Quote:
I maintain that it has never been demonstrated that tropical astrologers are really using the sidereal zodiac, such that tropical signs have changed over time to reflect the sidereal signs.

Psychological traits of signs weren’t discovered until going into the 20th centry. Therefore, signs haven’t changed so much as discovered. I mentioned this earlier in this thread. I’m not talking about triplicities and the three modes, only about psychological traits now recognized by tropical astrologers.


What has psychological traits got to do with tropical astrology or the sign dsecriptions? I have no idea where you're going with this. I have always assumed you meant that the tropical zodiac must have changed over time to match precession. Because in your opening paragraph you make the logic that the sky's energies don't change depending on which astrologer is looking at it, but instead it is the same. THe only way for that to be true, if we ignore that one astrologer is simply just wrong, is that tropical changes in line with precession.

However now you're saying something about psychological traits, as if the tropical zodiac is comprised only of psychological traits of the 20th century. I can't understand what you mean by this.

Quote:
So in Aries Mars is internal strength (masculine) and in Scorpio (a feminine sign) the focus of Mars is activity and linking with others. (I see how the term ‘activity’ can be confusing as to focus.)


Okay I understand what you mean better now, but I do think this lack of movement or direction of focus really loses the point a bit when it comes to masculine/feminine, and serves as the basis of my initial confusion on this.

Quote:
I wish you would stop making statements like “tropical astrologers have gotten it wrong.” From the solar/lunar perspective, that view may be correct, but from the current tropical perspective male signs are activity oriented and female signs more internal.


Well I'm going with how I understand your view of the contradiction of signs being resolved by using sidereal signs. You suggest through your articles that tropical astrologers are not using masculine/feminine correctly in that they have reversed it from what it originally meant. I'm summarising that in a simpler way by saying they got the terminology wrong.

By the way it's not the female signs are more internal, which is true to an extent, but it is more that they are receptive. Masculine being more dispersive.

Quote:
What kind of source are you looking for? Aries would tend toward stubbornness due to it being the sign of internal focus of Mars. That is, power and strength. So we combine the internal strength of the masculine with the driving force of Mars. Dale Earnhardt: a driven, determined, focused icon of car racing.


What I'm looking for is some quote that describes the rationale. So BECAUSE Aries is the internal focus for Mars, THEREFORE Aries is stubborn.

Because I don't think one exists, I think this is just an assumption you've made when you apply how you've understood internal/external to mean with regards the zodiac. I do think it puts perhaps too much emphasis on ruler alone, as it would then also need to imply that Scorpio is not stubborn.

I think we need some quote which verifies or implies that this is the case. Because it could also be that the modes and triplicities get involved too.

Quote:
I’m not personally criticizing anyone, but only showing the underlying structure of the sidereal zodiac. It’s up to the tropical community to provide the underlying structure for their zodiac and to symbolically explain the traits they have observed in signs.


Well no, you are indeed commenting on the tropical zodiac. I am not saying you are criticizing anyone by the way. I am saying that, despite saying that we ought not tell others they are not getting it right, you are in effect doing that in your article when you point out that tropical astrologers are altering their sign meanings because they're not basing it, presumably, on the right thing.

Actually the more I think of it, the more I think the main arguments aren't related to Tropical/Sidereal at all, but rather in the logic used to form your conclusions which actually could be leveraged to form whatever conclusion we wish, including Tropical astrologers using it to demonstrate Sidereal signs are wrong, that's if we were to take your view on sidereal astrology as representing other sidereal astrologers of course.

Quote:
Paul, do you read what I write in these posts? Tropical astrologers haven’t altered sign meanings. Traits were only discovered in the 20th century. There is no alteration, only discovery.


I'm happy to take a fair amount of criticism here, but I actually don't think you did make that clear up until now. The idea of the traits being only discovered in the 20th century is a new one to me that I hadn't associated with this discussion up until this post. Can you clarify by showing where this distinction was made before? I don't like the implication that I am not reading your posts. On the contrary I am reading them very thoroughly, checking against your website, many articles of which I have also read thoroughly. It seems very surprising to me that despite this you still feel I am not reading your posts you write. I may have missed or forgotten a post, but if so I can't find it when I look back. What post did you have in mind where this is made clear?

Quote:
Sidereal astrologers are considering the nature of Mars when they say this, since Aries is the domicile of Mars.


Right, of course I was also considering the nature of Mars, only in this instance I was forming different conclusions based on the fact that Mars was out of dignity and because of other chart factors such as aspects with Lord 1 and Saturn where Lord 1 is sort of besieged by out of dignity malefics. My point is that this wasn't the focus for some other astrologers, in this case a sidereal astrologer who made much of his conclusion on that Mars was domicile and that Lord 1 wasn't.

So my point is that reading charts alone won't solve our issue because we each have different interpretive stances and we each see the importance of different factors as being prevalent.

Quote:
I wouldn’t consider such ideas as a ‘corrupted’ Mars in a sign of Venus. Theoretically in my view, Mars in a sign of Venus would be somewhat softened.


Fascinatingly that's a modern tropical psychological understanding of Mars in Taurus, whereas being debilitated is a more traditional (tropical or sidereal) notion.

I wonder if the problem is applying western psychological understanding to traditional concepts, be they sidereal or tropical?

Quote:
That’s not really true. Only a third of sidereal Libra has the stars of Libra.


What he means is that Tropcal Scorpio is more or less aligned with the constellation of Libra. He conveniently ignores that sidereal Libra and constellational Libra are not the same thing either as you say here.

Either way I just wanted to highlight with this part of my post that many sidereal astrologers think along similar lines to you. But so far as I can tell, none of them have actually demonstrated it, except with one or two examples for which the astrological alphabet can be credited for the alteration without having to resort to the sidereal zodiac at all, which would be obvious if tropical pre 18th century is compared with tropical in the 20th century.

Quote:
Then isn’t it time for you to set down your understanding of the tropical zodiac, noting the underlying theoretical structure? Then we’ll all understand the basis for your remarks.


Well I hope you can see why not only would that be long, difficult and arduous to do, it would be entirely inappropriate and in very poor taste to do this on the sidereal forum. I happen to admire and respect that skyscript now has a forum dedicated to the sidereal zodiac. If nothing else it allows me to read, when I can, how sidereal astrologers interpret charts. For example horary is something about which I'm passionate and this forum has given me the opportunity to observe a sidereal horary chart:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6641

What I definitely am not trying to do, and wouldn't want to do, is inject too much tropical astrology here. We have to mention it obviously in this thread as we're discussing the tropical zodiac to a point. But the less the better I think.

I would just repeat that I see masculine signs as being outwardly moving, which a better word may be dispersing, whilst i see feminine as being inwardly moving or containing or receiving. When it comes to natal astrology there may be a degree to which masculine signs indicate that which is done by native, or that which they emanate into the world, and feminine as what is perceived or done to the native, that which the world emanates onto them. I might say then that masculine is active, and feminine reactive as well as being that masculine is dispersive and feminine receptive or collective.

If we wish to cite some modern western tropical astrology idea then I would for convenience cite Rudhyar as he's a well enough respected tropical astrologer, focuses on psychological astrology as well (in case this is an important distinction) and see how he correlates masculine and feminine with yang and yin.

The Astrology of Transformation by Dane Rudhyar
Quote:

The Yang Way
Yang type of activity is essentially outgoing, forceful, and aggressive. It is archetypally associated with the "masculine" attitude and character.

...

The Yin Way
The Yin type of response to what life brings is essentially receptive and adaptive. It is archetypally associated with the feminine attitude and character.


Notice that this puts the emphasis on being outwardly moving (yang) or receptive and adapting to change (yin).

What we don't have is whether masculine focuses internally or feminine focuses externally.




I think that we need not say much more on my thoughts on tropical astrology here just yet. For what it's worth, I would have fully expected this to be the same in Sidereal astrology too (and I suspect that for many it is).
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1138
Location: California, USA

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul, you seem to be going around in circles on some of your points. I feel that I've clearly explained the sidereal zodiac (as I understand it) in my articles and on posts here. I'm not willing to linger any longer on your fixation with static/dynamic/outward moving, for example. I simply don't have the time or mental energy to keep defending my view as I really do feel that I have clearly outlined the main points of the sidereal zodiac.

I've often been complimented on my clear thinking and logic. If you perceive a lack of logic, I believe that is your problem rather than mine. There are many different types of astrological minds, and it's an accepted fact that few astrologers agree with each other.

For me the I Ching does a good job of describing Yin and Yang in the two hexagrams I quoted. I relate those two hexagrams to Solar and Lunar symbolism. So it might be helpful to review that post (on page 4) as a reflection of my perspective.

Later today I'll try to find time to more carefully read over your posts. If there are any new thoughts in them I'll attempt a reply. To be honest, Paul, I find your thought processes to be confusing. This happens if one person's Mercury doesn't synchronize with the other person's. My Mercury is at 27 tropical Scorpio (5 degrees sidereal which is an astrological area). Where is your Mercury?

I do feel it's time for you to present your understanding of the tropical zodiac, and then to look at individual charts. But you don't agree with that approach as discussion seems to be your forte. My patience wears thin with endless discussion. That has never been my way. I'm a pragmatist.

By Monday I have to begin preparing for a once-in-a-blue-moon several day family reunion here at my house, which will probably be followed by a week's exhaustion.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1138
Location: California, USA

Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 4:52 pm    Post subject: Yin and Yang Reply with quote

Having very limited time this week, I’m beginning my reply with only the concepts of Yin and Yang. (Suggestion: I don’t have the mental stamina to read through and reply to long posts in one sitting. It’s best to keep posts shorter and to the point for faster replies.)

Yin and Yang:

Paul wrote (quoting Dane Rudhyar):
Quote:

The Astrology of Transformation by Dane Rudhyar

The Yang Way
Yang type of activity is essentially outgoing, forceful, and aggressive. It is archetypally associated with the "masculine" attitude and character.

This is a very imperfect understanding of Yang. The concepts of Yin and Yang as such originated in China. This is why I posted direct quotes from the I Ching on page 4 of this topic. In Yang are the concepts of strength, power, persistence, rulership and duration as well as motion in time and creative action.

This is why Hexagram 1: The Creative relates well to solar symbolism which in turn can be related to Odd or Male signs of the sidereal zodiac. (Number symbolism points to this relationship as well. When there is time I want to open a topic on numbers and the zodiac.)

Force and aggression weren’t part of the original concept of Yang. Only outgoing can be somewhat related to the creative action of the I Ching. Force and aggression are traits of Mars rather than the Sun. The Sun shines brilliantly, and it's up to others to receive or reject that light.

Quote:
The Yin Way (Rudhyar)
The Yin type of response to what life brings is essentially receptive and adaptive. It is archetypally associated with the feminine attitude and character.

This definition fails to mention the Yin principles of relationship and action in conformity with the situation: that is, willingness to be led and linking with others. Receptivity and adaptability I’ve correctly placed with the Even or Female sidereal signs. In general receptivity and the ability to adapt can be related to the Moon. These concepts are described in Hexagram 2: The Receptive.

So in any discussion of Yin and Yang it’s necessary to return to the original Chinese sources to gain a full understanding of these concepts.

------------------------------------------------------

Note: I've neglected to mention that in my understanding of Aristotle I've used professional academic papers which I have in hard copy in my office. I didn't cite specific sources due to the effort of typing the publication details. These can be provided upon request.
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1398

Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Paul, you seem to be going around in circles on some of your points. I feel that I've clearly explained the sidereal zodiac (as I understand it) in my articles and on posts here.


Well I do think we ought to get to the bottom of the masculine feminine thing which is why I keep focusing on it, we obviously have some miscommunication as you say. Because I am not sure why anyone would not consider it a massive problem if their version of the principle does not tally with a quote from something like the classics article I cited. I would have thought this would really have stopped you in your tracks and reviewed the concept more thoroughly and carefully. Especially as I am explaining my own concept of gender differently than you assumed the Tropical astrologer might.

Do you see what I mean? Considering this appears to be a major factor for sidereal-tropical as per the discussion here I would have thought we would do well to get to the bottom of it. You may have described as you see the sidereal zodiac, but remember you are also talking about the tropical zodiac.

Quote:
I've often been complimented on my clear thinking and logic. If you perceive a lack of logic, I believe that is your problem rather than mine.


Therese I am not trying to insult you here so I apologise if that came across. I am trying to take the points as you make them and weigh them up, but if I don't understand or follow them, then it could be that I'm misunderstanding it, or it could be that the argument lacks logical merit. I haven't merely perceived a lack of logic with regards the rulership problem, I've explained it and shown where the problem is with it. This is not a commentary on your mind generally, but rather on the points I was addressing.

Quote:
o be honest, Paul, I find your thought processes to be confusing. This happens if one person's Mercury doesn't synchronize with the other person's. My Mercury is at 27 tropical Scorpio (5 degrees sidereal which is an astrological area). Where is your Mercury?


I'm not sure why this matters Therese, I think we can discuss a problem without examining our natal charts. For what it's worth my Mercury is 19º (Tropical) Gemini.


Quote:
So it might be helpful to review that post (on page 4) as a reflection of my perspective.


Therese, this was deliberate, you mentioned this then immediately after asked me to: "briefly list of what you expect from Male and Female tropical signs", and upon returning to being asked for another example, I figured I may as well take Rudhyar's yin/yang one. You may not agree with it, but it's how I understand the concepts in relation to gender in astrology.

Quote:
I do feel it's time for you to present your understanding of the tropical zodiac, and then to look at individual charts. But you don't agree with that approach as discussion seems to be your forte. My patience wears thin with endless discussion. That has never been my way. I'm a pragmatist.


Therese after asking me if I read all your posts, I'm going to have to ask the same back as I've already explained why it's inappropriate to present an understanding on the tropical zodiac in the sidereal forum. I would have thought that was kind of obvious. I will explain concepts if there's some disagreement or lack of clarity such as with my posts on masculine and feminine and continuing clarification and explanation of gender. However I note that when I do this I am accused of repetition and endlessly long posts.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
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, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 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