Maggiemay
ravenest said:
ravenest said:
Ravenest, if anything, why didn't you PM me the thread directly?!
Anyhow, This whole topic is too complex for me at the moment.
Thank you.
Maggie
About Ophiuchus the 13th sign
Ravenest, if anything, why didn't you PM me the thread directly?!
Anyhow, This whole topic is too complex for me at the moment.
Thank you.
Maggie
thorhammer
I think that's exactly the conclusion to which Minderwiz desired you to come, MM
\m/ Kat
\m/ Kat
Maggiemay
thorhammer said:I think that's exactly the conclusion to which Minderwiz desired you to come, MM
\m/ Kat
MM
Minderwiz
Yes the issues are complex. The point I was trying to make is that one can proceed to discuss some of the issues and complexity without it becoming an uncomfortable experience for those participating.
The Western Astrological tradition is not the only way to approach Astrology. What is more it has been subject to major changes over the last few thousand years, so quite often there is a time line issue to consider. Nor would I argue that the changes constitute evolution or a process of development, leading to improvement. In short the notion that Western Astrology is the only acceptable Astrology is false.
There are also real issues about whether it can be transplanted root and branch into the Southern Hemisphere, indeed were I to live in the Southern Hemisphere that would be one of my prime areas of interest and it's one that perhaps should be more regularly considered on this forum.
The Western Astrological tradition is not the only way to approach Astrology. What is more it has been subject to major changes over the last few thousand years, so quite often there is a time line issue to consider. Nor would I argue that the changes constitute evolution or a process of development, leading to improvement. In short the notion that Western Astrology is the only acceptable Astrology is false.
There are also real issues about whether it can be transplanted root and branch into the Southern Hemisphere, indeed were I to live in the Southern Hemisphere that would be one of my prime areas of interest and it's one that perhaps should be more regularly considered on this forum.
dadsnook2000
Do we really see what we are looking at?
Imagine a peeled orange with 12 segments. These segments are filled with seeds. Are all the seeds alike? Basically, yes.
Now imagine that space around our solar system is like-wise divided into twelve orange-like-segments, the poles of earth aligned with the top and bottom of each segment. Within 15 light years of Earth each segment has two or three stars within it, within 100 light years each segment has a hundred or more stars within it, and then there are millions of stars further out in space within the bounds of our imaginary orange segment. Are all of those stars alike. Unlike the seeds, no. Some stars are small dark dwarf stars, spent and collapsed from more-normal stars, some are giants that might be hundreds of times bigger than our Sun, others radiate energy upon Earth (at times) which can reach 10,000 times what our nearby sun radiates even though they might be 40,000 light years away.
Now comes the impossible task. Imagine that all of those diverse stars, near and/or very far away, radiate something such that they collectively coax our orbiting solar system planets passing through their segment (relative to Earth) to be angry, more prone to taking action, seeing things as threatening and needing to be protected against. Then imagine that the next segment of space with its billions of variable star types happens to collectively influence planets moving through its bounds with a more harmonious nature, an attitude that is kind of cool, a desire for peaceful surroundings and comfort.
Imagine that each of these twelve segments, collectively containing billions upon billions of stars, were all arranged such that they bestowed a certain set of influences on Earth that promoted specific attitudes, responses, feelings, inclinations, likes and dislikes --- and that each segment, while different from the others were part of a whole system of influences designed just for us here on Earth.
Absurd isn't it.
Other than myth, marking holidays, helping to tell time or to navigate while out at sea, teaching children about cultural stories, the stars and constellations do not collectively have astrological significance. The "zodiac" that many on this list use, isn't defined by the stars above, but instead by the wobble of the Earth's poles, the tilt of those poles relative to our orbit about the Sun, and Aries Point which marks one of the two times each year when the poles are perpendicular to the Sun and solar system plane. In other words, the zodiac is much closer to home than the stars, it is right here on or near Earth. The zodiac is the accumulated cultural influence of the seasons which affect agriculture, travel, commerce, clothing, cities, sports, and many other facets of life. The zodiac is within us and is collectively defined by our world as part of our common experience.
Our charts, the positions of the planets, the time and place of our birth all give us our individuality, but we live within certain common areas as well. That is what the zodiac truly is, and its not out there 14 thousand light years away. Dave
Imagine a peeled orange with 12 segments. These segments are filled with seeds. Are all the seeds alike? Basically, yes.
Now imagine that space around our solar system is like-wise divided into twelve orange-like-segments, the poles of earth aligned with the top and bottom of each segment. Within 15 light years of Earth each segment has two or three stars within it, within 100 light years each segment has a hundred or more stars within it, and then there are millions of stars further out in space within the bounds of our imaginary orange segment. Are all of those stars alike. Unlike the seeds, no. Some stars are small dark dwarf stars, spent and collapsed from more-normal stars, some are giants that might be hundreds of times bigger than our Sun, others radiate energy upon Earth (at times) which can reach 10,000 times what our nearby sun radiates even though they might be 40,000 light years away.
Now comes the impossible task. Imagine that all of those diverse stars, near and/or very far away, radiate something such that they collectively coax our orbiting solar system planets passing through their segment (relative to Earth) to be angry, more prone to taking action, seeing things as threatening and needing to be protected against. Then imagine that the next segment of space with its billions of variable star types happens to collectively influence planets moving through its bounds with a more harmonious nature, an attitude that is kind of cool, a desire for peaceful surroundings and comfort.
Imagine that each of these twelve segments, collectively containing billions upon billions of stars, were all arranged such that they bestowed a certain set of influences on Earth that promoted specific attitudes, responses, feelings, inclinations, likes and dislikes --- and that each segment, while different from the others were part of a whole system of influences designed just for us here on Earth.
Absurd isn't it.
Other than myth, marking holidays, helping to tell time or to navigate while out at sea, teaching children about cultural stories, the stars and constellations do not collectively have astrological significance. The "zodiac" that many on this list use, isn't defined by the stars above, but instead by the wobble of the Earth's poles, the tilt of those poles relative to our orbit about the Sun, and Aries Point which marks one of the two times each year when the poles are perpendicular to the Sun and solar system plane. In other words, the zodiac is much closer to home than the stars, it is right here on or near Earth. The zodiac is the accumulated cultural influence of the seasons which affect agriculture, travel, commerce, clothing, cities, sports, and many other facets of life. The zodiac is within us and is collectively defined by our world as part of our common experience.
Our charts, the positions of the planets, the time and place of our birth all give us our individuality, but we live within certain common areas as well. That is what the zodiac truly is, and its not out there 14 thousand light years away. Dave
Maggiemay
Thank you so much for taking the time to weigh in. I appreciate it.
I feel bad because the analogy of the peeled orange actually made sense to me! LOL ... but then again, my natal mercury is receiving a square aspect from Neptune...
I see.
Yet, didn't the Egyptians give specific meaning to each star and planet? Why is it that we usually refer to astral influences as : Jupiter this... Saturn that... etc... ?
That's it?!
Where were you my whole life Dadsnook2000?! LOL
The concept is soooo new to me...I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around it.
I'm DYING in here!!!
I was under the impression that planet Earth was subjected to the the other solar system's planet's centrifugal force.
Regards,
Maggie
I feel bad because the analogy of the peeled orange actually made sense to me! LOL ... but then again, my natal mercury is receiving a square aspect from Neptune...
dadsnook2000 said:
I see.
Yet, didn't the Egyptians give specific meaning to each star and planet? Why is it that we usually refer to astral influences as : Jupiter this... Saturn that... etc... ?
dadsnook2000 said:
That's it?!
Where were you my whole life Dadsnook2000?! LOL
dadsnook2000 said:
The concept is soooo new to me...I'm not sure I can wrap my mind around it.
dadsnook2000 said:
I'm DYING in here!!!
I was under the impression that planet Earth was subjected to the the other solar system's planet's centrifugal force.
Regards,
Maggie
dadsnook2000
Collectively . . . is the word
Maggiemay said:
"Yet, didn't the Egyptians give specific meaning to each star and planet? Why is it that we usually refer to astral influences as : Jupiter this... Saturn that... etc... ?"
I noted that the stars didn't COLLECTIVELY imbue any "sign-like" meaning or influence upon us here on Earth or upon the planets that circle the Sun along with us. A small number of stars have INDIVIDUALLY been abscribed by various people over the ages to have specific influences when rising or culminating in one's chart or when in aspect to the Sun or Moon. These influences are often described as, for example, being like Jupiter and Mars or having a nature like Saturn and Mercury.
The planets, or wandering stars, have always had specific attributes which have a great deal of commonality among various cultures. Some individual stars, such as Sirius, have been held in great esteem by ancient peoples, particularly the Egyptians, yet the star is not seemingly given any specific planet-like influences that I have seen astrologers refer to in chart analysis.
Certainly nobody has been able to separate the hundreds of visible stars seen in just one degree of the sky such that they can say that one does this and another means that ---- how would you plot those in a chart? How might one interpret these many new pieces of information? If many have trouble with using hundreds of asteroids in a chart, it must be impossible to deal with the many-more thousands of stars. Dave
Maggiemay said:
"Yet, didn't the Egyptians give specific meaning to each star and planet? Why is it that we usually refer to astral influences as : Jupiter this... Saturn that... etc... ?"
I noted that the stars didn't COLLECTIVELY imbue any "sign-like" meaning or influence upon us here on Earth or upon the planets that circle the Sun along with us. A small number of stars have INDIVIDUALLY been abscribed by various people over the ages to have specific influences when rising or culminating in one's chart or when in aspect to the Sun or Moon. These influences are often described as, for example, being like Jupiter and Mars or having a nature like Saturn and Mercury.
The planets, or wandering stars, have always had specific attributes which have a great deal of commonality among various cultures. Some individual stars, such as Sirius, have been held in great esteem by ancient peoples, particularly the Egyptians, yet the star is not seemingly given any specific planet-like influences that I have seen astrologers refer to in chart analysis.
Certainly nobody has been able to separate the hundreds of visible stars seen in just one degree of the sky such that they can say that one does this and another means that ---- how would you plot those in a chart? How might one interpret these many new pieces of information? If many have trouble with using hundreds of asteroids in a chart, it must be impossible to deal with the many-more thousands of stars. Dave
Maggiemay
I understand.
If that is the case, then the fact that the constellations have moved should not concern us. That much has become clear.
What about those spots in the sky which have been given names. I'm guessing, each section needed to be named in order to keep track of them, so when ''they'' saw that one of the spot looked like a scale (in the sky) they called it: Libra and so on and so forth... Does that sound about right?
What a fascinating (& complex) science Astrology is: The more I learn, the more I'm in awe.
Thank you Dadsnook2000.
Maggie
dadsnook2000 said:
If that is the case, then the fact that the constellations have moved should not concern us. That much has become clear.
What about those spots in the sky which have been given names. I'm guessing, each section needed to be named in order to keep track of them, so when ''they'' saw that one of the spot looked like a scale (in the sky) they called it: Libra and so on and so forth... Does that sound about right?
What a fascinating (& complex) science Astrology is: The more I learn, the more I'm in awe.
Thank you Dadsnook2000.
Maggie
Minderwiz
Hi Dave, Glad to see you again and hope you are doing well.
Just a couple of points
Firstly Dave states what should be obvious but is often overlooked. The zodiac is a geocentric concept - it's Earth bound. What is more so are the constellations - as opposed to the individual stars that 'compose' them.
Orion, for example, only makes sense when viewed from Earth (or a nearby planet or solar system) and even then only for a limited period of time (in the history of the universe). Shift the angle of view and Orion no longer exists. The stars that 'compose' it do not lie equidistant from Earth, they lie at varying distances. In other words we are not looking at a fixed object.
As Dave points out, there are trillions of stars out there of which many thousand can be viewed from Earth. Of those maybe only 50 have had any real significance culturally and only a handful of constellations have also been seen as culturally important.
Those are the ones that seem to mark either the four quarterpoint of the Suns' perceived path or some other important directions on Earth, such as marking due North (with some error).
Stories that involve twins (well two humans) that have cultural and religious significance date from the time that the constellation of Gemini was a marker for the Spring Equinox in the North. I would guess that there are similar stores in the Southern Hemisphere that mark the Spring Equinox (or other quarter point).
This is not to 'devalue' the role of the fixed stars. I very much regret there fall from usage in modern Astrology. They are important cultural markers. However as Dave points out, there qualities are usually described with reference to the qualities of a planet.
Yes the zodiac of the twelve signs is a marker system. There is some debate as to whether a zodiac of the constellations predated it, or had significant use by Astrologers - as opposed to certain constellations, which clearly were used as markers. That 'zodiac' though was not a joined up one. For Natural Astrology you only need to be able to predict the equinoxes and the solstices, and not necessarily all four. So you don't need a 'circle of animals'. Only when you begin to use Astrology for other reasons does a need arise.
Now whatever is the case above, the growth of the zodiac of twelve signs is one that has become used widely in Europe, the Middle East and India. Elsewhere you will no doubt find different perceptions.
Does this mean that we shouldn't bother about precession? Well yes and No. The annual cycle of the seasons is independent of the stellar background, so from that point of view the answer is yes - don't bother.
However a circle needs a beginning point if it is to be used for measurement and any beginning point is arbitrary. Usually the beginning point has some cultural meaning. The Spring Equinox in the North is one such point. The Tropical zodiac keeps to this not matter what the stellar background. The Sidereal zodiac takes the Spring Equinox as it was two thousand odd years ago - and uses a Star in the constellation of Aries as it's origin.
However that point too is arbitrary. Go back another two thousand odd years and the Spring Equinox was in Taurus, and another two thousand odd years and it's in Geminii and so on. The origin has to be set somewhere though, so the arbitrary sidereal starting point is arguaby as good as the arbitrary spring equinox of the tropical system.
Incidentally the shift against the stellar background of the ecliptic points is not just longitudinally. There is a latitude shift as well. In terms of the planets this has little or any significant effect because they are in or near the ecliptic plane. However there is an effect against the stellar backdrop. Does this matter? Only to Astronomers and those who do not see Astrology as having meaning only in a cultural context.
Just a couple of points
Firstly Dave states what should be obvious but is often overlooked. The zodiac is a geocentric concept - it's Earth bound. What is more so are the constellations - as opposed to the individual stars that 'compose' them.
Orion, for example, only makes sense when viewed from Earth (or a nearby planet or solar system) and even then only for a limited period of time (in the history of the universe). Shift the angle of view and Orion no longer exists. The stars that 'compose' it do not lie equidistant from Earth, they lie at varying distances. In other words we are not looking at a fixed object.
As Dave points out, there are trillions of stars out there of which many thousand can be viewed from Earth. Of those maybe only 50 have had any real significance culturally and only a handful of constellations have also been seen as culturally important.
Those are the ones that seem to mark either the four quarterpoint of the Suns' perceived path or some other important directions on Earth, such as marking due North (with some error).
Stories that involve twins (well two humans) that have cultural and religious significance date from the time that the constellation of Gemini was a marker for the Spring Equinox in the North. I would guess that there are similar stores in the Southern Hemisphere that mark the Spring Equinox (or other quarter point).
This is not to 'devalue' the role of the fixed stars. I very much regret there fall from usage in modern Astrology. They are important cultural markers. However as Dave points out, there qualities are usually described with reference to the qualities of a planet.
Yes the zodiac of the twelve signs is a marker system. There is some debate as to whether a zodiac of the constellations predated it, or had significant use by Astrologers - as opposed to certain constellations, which clearly were used as markers. That 'zodiac' though was not a joined up one. For Natural Astrology you only need to be able to predict the equinoxes and the solstices, and not necessarily all four. So you don't need a 'circle of animals'. Only when you begin to use Astrology for other reasons does a need arise.
Now whatever is the case above, the growth of the zodiac of twelve signs is one that has become used widely in Europe, the Middle East and India. Elsewhere you will no doubt find different perceptions.
Does this mean that we shouldn't bother about precession? Well yes and No. The annual cycle of the seasons is independent of the stellar background, so from that point of view the answer is yes - don't bother.
However a circle needs a beginning point if it is to be used for measurement and any beginning point is arbitrary. Usually the beginning point has some cultural meaning. The Spring Equinox in the North is one such point. The Tropical zodiac keeps to this not matter what the stellar background. The Sidereal zodiac takes the Spring Equinox as it was two thousand odd years ago - and uses a Star in the constellation of Aries as it's origin.
However that point too is arbitrary. Go back another two thousand odd years and the Spring Equinox was in Taurus, and another two thousand odd years and it's in Geminii and so on. The origin has to be set somewhere though, so the arbitrary sidereal starting point is arguaby as good as the arbitrary spring equinox of the tropical system.
Incidentally the shift against the stellar background of the ecliptic points is not just longitudinally. There is a latitude shift as well. In terms of the planets this has little or any significant effect because they are in or near the ecliptic plane. However there is an effect against the stellar backdrop. Does this matter? Only to Astronomers and those who do not see Astrology as having meaning only in a cultural context.
Maggiemay
Minderwiz, Dadsnook2000, Ravenest
I am so glad we are having this conversation. It's absolutely brilliant.
Maggie
I am so glad we are having this conversation. It's absolutely brilliant.
Maggie
