About Ophiuchus the 13th sign

I've been reading about the 13th sign and I like the idea of it.

However, I read that most astrologers do not use it. Why is that?

After all, if it's a real constellation, shouldn't it be taken into consideration?

Could someone clue me in?

Thanks,

Maggie

DON'T GO THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We've had enough debate on that a year or so ago. It is a constellation NOT a sign. Indeed it is not and never has been a signThere are only 12 Signs and always have been that's it LOL

Conversely signs are NOT constellations, the two are quite different, even though they share some of the same names.

Ophiuchus was never, ever considered important for Astrology. Only Astronomers seem to think that it should be used in Astrology.

Constellations are groupings of real stars in real space. They're all over the place LOL. Signs did originate out of a small group of constellations that lie on the ecliptic and whilst there are more than 12 constellations that project into the ecliptic only 12 were ever used for charting the ecliptic and only 12 became signs, as the system of measurement was codified,

If you look at the constellations you'll find they overlap and that some are bigger than others. Astrology (and Astronomy) used them as the basis for measuring planetary movements but tidied them up into the signs - 12 equal divisions of the ecliptic circle.

Oh, and it's nothing to do with the sidereal zodiac. That to has 12 equal signs, that do not match the actual constellations in terms of positionaThough the origin of that zodiac is measured from a star in Aries.

Now if you want to be kind to my blood pressure, you'll drop the issue entirely LOL

PS If you really want to know then here's the link to the relevant thread

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=54777&highlight=Constellations

Thank you for the explanation and the thread.

Minderwiz said:

Now if you want to be kind to my blood pressure, you'll drop the issue entirely LOL

Click to expand...

Dropped. No more boo-boos.

Maggie

ETA : Just checked the thread. Brutal. LOL

deleted

The 'O' word again!

Minderwiz said:

Now if you want to be kind to my blood pressure, you'll drop the issue entirely LOL

Click to expand...

Did someone in here say Ophiuchus?

Oooops! Better not talk about THAT we dont want moderators popping a vein!

[Not many here want to talk about it, as, I feel, it questions the whole mechanics and logic of the type of astrology MOSTLY presented here, (but there are other types) and although I myself have high blood pressure I would be quiet happy to discuss this issue via PM's so as not to disturb the others - I've never felt threatened by innocent enquiry ]

ravenest said:

, I feel, it questions the whole mechanics and logic of the type of astrology MOSTLY presented here, (but there are other types)

Click to expand...

I'm curious ; what other 'types' of astrology is there? Unless, of course, you are referring to a specific school of thought?

Maggie

PS: Isn't red wine supposed to be 'good' for high blood pressure?! LOL

double post

Maggiemay said:

I'm curious ; what other 'types' of astrology is there?

Click to expand...

Ravenest said:

I would be quiet happy to discuss this issue via PM's so as not to disturb the others

Click to expand...

(abcde)

Maggiemay said:

Thank you for the explanation and the thread.

Click to expand...

I meant to post this lnk before but forgot. It might explain some of ther stuff in PM's
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=54694&highlight=sez

Much of the discussion in that thread shows the difficuly to carrying out rational discussion in this area. Not because one or other view is not rational but because there are clear problems with definitions and axioms.

Even worse reference to history is difficult because much of the foundations of Astrology lie in times long before writing or recording other than on cave walls. We can thus only speculate about belief, even if we can identify planets or constellations in those cave murals.

If one is arguing from one belief system against someone whose views are based on another, it is virtually impossible to arrive at common ground unless one or other party is willing to change their axioms. Try convincing a devout fundamentalist Chiristian that a scientific view is the only correct explanation of the world around us.

There is also the problem of etymology. Astrology means the study of the stars so the constellations must be the main thing we study. Well we need to remember that the 'stars' were not understood in terms of modern science. The ancients saw two types of stars, those that moved or wandered and those that stood still. The wandering stars were always the prime object of interest but their wandering needed to be measured or charted and the fixed stars were literally the obvious background. So Astrology as a study of the wandering stars is by no means a misnomer or claiming to be something that it is not.

It's also clear that it wasn't as simple as that. The fixed stars carried significance to society. Whether this significance lay in their relation to the seasons or was distinct from it is not clear and whether this significance predated the measurement of the wandering stars is also not clear and probably never will be. That star patterns not on the ecliptic have significance is also clear but again whether this is due to 'seasonal' factor or some independant belief system is not clear. It can be argued but we do not know for sure. What we do know is that many fixed stars had importance to traditional astrologers, an importanace that lasted well into the seventeenth century. Sadly that importance is largely overlooked by today's Astrologers.

It is reasonably clear that a joined up zodiac, was a fairly late invention most likely by mesopotamian astrologers. It's their zodiac that has come into modern use and it is clear that they distinguished between signs and constellations and introduced the 12 equal divisions.

That they did so does not preclude or should be allowed to preclude other forms of Astrology and I see absolutely no reason at all why a 'Southern hemisphere' version should not be developed. The traditional Northern version has obvious problems in the Southern Hemisphere.

What I do object to is then deliberate misrepresentation, which is often done by critics of Astrology, or to be more precise horoscopic Astrology. The Ophiucus issue being one. I won't rehearse the arguments, Dave made them clear in his post but the short answer us that Ophiuchus is irrelevant to horoscopic Astrology, is now and always was and it's existence was not something that was discovered in the 1950s.

So please can we respect traditions and by all means advance alternative views but make clear the basis of these views. Also as Dave points out Tropical and Sidereal proponants of Horoscopic Astrology are just as bad at this. So if Ravenest would like to put forward an alternative view, either developed or putative then this forum should welcome that.