16
Graham F wrote:I realise this is how it's conventionally been done, but I didn't know there was general agreement on a "sidereal reference frame".
Not among astrologers, for them the conventional and imprecise way is by means of the ayanamsa, but I was referring to the "celestial reference frame" used by modern astronomers and represented by the concept of a "fundamental epoch" such as J2000, which is strictly sidereal, it is accepted by all and is as precise and accurate as modern technology allows. I don't know why astrologers keep ignoring it.

Thanks for the quote from Addey.
The apparent position of a star or other very distant object is the direction in which it is seen by an observer on the moving Earth. The true position (or geometric position) is the direction of the straight line between the observer and star at the instant of observation.
I had to correct my reply here because I realized that I was confusing the geometric position with the correction for light-time, which is meaningless in the case of stars and is therefore ignored. With this cleared up I can understand the meaning of "geometric" star positions as (essentially) the apparent position minus aberration.

I must thank Graham for helping me think this over clarify the point.
As for the USNO source... I think there was something on the site of the USNO itself, but can't find it now... I noted for certain that they said the date was 27/10/98. I was told by a physics forum that their value would be the most reliable.
There are many references to this date and USNO, but it is mere hearsay. One source wrote "someone told me", but no reference to the actual USNO authority who "said it".

The exact date is of no practical interest, except for someone like me who enjoys delving into the mathematical astronomy behind it.

J.

Question irrelevant

17
Good morning,

Dr Graham has enquired about answers to his initial question.

From the perspective of a tropical zodiac, the question appears irrelevant. Were Klaudios Ptolomaios alive today, he would presumably dispense altogether with naming the tropical signs by astronomical constellations, as is often practised today with dials in ex. gr. the Aalen and Hamburg schools of astrology. The detachment of astrology from mythologies effected by the adoption of a tropical zodiac was intended.

The tropical zodiac of the northern hemisphere is rigorously geocentric. Geocentrically, the fixed stars proceed, move forward with reference to the ecliptic, resulting in periodic changes in for example rising, culminating and setting fixed stars viewed from a specific location, as was recently discussed in a thread in the mundane section of this forum.

Astrologers who apply a tropical zodiac feel perhaps less inner desire than others to pin themselves to some point of reference amongst the fixed stars, be it the Milky Way, the Galactic Centre or what have you. Everything moves, floats, dances. Change is the constant. Primordial Chaos is changeless, notions of Cosmos change. Ordo ab Chao, Chao ab Ordo.

An example: probably most astrologers working with a tropical zodiac would have no fundamental issue using the Earth-Moon barycentre as point of reference instead of the centre of the Earth. However, in practice such an innovation would be of little consequence, as only the position of the Moon differs by a maximum of few seconds of ecliptical arc.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

18
Lihin wrote:
[Klaudios Ptolomaios] would presumably dispense altogether with naming the tropical signs by astronomical constellations,
Yes, I presumed it was clear from my posts that it's not the names of the signs/zoidia that interest me, but their rulerships. If the 30? from the VP were ruled by Venus, the next 30 by Mercury, the 30 leading up to the S solstice by Moon, the 30 from the solstice by Sun, etc (so that the WS would fall between the two Saturn "signs"), then of course it would make no difference whether you called the 1st one Aries, Taurus, Pisces or simply Number 1. Or you could call it by the name of a constellation near which it appeared to fall, it really doesn't matter.
As I asked in my first post, if the zodiac is considered to be arbitrary in terms of the constellations, why not go for symmetry (of rulerships, as well as of rising signs)? Antiscial "equivalent" signs would then have the same rulers, and contra-antiscial "complementary" ones would have complementary rulers (Mars/Venus, Mercury/Jupiter, Sun-Moon/Saturn).
Could this simply be a mistake by Ptolemy, which was then perpetuated? Would it not perhaps be internal evidence suggesting an older origin of the 12-fold zodiac, to a time when the equinoxes fell in early Taurus and Scorpio, the solstices in early Aquarius and Leo? Regulus, Antares, Fomalhaut and Aldebaran would then justifiably and logically be the four "Royal stars".

Graham

Rising times, fixed stars

19
Good afternoon,

This time i think i have understood, at least in part, Dr Graham's train of thought.

In my humble understanding it was not the intent of Klaudios Ptolomaios to peg the zodiac, systems of rulerships, etc. to a particular period of prior history, ex. gr. when the vernal point of the northern hemisphere was at or near the beginning of the constellation of Taurus. On the contrary, the intent was to detach astronomy-astrology from any such peg, thus rendering it more universal.

Within the 'tropical astrological mind-set', the symmetries amongst signs, rulerships etc. are determined by the order and the rising times of the signs. As has recently been discussed in another thread, i concur with Ms Margherita and other members of the 'Italian school' that there are in fact two tropical zodiacs, one for the northern, the other for the southern hemisphere, offset by 180 ecliptical degrees or six signs.

The existence and correspondences between bright fixed stars, especially those near 'centre stage', the ecliptic, and terrestrial events are not at all negated by many if not most astrologers applying tropical zodiacs but rather explicitly included in interpretations. They are grouped into constellations for identification and classification purposes but interpreted primarily based on elemental qualities analogous to planets and / or combinations of planetary elemental qualities. For this reason, astrologers applying tropical zodiacs do not feel they are missing something perhaps more directly addressed by zodiacs more closely approximating the unequal astronomical constellations.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

20
Lihin wrote:
there are in fact two tropical zodiacs, one for the northern, the other for the southern hemisphere, offset by 180 ecliptical degrees or six signs.
I agree, but that has no bearing on my question. Whatever sequence of tropical rulerships is chosen, I agree with Margherita that it should be reversed in the southern hemisphere. It is the Summer solstice that should always be associated with the lights, the winter one with Saturn, in my view. But that's not the question here, or only incidentally.
it was not the intent of Klaudios Ptolomaios to peg the zodiac, systems of rulerships, etc. to a particular period of prior history,
But that's exactly what a tropical zodiac does - it pegs the zodiac to a particular epoch. And Ptolemy did precisely that - he just pegged it to his own time, despite the assymetry of the rulerships, which would have been symmetrical had he pegged it to the earlier epoch and called the VP 0? Taurus, or called it anything and given the first 30? to Venus, etc.
This is not my original idea, I have taken it from Cyril Fagan and Garth Allen who claimed that the zodiac dated back, in Egypt, to the epoch of Taurus. Whether or not that is historically true, I am bringing up this question of assymetry of rulerships because for me it's the principal sticking point with the tropical zodiac starting with Aries.
Best regards
Graham
Last edited by Graham F on Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

21
hi graham,

this might not be all that related to the topic at hand either but upstream you mentioned the chinese year/zodiac starting with 15 aquarius.. it is my understanding the new year is based off the lunar calendar - new moon in aquarius is the start of their year. maybe i have that wrong and you can enlighten me on how 15 aquarius is the start point? thanks..

22
James
I don't know. I was just responding to a point raised by Mark, which is interesting but as Mark said, rather off topic. He gave a link to a thread on the forum dealing with this, I looked at it but didn't really see the connection, except that possibly it might hark back in some way to a time when in fact the winter solstice was at 15? Aquarius sidereal. The contributor did not consider there was any connection to the Chinese lunar calendar.
Best
Graham

Not the intent

23
Good morning,

Dr Graham wrote:
But that's exactly what a tropical zodiac does - it pegs the zodiac to a particular epoch.
Klaudios Ptolomaios' intent was the opposite, as he was aware of geocentric procession of the 'sphere of fixed stars'. Around his time equal signs most closely corresponded to the astronomical constellations of the same names. When reading Tetrabiblos, Book I, Section 11, one may notice for example Ptolemy's definition of 'bi-corporeal', removing it from any reference to the shapes of constellations.

Mr Cyril Fagan's, whose writings i have read with interest and profit, and similar historic analyses were not necessarily mistaken concerning ancient zodiacs pegged to some fixed stars. Nutation and proper motion of fixed stars were apparently not known to the ancients. Perhaps the 'fathers of Western sidereal astrology' previously practised some kinds of modern astrology that did not systematically include interpretations of configurations with bright fixed stars. In my humble opinion, however, some of the time measurement issues of predictive techniques brought up by Mr Cyril Fagan and his followers merit attention.

Today, as the fixed stars have advanced by about one full sign compared to Hipparkhos' time, one might assign appropriate, synthetic new names to the tropical signs based on their tropical attributes by twos, threes, fours and sixes. Of course some well-meaning lovers of mythologies and traditions might be horrified. :shock:

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

24
Thank you
I'm not interested in the names of the signs, and I'm now sorry I mentioned the "4 Royal Stars": this was simply to suggest that there may be a history of the 12-fold zodiac before the "Age of Aries".
I would simply like to know why tropical astrologers seem content with a permanently assymetrical system of rulerships (with respect to equinox/solstice axes), while at the same time emphasising the importance of the symmetrical or complementary arrangements of the tropical rising times, day/night lengths (notably in respect of antiscia/contrantiscia). The latter symmetry seems to cry out for a corresponding symmetry of rulerships. Surely some tropical astrologers must have thought about this at some point (if only to reject it for whatever reason - which could simply be that it doesn't seem to work so well, it's not what Ptolemy or Lilly did, etc, but at least you've thought about it). No?
This thread is not about the sidereal zodiac per se (except in as much as it must have been sidereal before it got pegged to 0? Aries), or about the fixed stars, I'm sorry if I got sidetracked and gave that impression.
Graham
(BTW, it's precession, not procession)

25
Graham F wrote: In any case this thread is about the symmetry of the tropical zodiac.
Graham
hi graham,

i came back to this thread after having read it when you initially posted it, but not really understanding very well what you are trying to discuss!

maybe i will say a few things and you can help me understand your intent better.. their really is no tropical zodiac as i understand it. the zodiac is about stars in the sky and the relation of the sun to this backdrop of stars that have been given names based on constellations.

the idea of the tropical zodiac is about the relationship between the sun and earth and basically ignores the perspective of our sun in relation to other stars beyond our sun. these are 2 different systems of referencing astronomical information. the one that i am focused on involves the sun and earth and the planets within this particular solar system.. that the names of a zodiac were given to describe this earth cycle of equinox and solstice points is a confusion in terms that those panning astrology love to bring up. i agree with you and margherita that the information needs to be reversed in the southern hemisphere and i believe this art form was originally northern hemisphere based.

i read deb houldings article that you mentioned thinking i might better understand what you are wanting to explore here.

you mention rulership themes in one of your posts here and what type of symmetry exists on this level with the 'tropical' zodiac. for me the spring equinox shares something with mars, while the fall equinox shares something with venus. i like the symmetry of the summer and winter solstice having a connection to the moon and saturn also. that the sun and saturn are exalted in the opposite equinox points makes sense to me too. this scheme doesn't include mercury or jupiter, or the sun directly but it makes sense to me without the need for a borrowed zodiac sign.. if they had of named these turning points in the earth cycle i would have been happier and i think it would be less confusing. is this the type of symmetry you are wanting to discuss which involve rulership ideas as opposed to tropical sign ideas?

as for john addey and his work with harmonics - some starting point is necessary. i don't believe the tropical zodiac names are considered all that relevant or central to his emphasis on harmonics.. the starting point could just as easily be at any point on the 360 wheel.. ignoring the signs and putting emphasis on the connections made between planets would seem to fit with my understanding of his work better..

26
Hello James
Thanks for your reply. You say
the spring equinox shares something with mars, while the fall equinox shares something with venus
I thought this might be the answer, at least it was the only one I could think of - but I'd say that if you call the first sign following the equinox "Taurus" and consider it ruled by Venus, then Mars leads UP to the Spring equinox (which would also be at 30? Aries, just as much as at 0 Taurus), and Venus leads up to the Autumn one (at 30? Libra/0 Scorpio). The equinoxes/solstice points are BETWEEN signs, not IN them. Also, if the Summer solstice is at 30 Cancer (0 Leo) then you've got your Moon involved, and the Sun too, and if the Winter solstice is at 30 Capricorn (0 Aquarius), you've got your Saturn - the very heart of Saturn's two rulerships, in fact. And what's more, the eponymous constellations in the sky corresponded to the those tropical points around 2000BC - not so very long ago in the scheme of things.
A primary key to the zodiac is the ancient division of signs into lunar and solar halves. This division has fallen by the wayside in modern times, but it is really very important in understanding how the zodiac as a whole operates. This solar-lunar division of the zodiac is known in both East and West, and is mentioned in several texts, among them India's Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja, Manilius, and in Ptolemy?s Tetrabiblos:
"...they portioned out these two (Cancer and Leo) as houses to the greatest and most authoritative planets, that is, to the lights, with Leo going to the Sun since it is a masculine z?idion, and Cancer going to the Moon since it is feminine. And accordingly, they laid down that the semicircle from Leo up to Capricorn was solar, while the semicircle from Aquarius to Cancer was lunar, in order that in each of the semicircles one z?idion could be apportioned to each of the five planets appropriately, the one being figured in relation to the Sun, and the other in relation to the Moon..." (Tetrabiblos, Book 1, p. 32, translated by Robert Schmidt)
Compare with this on the antiscia, by Deborah Houlding:
Ptolemy also describes this scheme, where he says that 'signs which behold each other' are also signs of equal power since they are equally removed from the tropics. He explains that they 'behold' one another, partly because they rise and set in the same part of the horizon, and partly because:
"when the Sun comes into either of them the days are equal to the days, the nights to the nights, and the lengths of their own hours are the same". Naturally, since the solstices represent the points on the ecliptic where the Sun reaches maximum declination north (at 0? Cancer) and South (0? Capricorn), its declination is paralleled in the degrees that are equally distant on either side of them (see diagram below).
If you replace "0? Cancer" with "30? Cancer" (or 0? Leo), and "0 Capricorn" wiht "30 Cp/0 Aqu", doesn't this make more sense in the light of the previous quote from Ptolemy ("in order that in each of the semicircles one z?idion could be apportioned to each of the five planets appropriately...")? And wouldn't those diagrams in Houlding article (and elsewhere) showing the symmetry of the tropical zodiac make more sense if, instead of being skewed from the soli-lunar axis described by Ptolemy (axis which represents the "apportioning" of the planets by Moon and Sun, to East and West, left and right) they were rotated 30? so they lined up with that soli-lunar axis? The "bottom" of the year would then be in the depths of Saturn, the "top" of the year between the Sun and the Moon.
Sorry to get "New Agey" now, but you can also think of it as a rising up, a long inbreath from Winter solstice to Summer solstice, and an outbreath from Summer to Winter, or vice versa if you prefer, or simply as a movement from the least light to the most light (http://astronuts.tribe.net/thread/53b38 ... 7720798526):
The zodiac is not just out there, it's in here. All of the planets and all of the signs are within us. We are the solar system. This understanding of planet/chakra correspondances comes from Vedic astrology, but can be used by anyone wanting a direct connection to the planets.

ROOT CHAKRA - SATURN
Inhale: Aquarius
Exhale: Capricorn

SEX CHAKRA - JUPITER
Inhale: Pisces
Exhale: Sagittarius

WILL CHAKRA - MARS
Inhale: Aries
Exhale: Scorpio

HEART CHAKRA - VENUS
Inhale: Taurus
Exhale: Libra

THROAT CHAKRA - MERCURY
Inhale: Gemini
Exhale: Virgo

THIRD EYE CHAKRA - SUN & MOON
Inhale: Cancer
Exhale: Leo
Or on a more sobre note, here's a bit from Robert Hand ("On the Invariance of the Tropical Zodiac", http://cura.free.fr/quinq/01hand.html)
"Only if two points are symmetrical with respect to the equinoxes can they possess this symmetry of arcs in O.A. which in turn produces the symmetrical rising times of signs which are equidistant from the equinoxes. This symmetry can occur in a sidereal zodiac only when the vernal point is at exactly 0 degrees of a sign. The Babylonians of Systems A and B knew this which is why they measured the rising times of 30 degree arcs from the vernal point rather than from 0 degrees of Aries in a zodiac in which the vernal point was not at 0 Aries (or any other sign).
This tells us something very important which seems to have escaped the notice of nearly everyone. The Babylonians of Systems A and B had at least two twelvefold divisions of the ecliptic into 30 degree divisions: One was made from a point which was 10 or 8 degrees prior to the vernal point. This "zodiac" may or may not have been consciously sidereal. The second was a "zodiac" which was measured from the vernal point and which clearly was consciously tropical."
If we're going to give this second, tropical, zodiac (in Hand's hypothesis) a system of rulerships (which by definition, being specifically tropical, would be independent of any particular constellation), why not make those rulerships symmetrical with the solstices and equinoxes, and the rising times? ("Only if two points are symmetrical with respect to the equinoxes can they possess this symmetry of arcs in O.A. which in turn produces the symmetrical rising times of signs which are equidistant from the equinoxes.").
Or Houlding again:
"At some unknown date the philosophy of 'opposite-shadows' or 'reflective-degrees' was incorporated into astrology in the belief that each degree of the zodiac has its own counter degree, mirroring its distance from the solstice axis on the opposite side of the chart."
There are also positive and negative "oppositely ruled" reflective "shadow signs" or "counter signs": Cancer and Leo, Aries and Scorpio, etc. Why not draw the logical and elegant conclusion, i.e. put 2 and 2 together?
Anyway, thanks again for your reply, but I don't know how to put it any differently, so I think I'll just give up now, and stick with the sidereal zodiac, where at least everything, rulerships, rising times and all, line ups properly with the solstices once every 26000 years!
All the best!
Graham

27
graham,

i have essentially abandoned the tropical zodiac.. sure i use the names of the 12 wedges to describe something to another astrologer based on them knowing i am thinking 'tropical' rather then sidereal, but for all intensive purposes i don't bother with the signs except as a means of making my own symbolism out of it all. i can be accused of being a bit too individualistic but for me there really is no 'zodiac' in the tropical sense.. it is sidereal.. whether it lined up at one point and they got to this based off that i will leave for the historians to decide.

if you throw out the desire to latch something onto a sign it doesn't really matter what sign is on the spring equinox as the spring equinox is the main event, or more generally - the equinox and solstice are the main events in regard to turning points in the earth cycle round the sun..

the day to night ratio is even at the equinox and as far as it can go one way or the other at the solstice points.. these happen to represent the cardinal cross which makes sense to me..

light and darkness. 2 symbols - sun and saturn seem to represent this the best, although perhaps one could say the moon could substitute for the sun during the night on some level. one is hot, and the other cold or at least they have an association with these ideas.. light- warmth, and darkness - cold..

as to your quote from ptolemy on dividing the cycle up from leo to capricorn and then from aquarius to cancer - it is interesting as i was just reading from 'introduction to traditional astrology' benjamin dykes last night and passed page 60 where they discuss this division of solar and lunar signs - the leo to cap being solar while the aquarius to cancer is lunar.. for me this division is much later after a number of other more significant symbolic divisions have been made. it breaks off the solstice line that is essential for someone focused on the earth/sun relationship as a primary division of the earth sun cycle.

it makes sense from the point of view of both the sun and moon given rulership over the most of summer when life and light is in full bloom in the northern hemisphere.. masculine and feminine ideas lining up with all this a particular way, which brings me to your comment and the article of deb houldings - mirror images..

what is masculine and feminine if not a type of mirror image of sorts? this 12 division of the circle seems to capture this a number of ways - masculine and feminine signs following one another just like the night follows the day which is another metaphorical means of saying much the same.. whether one wants to think in terms of signs, or sect or what have you - these mirror images -the ghost of one in the other- seem pervasive in astrological symbolism.

the ideas of antisicia are much the same - making connections to places on a circle that might not be immediately apparent but again are based on this basic division that i keep emphasizing - equinox - equal day/night, or solstice - extreme day/night right at the turn to move back the other way.

this is one reason why i like venus as a planet for the fall equinox - reaching out for a balance of sorts and perhaps a good reason why saturn is considered well placed in this sign too. is venus a mirror image for mars? most astrologers probably don't immediately think of these planets like that! it is interesting when one thinks of the glyphs for these planets - one a circle above a cross and the other a cross above a circle - well maybe that has changed to an arrow above a circle, but i believe a cross above a circle might be an old glyph of mars.. then we have saturn - a cross above a cresent, while the moon is a cresent without any cross to bear!!!!

bottom line - those anstisicia or contra antisicion points are based off those main lines.. equal day and night line - forget about these tropical zodiac names as it just confuses what needs to be the focus, or extreme day and night line position representing the solstice points.. then we have the mirror of one side looking over to the other side which is easiest to communicate via these signs - cancer to gemini - using the solstice point as the dividing line and etc etc.. is any of this making sense to you?

i like the idea of trying to figure out rulerships.. to me rulerships are just a concept like all these other concepts.. i don't care for the word itself - rulership - i like to think their are stronger or weaker associations between planets and times of the year, but just like taurus follows aries - or venus follows mars, so does it work on the other side - mars follows venus.. are those mirror images or am i imagining things? LOL.. i'll stop here..