Sidereal or Tropical?

I tend to go with Sidereal, but no particular school. I just take the sky as it is.

So why does a tropical sun-sign, moon-sign, rising sign etc. still seem to work so well, even though 80% or so those born tropical Aries are really Pisceans, for instance?

I take it that the sun-sign attribution, settled around 2000 years ago, reflects the seasonal and earth-energy of the northern hemisphere at the time the divisions were made. So that Aries, the Ram, was taken to represent certain qualities which are really the qualities of the beginning of spring in the northern hemisphere.

This is why, although so many tropical Arians are really sidereal Pisceans, they still exhibit those classical qualities. They were still born at the beginning of spring, whatever Zodiac sign the sun happens to be in.

In other words, the Zodiac constellation has nothing whatsoever to do with the character of the native. This primary Sun signification has everything to do with the Sun's relationship with the Earth, i.e. the seasons.

By this theory, someone born a tropical Gemini deep enough in the southern hemisphere (say South Africa, Argentina or southern Australia) would exhibit the qualities of a northern hemisphere Sagittarius - because summer in the north is winter in the south. I now have some South African friends, and I would like to report that my theory is right, but it would be completely anecdotal so I won't push it.

For me the scientific basis of astrology has to be gravitation and electromagnetism; thus the Sun, Moon, the planets and their aspects, the rising sign, etc. It's all about real and persistent energy, between the bodies the of the solar system. The constellations of the Zodiac are only the numbers on the face of the clock on which these forces move, but the numbers on the clock don't influence the activity between the bodies. The I think the mythological meanings of the signs have to ignored, in a sense, except insofar as they have taken on the meanings of the seasons they belong to in the northen hemisphere.

That's why I'm a siderealist - and also, it is nice to be able to make charts directly from the sky, and to note what is where, and to know that it *really is* there.

At least, this the work of the natal chart, giving the disposition of the native.

For prediction, the regularity of the planets, interacting with the energetic make-up of the native, planetary returns and the web of aspects give me the best results. But I am not a good astrologer, just a dabbler, although a very intuitive one I think.

Yes Ross, of course it must! If tropical astrology is set at the equinoctal point then it must be seasonal - hence my post about a baby born in the wintertime. However I am also interested in constellational astronomy, which postulates cosmic energies 'beaming' from stars and star groups. So I see two different forces at work.

However, in my chart for example, I am tropical cancer, and people that know me very well (including one irate tropical astrologer) insist I must be a cancer (they mean natal sun in cancer) as I behave that way. Yet with a sidereal adjustment I am gemini and many people insist I act and express myself like a gemini. But with the sidereal chart my leo moon now is in cancer and that is the part of me (my moon part) that those close to me detect as cancerian energy, while with others I am not that intimate with I will relate to with my solar / gemini energy.... am I making sense?

When all of this was shown to me (tropic versus sidereal natal chart), and explained (by an expereinced astrologer) it helped explain many of the discrepencies and confusions I had felt about my modes of being and relationships.

Personally, I don't believe the constellations have any effect. 1800 years ago, 0 degrees Aries marked the equinox; now the equinox has drifted back to 5 deg. Pisces or so. So it doesn't matter what the background constellation really is. The only thing that matters is the earth-sun relation at the time of birth. The Zodiac is like the face of a clock that is slowly moving backwards, while the hands (planets) keep perfect time. So the time really hasn't changed (even though the face has), and you will know what time it really is if you remember how it was when the clock was first set - i.e. in the Hellenistic period, about 2000 years ago.

(I would argue that astrological "birth" should be defined as "first unaided breath" (taking in prana, chi, however the energy is defined))

I also tend to think that other environmental conditions might mark the native at first breath - features like plains or mountains, large bodies of water, forests or deserts, urban or rural, and exceptional events like electrical storms and earthquakes (with disturb the chi). So astrology for me must be done intimately, and is never just a mathematical computation of planetary positions.

(BTW, in case you're wondering and want to take a look at my chart, I was born at 79deg. 35min. West, 43deg. 32min. North (Mississauga, Ontario, Canada), at 00:26 EDT (05:26 GMT), August 20, 1966.

Saturn is lone planet above the horizon in my natal chart; the rest remain below the horizon, unactualized by any major aspects, except for weak conjunctions of Mercury and Venus (with some slight stress perhaps with the opposition with MC), and Jupiter and Mars. (The Uranus-Pluto conjunction necessarily also applies to everybody born for months around this time)

The Mississauga hospital in which I was born was in a flat, low-rise urban environment (although probably pretty quiet at that time of night at that time); the weather was calm; it is close to Lake Ontario, one of the Great Lakes (the dichotomy of land and water does loom large in my inner landscape)).

My siderealism is completely astronomical, and I do believe that the electromagnetic and gravitational web of the solar system is what makes astrology valid, if not an exact science. I.e. I think it is easier to predict large scale things, statistically, than to pinpoint what is going to happen to an individual. I know it can be done, but the expertise and talent to do so must be profound.

Ross G Caldwell said:

I also tend to think that other environmental conditions might mark the native at first breath - features like plains or mountains, large bodies of water, forests or deserts, urban or rural, and exceptional events like electrical storms and earthquakes (with disturb the chi). So astrology for me must be done intimately, and is never just a mathematical computation of planetary positions.

Click to expand...

This is very interesting. I am wondering though what you mean by "mark the native..." Do you mean might leave the native with a sense of wanting this type of landscape/environment ? I ask because I was born in a place very different from the one in which I am living. (Philippines)

So, as for the sidereal I would be an Aquarius? (I have sun sign at 00 degrees PIS) I am not sure about the fit, but have never been all that comfortable with the whole pisces thing anyway.

prudence said:

This is very interesting. I am wondering though what you mean by "mark the native..."

Click to expand...

I think that the energetic quality of the moment of first breath imprints the energy of the organism. It gives it the character that starts the ball rolling, or gets the system running, in a certain direction - subtly, but increasing with time.

The "energetic quality" is electromagnetic and gravitational, which is why - as I see it - being born in a heavily electrified and urban environment will obscure the effects of the planets to some extent. So urban individuals will show more generic similarities than rural individuals born at the same time and roughly the same place. The electric "grid" has its effect.

When the baby is in the womb, the mother moderates all the influences; but when the baby breathes independently of the mother, the body begins a chain reaction of external adaptation - this is what I mean by "marking" - it is like striking the image on a coin, giving it a character. So this moment of first breath gives us our character - the character of the web of energy all around us at that moment.

Do you mean might leave the native with a sense of wanting this type of landscape/environment ? I ask because I was born in a place very different from the one in which I am living. (Philippines)

Click to expand...

I think the landscape or natural features might leave a neutral first impression, and the emotional associations with that landscape develop later. So, it may be a wanting or a loathing (to cite the extremes), depending on how it "felt" when you were born.

But in any case, it will be part of your interior landscape forever, and will probably form a reference point in your imagination and dreams, if you are no longer there.

So, as for the sidereal I would be an Aquarius? (I have sun sign at 00 degrees PIS) I am not sure about the fit, but have never been all that comfortable with the whole pisces thing anyway.

Click to expand...

Technically, yes the constellation behind the Sun when you were born was Aquarius. But I don't interpret things like this; the constellation has no energetic influence, since it is a fiction. All of the influence is due to the configuration of the planets and the local energy conditions at your time of birth. The Sun and planets could be in any constellation. You are a product of your environment, like a plant or an animal, in addition to the adaptations you make while you are still flexible in your early years. Part of that environment is the web of influence of the bodies in the solar system, but it does not include the figures drawn with the stars on the ecliptic. These are just convenient reference points.

Being born in the Philippines, I would look at the typical seasonal changes there - wet or dry, growth or decline (expansion or contraction, giving or conserving - just to name some dichotomies) - and look at how the local animal and plant populations act during these times. Then I'd look at other Philippines-born people for the various signs, and see how they lived out their destinies. Finally, I'd compare that to what traditional western Astrology has to say.

Another thought

I have always felt that the "order of planetary rising over the ASC" and the culminating/descending factors were important at the time of birth. I have played a mind-game where I tried to imagine how I might feel prior-to-birth and just-following-birth about the visible (above) planets in my chart. And then, how I might react to something "new" popping up into view or another "dropping" away from view (and strong influence).

These surges or awarenesses of energies arriving into my new life or dropping away would be quite eventful, and when several days had passed it would become apparent that some were repeating while others were changing. How would I react to that?

Take all of that and couple it with early family/house rhythms of activity and growing awareness of "others", add in the planetary factors that also might influence these "others" relationships, plus the growing capability of how I would individually be able to interact during the growth process -- well, it is all an interesting game.

I think the whole seasonal and cyclic flow of things is important to consider. We are not just a birth chart, we have very many charts (or cyclic flows) that extend from the birth chart. I think this represents my fascination with "processes of experience" rather than static charts. Just some thoughts. Dave

Ross G Caldwell said:

I think that the energetic quality of the moment of first breath imprints the energy of the organism. It gives it the character that starts the ball rolling, or gets the system running, in a certain direction - subtly, but increasing with time.

The "energetic quality" is electromagnetic and gravitational, which is why - as I see it - being born in a heavily electrified and urban environment will obscure the effects of the planets to some extent. So urban individuals will show more generic similarities than rural individuals born at the same time and roughly the same place. The electric "grid" has its effect.

When the baby is in the womb, the mother moderates all the influences; but when the baby breathes independently of the mother, the body begins a chain reaction of external adaptation - this is what I mean by "marking" - it is like striking the image on a coin, giving it a character. So this moment of first breath gives us our character - the character of the web of energy all around us at that moment.

Click to expand...

Well, this was in a hospital on Clark AFB, so I can only assume it was a pretty heavily electrified environment. And it was more densely populated than what I'd consider rural. I wonder what kind of energy effect a nearby volcano might cause. (Pinatubo is not too far away, and according to my mother, volcanic activity was almost constant, not big eruptions but lots of lava flowing into the ocean through fissures)

Ross G Caldwell said:

I think the landscape or natural features might leave a neutral first impression, and the emotional associations with that landscape develop later. So, it may be a wanting or a loathing (to cite the extremes), depending on how it "felt" when you were born.

But in any case, it will be part of your interior landscape forever, and will probably form a reference point in your imagination and dreams, if you are no longer there.

Click to expand...

I looked up the climate for that area, and also the landscape, after reading this reply. I was born at during the dry season, it was the day before the full moon, and a lunar eclipse. I am not fond of humid weather at all, and live in a climate that is mostly dry and hot, with a heavy rainy season (Dec thru May-ish). (Rainy season for the area I was born is April thru Nov.)

Regarding your comment about interior landscape, imagination and dreams, that is very spot on, and I had never realized it until now. This is really simplistic, but a doodle I have always drawn as far back as I can rememeber (ie during classroom lectures, while on phone) is a palm tree, or sometimes 2 palm trees growing from a central point, on a tiny tropical island and bending out at odd angles. I recall my school notebooks' margins being filled with this image. It was something I did while not being terribly consciously aware of what I was doing.

Also, a sort of visualization that I did through my childhood in order to escape, especially during times of extreme upset/anxiety, would be to shut my eyes and imagine that I was on a white sandy beach, lying in the warm sun, on an island. Not a populated one, but completely deserted. It was a most soothing form of escape for me, one that came to me naturally, as I had never been introduced to creative visualization until I was an adult. So, maybe the island "idea" resonates with me, but not the urban environment of my birthplace.

Ross said:

Being born in the Philippines, I would look at the typical seasonal changes there - wet or dry, growth or decline (expansion or contraction, giving or conserving - just to name some dichotomies) - and look at how the local animal and plant populations act during these times. Then I'd look at other Philippines-born people for the various signs, and see how they lived out their destinies. Finally, I'd compare that to what traditional western Astrology has to say.

Click to expand...

I still need to look at the animal and plant populations, thanks so much for explaining this new way of attacking a natal chart.

As far as chucking out signs goes, I'd like to go at a chart for a relative who just asked for a little (very basic) overview of her chart, with this technique in mind.....even though astrology is still so new to me, I'd like to see what comes out of this attempt.