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
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Sidereal Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1213
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
Quote:
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.

The reason being that the academic articles I have on Aristotle take a different approach to active/passive. These articles were the source of information in my Triplicities article.

This is a confusing topic even for academics. The I Ching is a safer source of symbolism. I set out to find links to the articles, but they have disappeared. I can perhaps try to scan the relevant pages when I have time. I always print out important articles as they can disappear at any time from the Internet.

Quote:
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.

Well, that is good to know! Now I understand where you stand on gender.

Quote:
I've already explained why it's inappropriate to present an understanding on the tropical zodiac

I don't think it's inappropriate because that helps to explain why you may see my views as incorrect or lacking in logic or whatever...

Quote:
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.

Perhaps that's the answer to the entire zodiac riddle. There really is only one astrological zodiac, and we have to figure out which one it is. Zodiac signs aside, I do believe that certain cycles related to the solstices and equinoxes are valid. But cycles are not zodiac signs as such.

Maybe that's where the various posts on this topic are heading. Must we finally tackle the question if two astrological zodiacs actually exist? Then the question is not "Which zodiac is better?" but "Which zodiac is real?"
_________________
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: 1465

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:

The reason being that the academic articles I have on Aristotle take a different approach to active/passive.


I wonder if you could cite/quote from the articles which support the view of active/passive that reflects your view of masculine/feminine.

Quote:
The I Ching is a safer source of symbolism.


But keep in mind it is more likely Aristotle that forms the basis of active/passive and not the I Ching, it is the reason I presume that you mentioned Aristotle in the first place. The I Ching may reflect how you understand gender in astrology, much like I understand it, in part, as described by Rudhyar and the things I have said in my previous posts, but we shouldn't assume a direct equality with Aristotle's passive/active intellects.

Quote:

Well, that is good to know! Now I understand where you stand on gender.


Right, taken by itself it isn't enough. Really I just wanted to find a topical astrologer who likewise links masculine/feminine to that idea of yang/yin which we can relate to sun/moon if we want. Hence I'm trying to show that this idea isn't unique to the sidereal zodiac for example.

Quote:
I don't think it's inappropriate because that helps to explain why you may see my views as incorrect or lacking in logic or whatever...


Well my rationale for the lack of logic isn't to do with my understanding of the tropical zodiac. It's to do with non-sequitor conclusions. Because the conclusions you make are just re-affirmations of the assumption drawn from the beginning, and secondly the same logic employed could be used to justify the Tropical zodiac either. So there's picking a choosing going on. I can dedicate a post to explain that, but it's primarily seen in the 2004 article, but it remains unedited so I assume it still reflects your current view. I've already gone through it one of my longer replies, but I can do it in a smaller one.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


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

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As suggested, I have removed a few recent posts on the topic of which zodiac is the right one and why. This is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion in itself, but it is not the topic of this thread, nor appropriate for this forum. I would suggest taking it to the Philosophy & Science forum.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1213
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 4:39 pm    Post subject: Academic Sources of Aristotle's Philosophy Reply with quote

Sources of Aristotle's Philosophy

Active Intellect
Philosophy:
“The active intellect was the subject of much intense discussion in medieval philosophy. The idea is first encountered in Aristotle’s De Anima in which he discusses the human mind and distinguishes between the active and passive intellects. The meaning is not altogether clear, but the distinction could be compared to that between the central processing unit and the hard drive of a computer, or possibly that between the operating system and the data files.

“The motivation for positing such an entity as the Agent intellect is that all (rational) human beings are considered by Aristotlians to possess or have access to a fixed and stable set of concepts, a unified correct knowledge of the universe. The only way that all human minds could possess the same correct knowledge is if they had access to some central knowledge store, as terminals might have access to a mainframe computer. The mainframe is the Agent intellect, the “mind” of the universe which makes all other cognition possible...

"The more strictly Aristotelian Muslims (in particular Avempace and Averroes) wrote about how one could conjoin oneself with the active intellect, thus attaining philosophical nirvana.

“The active intellect, in the sense described, is more properly called the Agent intellect, as it is the force triggering intellection in the human mind and causing thoughts to pass from the potential to the actual. It must not be confused with the “intellect to act,” which is the result of that triggering, and is more akin to the psychological use of the term. Another term for the final result of intellection, that is to say a person’s accumulated knowledge, is the “acquired intellect.”

Sources:
Commentarium magnum in Aristotelis De anima ibros, ed. Crawford, Cambridge (Mass.) 1953 Latin ransaltion of Averroes’ long commentary on the De Anima.

Averroes (tr. Alain de Libera), L’intelligence et le pansee, Paris, 1998: French transaction of Averroes’ long commentary on book 3 of the De Anima

Essays on Ariostotle’s De Anima, ed. Nussbaum and Rorty; Oxford 1992

(Absolute Astronomy.com: Exploring the universe of knowledge)

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

Gender differences noted in my 2013 Triplicity article
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aatriplicities2013.htm
are taken from Gareth B. Matthews’ “Gender and Essence in Aristotle,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, supplement to Vol 64, June 1986. (9 page article)

Therese Hamilton
9 September 2014
FINIS on this forum topic
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm


Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Tue Sep 09, 2014 6:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1465

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Therese

Interestingly I agree with all those full sources too - notice they don't focus on a locus of control, the focus is on "operating", male, "operating to", female.

Also it's possible that in layman's terms there's no difference between a CPU and a hard drive. But see how your quote here compares the two.

In my post, Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:48 am, I suggested you got your computer analogy the wrong way around. Notice in your article you compare data files vs the hard drive, but if you compare to the quote here in full both of those were the feminine! This is the very source of my contradiction, because if you compare data files and hard drives, we have an odd comparison, and depending on perspective, the hard drive shifts and changes regularly to place in data files whilst it ought not alter the data file itself. So a weird comparison but in this case I believe that we ought to see the data file as immutable and masculine.

This solves one of the riddles for me! So I'm glad we have the full quote. Now I am sympathetic to anyone confusing one for the other but perhaps what you meant to compare was the CPU with the files instead. I strongly suspect it is and it's not a massive problem but makes sense now of something I couldn't fathom from that example. I am perhaps too sensitive to the distinctions than most readers I suspect. But I'm glad I feel we can make some progress here and perhaps you might correct that slip in the article? In one way it's a small thing, but being exacting I think it can be, to certain readers, misleading. It's just a slip of the pen as it were.

The thing we can think of when deciding which is which is on asking "what directs/controls change, or projects, or emanates" that is male. What "stores, contains or is changed/moved" that is female.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

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



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 491
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to present my thoughts on three topics that have been raised in the course of this thread.

Male and female traits

Paul wrote:
Quote:
The thing we can think of when deciding which is which is on asking "what directs/controls change, or projects, or emanates" that is male. What "stores, contains or is changed/moved" that is female.

This is quite a good definition. However, Therese's outlook is basically correct, too. The thing is that the two of you are each focussing on one of the two complementary sides of each gender.

To elaborate on this statement, I will present my own theory which is based on an amalgamation of concepts from Astrology, Spiritual Alchemy and Alternative Physics.

Alchemically, the Male or Yang principle is symbolized by Sulphur, which is of Solar nature and synonymous here with the centripetal, concentrating and conserving force.

The Female or Yin principle is represented by Mercury, which is of Lunar nature and synonymous with the centrifugal, emanating and changing force.

However, as phycicist and Tesla researcher Tom Bearden argues, a stored or contained potential energy will be released as a moving force. Vice versa, a dissipated force may be condensed in a form which Bearden calls negative energy or time reversal (I assume a connection with retrograde motion), which has indeed been demonstrated experimentally.

Doesn't the white Yang “fish” contain a black Yin “fish eye”, and vice versa?

Applied to this current debate, I propose that my definitions actually reconcile the stands taken by Therese and by Paul, respectively; the former talking about the two gender's internal nature, the latter about how this nature externalizes itself in concrete action.

Male and female in the zodiac and in human gender

Czech gynaecologist and psychiatrist Dr. Eugene Jonas did extensive research on the effects of the Sun and the Moon on conception and gender determination. He found out that:

a) conception occurs when the angular relationship between the Sun and the Moon mirror the relationship they have to each other in the mother's chart;
b) a child's gender depends on whether the moon is positioned in a “male” or in a “female” tropical sign at the moment of conception.

Jonas' initial study of 400 cases showed an accuracy regarding gender determination of 83-87%. Later research enhanced the precision to an impressive 98% (M. Rubin: “Lunar Sex Cycle”, in: American Astrology, July 1968, p. 365).

For further information, see for example:
http://astroelite.com/article/astrology-fertility-en.asp

Psychological traits attributed to the signs

Not part of ancient astrology? Off the top of my head: Look at Tetrabiblos, book 3: “On the Soul.”

The psychological descriptions given in ancient texts are pretty much the foundation for modern formulations. It is however conceivable that the influence of some prominent fixed stars coloured the ancients' views in this regard, so their precession may have led to secondary shifts in the psychological traits that the signs are attributed with as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1213
Location: California, USA

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting summary, Michael, but I can't reply on this thread at this time except (quoting from Dean's Recent Advances in Natal Astrology):

"Jonas' work has led to considerable controversy...The following account shows that there are serious objections to Jonas' theory and that the majority of independent studies have failed to confirm it." (p. 477)

The discussion of research goes on for five pages.

Next week it might be interesting to open a male/female topic. For myself, I have very little time until Tuesday, and I have signed off this thread.
_________________
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: 1465

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Applied to this current debate, I propose that my definitions actually reconcile the stands taken by Therese and by Paul, respectively; the former talking about the two gender's internal nature, the latter about how this nature externalizes itself in concrete action.


I think the problem may be more with the wording used. When we describe masculine as fixed, we lack a sense of movement or dynamism, whereas what we really mean is immutable. That's where I think the problem is more. Also by focusing on movement outward we might say masculine focuses outwardly, but this shouldn't be confused with is centred outside. That's the other problem I think. That would be my summary of the confusion here.

I look forward to any new topic on masculine and feminine, but I'm not sure which forum would be the best place for it, perhaps the Philosophy forum.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

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



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 491
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
I think the problem may be more with the wording used. When we describe masculine as fixed, we lack a sense of movement or dynamism, whereas what we really mean is immutable. That's where I think the problem is more. Also by focusing on movement outward we might say masculine focuses outwardly, but this shouldn't be confused with is centred outside. That's the other problem I think. That would be my summary of the confusion here.


Yes, the wording in this context is tricky, but I think that you are basically saying the same thing like me - the masculine principle in its ground state being immutable and centred inside but externalizing itself as an active and moving force. Vice versa for the feminine principle.

Quote:
I look forward to any new topic on masculine and feminine, but I'm not sure which forum would be the best place for it, perhaps the Philosophy forum.


I look forward to this, too. The Philosophy forum looks like the most suitable place for such a topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil



Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 51

Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Gansten wrote:
As suggested, I have removed a few recent posts on the topic of which zodiac is the right one and why. This is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion in itself, but it is not the topic of this thread, nor appropriate for this forum. I would suggest taking it to the Philosophy & Science forum.



As Deb has written, Skyscript is a site dedicated to Western tropical astrology. I don't understand why we'd now need to defend the validity of this astrology in the Philosophy & Science Forum. It was disruptive enough when people with their own non-Western, non-tropical systems tried hard to have mystery charts in the Traditional Forum presented in a distracting variety of ways to appease everyone's belief that theirs was the "right" system. That argument itself was extremely distracting, not to mention how scattered the mystery charts themselves became. Now it'll be the Philosophy & Science Forum?
Conversely, the "sidereal" forum is an alternative forum contained within a Western tropical website. In this context it seems natural for alternative ideas which claim to be incompatible with Western tropical astrology to meet counter-arguments from the website's mainstream folks -- in this very forum. I say "incompatible" because these alternative ideas routinely center on Western tropical astrology’s being "wrong" (as stated in this very thread: "...only one zodiac can be right...").
Yes, it may seem "unfair": Western tropical astrologers don't have to constantly defend their fundamentals in the other Skyscript forums, while "siderealists" and others who flatly state that Western tropical astrology is wrong do have to defend their positions in this forum. But I thought Skyscript was a site dedicated to the preservation of Western tropical astrology. That foundation in and of itself means that such fundamental debates, since they are useful and are not ignored on Skyscript, should be contained in one part of the site, namely this particular forum. My humble opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


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

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, Phil, your 'humble' opinion, I'm happy to say, is wrong. Had the intention of Skyscript been as narrow as you suggest, I should never have bothered with it.

The Philosophy & Science forum is explicitly there for the discussion of fundamentals ('Does astrology work? Why?'). I'm not its moderator, but certainly, to my mind, a question on which zodiac(s) work(s) and why seems to fit right in.

As for traditional astrology, I think we should all be aware that for more than half of its known history it has been a mainly Asian phenomenon (that's true even if, due to some bias on our part, we exclude South Asia) and has been practised using a variety of zodiac definitions, Ptolemy's tropical definition becoming dominant only in the Islamic period (and that's 'dominant', not 'exclusive'). The Babylonians, most Hellenistic astrologers (including Valens), and the Persians all used zodiacs where the equinox did not define the beginning of Aries.

The Sidereal forum is not some sort of garbage bin for everything that doesn't seem to fit the label 'Western Tropical astrology', nor is it a place where sidereal astrologers have to defend the use of a sidereal zodiac. (Just as traditional astrologers shouldn't have to defend the use of traditional techniques on the Traditional forum, even if those techniques happen to be sidereal -- but that's another discussion, for another time and place.) I shall continue to prune posts that do not respect this.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1465

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phil wrote:

As Deb has written, Skyscript is a site dedicated to Western tropical astrology. I don't understand why we'd now need to defend the validity of this astrology in the Philosophy & Science Forum.
...
Yes, it may seem "unfair": Western tropical astrologers don't have to constantly defend their fundamentals in the other Skyscript forums, while "siderealists" and others who flatly state that Western tropical astrology is wrong do have to defend their positions in this forum. But I thought Skyscript was a site dedicated to the preservation of Western tropical astrology.


Phil

I think it's worth reading the sticky on the this forum started by Deb under the title "Please read this before posting in this forum" wherein she lays down her 'vision' and understanding of what this forum is all about.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6581

Of particular importance is this part:
Quote:
the only requirement for posting on this forum is that questions, contributions and discussions be in the context of a sidereal zodiac. "A" sidereal zodiac because the ayanamsa question has yet to be settled. This isn't the place to compare the tropical and sidereal zodiacs, though different ayanamsas can be discussed and debated if necessary.


As you see, this is not the place to compare, in particular to compete, the sidereal and tropical zodiac nor to get into discussions about which is best.

As you can see then, we're already on shaky ground here with this discussion in that it runs perilously close to doing just that - comparing the two zodiacs. My understanding of this thread is that really this is about trying to find out if Tropical signs match Sidereal ones. Perhaps that breaches the purpose of the forum already, however insofar as the moderator of this forum (to whom Deb entrusted the forum with mutual understanding of its purpose) is okay with it being here, we can continue to post on the matter, provided we keep in mind that it is explicitly not an exercise in competing one zodiac against another.

Now it's been suggested that we could examine gender broadly within the tradition extending up to the modern day, and also the philosophy behind it, which, if you've followed these (admittedly long and perhaps exhausting) posts, you will see stretches back to Greek philosophy through, in particular, Aristotle.

With that in mind, surely the only sensible place to discuss this would be the philosophy section?

I also want to address in particular this part of your post:
Quote:
I don't understand why we'd now need to defend the validity of this [Tropical] astrology


(insertion mine)

I don't think anybody should feel the need to defend the astrology they do here to anyone. Including tropical astrologers. Just as much as including sidereal astrologers. However I don't think that's what's been asked for. I think instead there is a theory, which is common enough among some sidereal astrologers, particularly stemming back (as far as I understand it at least) to Cyril Fagan, that the tropical signs have had their meanings altered to match sidereal descriptions. Now as far as I know that theory has never been demonstrated, merely asserted. To an extent, Therese has a similar view as we can see from her website. For me, then, this topic is more about discussing that theory, which we can do without feeling any threats to our own astrological preferences, and we can do it without feeling then that we ought to defend our preferences either.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

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


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phil, I understand your concerns and I can see that at some stage we should perhaps have a longer, sensible discussion on some of the issues that have come up lately about what the remits of the different forum sections are, and why, and whether there needs to be some tweaks and adjustments. I would like to delay that for now as I'd hope to be actively involved with it and this is my first day home after a very enjoyable but "full-on" conference, and I have a "catch-up" period ahead of me.

Although I employ the tropical zodiac myself, and have stated that it is the perspective that the site generally adopts and uses to show example charts (unless otherwise stated), we have to accept that the sidereal approach has had an important place in astrology historically, and remains the zodiac of choice for some very well-informed astrologers whose views deserve to be aired and respected. We don't want forum discussions to devolve into pointless and disruptive debates about whether an example chart should be using this zodiac or that, but equally we don't want to strangle informative and educational interchange that come from different perspective either. I can't see any reason why the Philosophy and science forum should not be able to host any kind of interesting discussion on the philosophical or theoretical basis of anything that impacts on the placement of astrology in philosophy or science. I think that should be a place where all intelligent contributions are welcomed - even from sceptics if the points they make are relevant and not presented in a disrespectful manner (or with an agenda to close minds rather than open them).

The remit of this particular forum is pretty clear, in that it facilitates free flowing discussion on sidereal zodiac concerns in an environment that should be spared the interruption of astrologers who may want to undermine it because they consider that there can only be one zodiac system which represents astrological truth. I don't believe that myself, for many reasons. When I have time to articulate them effectively, I will be able to kick-off the exploration that seems to be in need of development. But in the meantime, it remains the case that each forum keeps its stability because the ultimate word rests with its appointed moderator. I know that none of the moderators enjoy having to remove remarks or point out when boundaries are getting crossed, so when they do make a comment we should all respect what they have to say, knowing that everyone is volunteering efforts with the aim of keeping beneficial debate flowing between astrologers (who sometimes hold very diverse views). I have chosen to put myself under the direction of the moderators too, because sometimes I get very passionate in astrological debates, and can need a moderator's reminder to stay on-topic as much as anyone.

If you would like to develop this further, then feel free to articulate your concerns as a way to encourage more contributions of views in the philosophy section. The timing would not be good for me personally, but that never held a good discussion back before Smile

(Apologies Martin, for continuing comment on a point that is off-topic, but I thought it would be helpful to clarify my own position, so we can draw a line under this now, without contributors feeling that their concerns are not considered or their views have been choked)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1213
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jim Eshelman is without doubt the current primary spokesperson for the Fagan school of sidereal astrology. I didn't realize that he advocated Fagan's view of the zodiacs. Recently Jim wrote on his Solunars Forum:

by Jim Eshelman on Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:31 pm

Q: Do you find the tropical descriptions to be truthful?

A: "Only if the person who wrote them is a real observer of human character - meaning, if they really observe a Tropical Aries, they will actually see the same traits I attribute to Pisces. But they'll only see it for 5 people out of 6 at best, and you still have to ignore the reasons (symbolism, metaphors) they give - strip the packaging away to disclose the meat. Occasionally there is a rare, quality observer of human nature such as Linda Goodman who nails it better than most.

"But no, there is nothing inherently truthful about the Tropical zodiac. It's just that, for 5 people out of 6 (at this point in time) it's a different label for categorizing the same behavior. If you let observations prevail over the labeling, valid observations will emerge."
(End quote)

http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=16361#p16361
_________________
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: 1465

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
Jim Eshelman is without doubt the current primary spokesperson for the Fagan school of sidereal astrology. I didn't realize that he advocated Fagan's view of the zodiacs. Recently Jim wrote on his Solunars Forum:


Thanks for the reference Therese, but I am not quite sure what conclusions if any we're drawing from this. I would have expected it to be obvious that a follower of Cyril Fagan would follow Cyril Fagan. I didn't see any rationale for the assertion that Tropical Signs are really modelling Sidereal ones, just the claim that it is so (I should add that obviously I don't expect anyone to provide endless references each time the point is made online of course, so this is no criticism of Jim Eshelman).

I think we can all agree that it has been claimed to be so, but I would be interested in, personally, is evidence that it is so. Particularly textual evidence in regards how signs have been described over the years. We started this with the gender issue but for the time being at least we've put that on hold.
_________________
"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
Page 6 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