What does everyone think of the new zodiac?

[for3v3r_17teen]

Apparently the zodiac has changed. I don't like this idea at all, and I really don't believe it, but who knows. What is this going to mean for the rest of our natal charts?

[Leo.]

It only changed for Sidereal astrology, not western.

[waybread]

No it hasn't changed. See the thread on astrology in the news.

Fox network got it wrong.

[eternalautumn]

Fox network got it wrong.

AS USUAL! *shakes head in disgust*

[HeyPlayGirl]

Originally Posted by eternalautumn

AS USUAL! *shakes head in disgust*

hahaha!
http://www.alternet.org/story/149193...es_you_stupid/

[tikana]

it is a soap opera .. someone wants to make money off new zodiac shenanigans. watch ... within 2 months there will be 10+ experts screaming and yelling that Nostradamus foretold that. and of course, there will be psychopath astrologer/s who will write a book that antichrist's zodiac is the 13th sign. AND then will be a market for all those gullible people who will try to convince everyone that astrology is all wrong. With that there will be who knows how many natal books on 13 signs. Pluto got demoted now 13 signs.

[eternalautumn]

it is a soap opera .. someone wants to make money off new zodiac shenanigans. watch ... within 2 months there will be 10+ experts screaming and yelling that Nostradamus foretold that. and of course, there will be psychopath astrologer/s who will write a book that antichrist's zodiac is the 13th sign. AND then will be a market for all those gullible people who will try to convince everyone that astrology is all wrong. With that there will be who knows how many natal books on 13 signs. Pluto got demoted now 13 signs.

Maybe 2012 will be the apocalypse after all... THE APOCALYPSE OF ASTROLOGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!! 11

[ImNotThere9]

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

[Gemini Britney]

This would throw off everything. There are 4 of each element. Evenly divided into fixed, cardinal, mutable. So what would this new sign be? and it just takes out the complete balance of all the signs. I don't want to believe this could even be possible, but I am open to anyone who would like to try and agree with the 13th sign theory, and I would love to hear your reasoning.

[Frank]

Sigh.

Every few years some astronomer gets his or her knickers in a twist and has to say something about this. It's a classic Straw Man Argument.

Here's something I wrote up a few years ago that briefly covers the subject:

Astrology 101 – A Zodiac Explanation

An area of confusion amongst inexperienced astrologers and those totally ignorant of how astrology is practiced is the difference amongst tropical signs, sidereal signs and constellations.

Heres an overview:

Tropical Zodiac Is 12-fold division of the Ecliptic (the apparent path of the Sun around the Earth) which starts with the Vernal Equinox as 0 degrees Aries with each sign having 30 degrees - used in Western Tropical astrology.

Sidereal Zodiac Is 12-fold division of the Ecliptic based on an ayanamsa value as the projected from the Vernal Equinox for the 0 Aries point to supposedly correct for precession, each sign having 30 degrees. These are mostly used in Vedic astrology, also known as Jyotish. There are several ayanamsas currently in use by different schools of Vedic astrological thought, such as Lahiri ( the official Indian government ayanamsa), the Fagan-Bradley, the Rahman, and the Khrisnamurti. All of these are around 24 degrees forward of the Vernal Equinox. Thus, someone who has the Sun placed at 1 degree Aries in the Tropical Zodiac, the Vedic position would be 6 degrees Pisces.

Constellations The zodiacal constellations do not really have specific, completely agreed upon boundaries. They are not each 30 degrees in length. Most astrologers (except for some Western Siderealists) do not use the constellations to measure planetary movement. Due to precession, the constellations do not correspond with the Tropical Zodiac, nor do the constellations fit into Sidereal Signs due to the inexact and varied size of the constellations. Astrology debunkers frequently set up a Straw Man argument about this because they dont know how astrology is really practiced.

One must realize that no one of these ways of measuring planetary positions against the background of the Ecliptic is correct or incorrect - they are just different ways of measuring the same thing. They all describe the 360 degrees of the Ecliptic. One may use different tools or markers an objects length, the length itself remains the same. Just as 4 inches equals 10.16 centimeters equals 1 hand, its all the same length - just a different measuring system.

[byjove]

Hi Frank,

despite having read up on this before, I'm embarrassed to say seem to have not retained it; I don't remember and always found the explanations a little tricky (perhaps images would help) to understand what's going on here. I'm sure you're at least a little frustrated, it's never easy having to explain the roots to people on the beginning of a path, but could you recommend sites for better understanding? I just can't picture what's being said. Or, if you do have time I for one would be very grateful for a little hand, nothing beats ignorance and fear than information!

By Jove

[Frank]

Originally Posted by byjove

Hi Frank,

despite having read up on this before, I'm embarrassed to say seem to have not retained it; I don't remember and always found the explanations a little tricky (perhaps images would help) to understand what's going on here. I'm sure you're at least a little frustrated, it's never easy having to explain the roots to people on the beginning of a path, but could you recommend sites for better understanding? I just can't picture what's being said. Or, if you do have time I for one would be very grateful for a little hand, nothing beats ignorance and fear than information!

By Jove

Tropical Zodiac


Siderial Zodiac



Zodiacal Constellations


Otherwise, what I wrote is about as simple as it gets.

[queenfluff]

Glad I am not the only one who thinks it is completely wrong and stupid.

[Mark]

The only problem I have with discussing a 13-sign zodiac is the fact that hardly anyone knows about it. Therefore, discussions are likely to be fruitless, unless we just happen to have the right people involved. Firstly, considering that we have a 12-sign zodiac that works, I see no reason that a 13-sign zodiac couldn't be made to work. The thing to remember is that 12-sign and 13-sign zodiacs would have to work by slightly different rules and the relations between the signs would have to be considered/balanced. In fact, the idea of a 13-sign zodiac comes from antiquity, from a time and place when and where someone did use it. The only thing that would cause a serious problem systemically is the mistake of taking a system of astrology based on 12 signs and shoving a 13th sign into it with no other adaptations. That will produce erroneous astrology. But, if proper work and consideration are put into the system as a whole, I see no reason a 13-sign zodiac couldn't work.

[byjove]

Thanks Frank.

Also Mark, I'm curious how one goes about this; do we need to discuss the philosophy behind why move from a 12-sign to a 13-zodiac, and why we would now rearrange a part of the sky as giving light to a different kind of character? Or does it work a different way; when Uranus and the others were later discovered, was it a matter of figuring out what we believe to be the influences? How would one do that with a new SIGN?

I think Frank's right, I for one remember the last time a couple of years ago a very similar story hit the headlines. I just feel a bit useless until I get my head around the ideas; I'm a bit weaponless.

[byjove]

I highly recommend this site for better understanding, and I should say that for beginners on the topic it can appear quite daunting, but slow, and steady reading does the job;

http://www.astrologycom.com/precession.html

One of the many things that crossed my mind is that (paraphrasing) the author here says that why the ancients chose to leave out Ophiuchus which does cross the ecliptic while at the same time Scorpio uses less space will probably remain a mystery. That troubles me! That means we, or possibly the ancients didn't understand something...I never like that!

"Based on the dates in the table, on October 24, the Sun would be found in the Constellation of Virgo, the Tropical Sign of Scorpio, and the Sidereal Sign of Libra."

Kevin Burk
http://www.astrologycom.com/precession2.html

What?! Sidereal isn't as accurate as it thinks it is? And the astronomical, as well as the Tropical (I knew) and the Sidereal (I didn't know) are all incongruent?

Also, why divide the ecliptic into thirty equal segments? What is the philosophical reasoning for that? Is that simply to satisfy the functioning of a 12-sign zodiac? If so, why again then, did the ancients choose to omit Ophiuchus?

Why do some astrologers use only the planets and some also the fixed stars? There are some very experienced astrologers on here of either camp, not so different from the house system situation but still I'm curious as to the reasoning.

[waybread]

I can't say that I am a "right person" to discuss Ophiuchus, but I have looked at some ancient and classical mythology that was current in societies who constructed the zodiac. And we do find some flux. The classical astrologers like Ptolemy included constellations off the ecliptic in their work on the astrology of fixed stars, they just didn't include them as zodiacal signs. The Egyptian Dendara zodiac of ca. 50 BC includes Ophiuchus as a seated figure holding what appears to be a scepter.

One bit of current wisdom about mythology is that it always operated on multiple levels, one of which was esoteric and reserved for the initiates. The spiritual leaders of ancient civilizations apparently thought that you couldn't teach these mysteries to just any ignoramus-- who might misinterpret or mock the really sacred meanings of the myths. So a lot of the mythical and scriptural material became encrypted or encoded in a way that the initiate would grasp, but not the others.

Ophichus as a constellation may have been the original Tree of Life, which shows up in much ancient artwork and mythology, and also in the Bible (notably in Genesis and Revelation.) The Greeks associated this constellation with Aesclepius, a mythical physician who attained divine status for his extraordinary ability to sustain life.

The serpent was a symbol of ancient wisdom and eternal life; the latter apparently referring to snakes' habits of shedding their old skins as they grow as well as the Ouroboros, an image of a snake making a circle by biting its own tail. As newer religions replaced older religions, however, the serpent got downgraded to a demonic character (just as the murder/castration stories of Uranus and Saturn show the disempowering of older bliefs and their gods by more recent ones.) A man who handled snakes presumably partook of their ancient wisdom, but equally would appear dangerous and even demonic.

One myth of Aesclepius is that he was actually able to raise the dead. Pluto got so alarmed at this potential theft of the dead that he persuaded Jupiter to kill Aesclepius with a thunderbolt. To the Roman author Pliny (the elder), the stars in Ophiuchus were dangerous, and associated with poisoning (a negative twist on Aesclepius's herbalism.) (R. H. Allen, Star Names) So Ophiuchus the constellation became associated with forbidden practices.

A more positive interpretation for our time is the medical cadeuceus, a staff with two snakes twined around it. Although this symbol is mercurial, the "rod of Aesclepius"--a staff with a single snake around it--is also the symbol of several medical organizations. [Cf. the bronze serpent staff of Moses.]

Intriguingly, Scorpio (which todays occupies a portion of the Ophichus part of the zodiac) is the sign of the surgeon, along with its traditional ruler Mars. The mythical healer Chiron, a centaur, would seem to have some affinity with Sagittarius so I would conjecture that there is some residue of medicine in this portion of the heavens.

In numerology, 12 was seen as a perfect number, whereas 13 was associated with the number of lunar months in a solar year, and with discredited lunar goddesses such as Hekate--or discredited disciples like Judas. There just wasn't room for a 13th constellation in an idealized system.

I can't say for a fact, but my surmise is that this constellation just got "too hot to handle." Then the constellation is mostly off the ecliptic, only a small portion crosses it. Scorpio is such a prominent constellation in the night sky and Sagittarius is also quite visible: perhaps when the use of constellations converted to 30-degree signs, Ophiuchus was expendible.

Libra is kind of a late-breaking constellation--originally it was considered to be the Scorpion's claws. But with Aries as the spring equinox point, Libra gained prominence as the autumn equinox point. And then there is a whole association of the goddess Ceres with two Roman harvest dieties, Liber and Libera, who were celebrated about the time of the autumn equinox; so Ophichus was simply more expendible.

[natasa]

Originally Posted by tikana

it is a soap opera .. and of course, there will be psychopath astrologer/s who will write a book that antichrist's zodiac is the 13th sign.

I knew that we poor Sagittarians are ment to suffer in this life...

Yes, here I am, the Ophiuchus - the 13th sign, born 8th of December, waiting for the psychopath astrologer to write a book....

Not only flirtative, bluntly honest, superficial, always on a run, unable to commit, BUT 13th SIGN AS WELL...

Even for our free Sagittarian nature, this is too much


DEAR TIKANA, YOUR COMMENTS ARE BRILIANT!
YOU MADE ME LAUGH and thank you again for the horary about the book - will keep you informed and we will celebrate I hope!

My very best

[natasa]

Originally Posted by byjove

"based on the dates in the table, on october 24, the sun would be found in the constellation of virgo, the tropical sign of scorpio, and the sidereal sign of libra."

and no more virgos please...
We have enough

[Olivia]

And nobody's thinking that this brouhaha was released at the beginning of the year so the media (and whatever astronomer is promoting the 13th sign theory this week) could get more attention and viewers?

After all, this is when sun-sign columnists put out all their year-ahead forecasts....

Or possibly, I'm just being cynical.

Naah. Don't think so.

[queenfluff]

Originally Posted by natasa

and no more virgos please...
We have enough

No, NEVER enough Virgos in the world...

[natasa]

Originally Posted by queenfluff

No, NEVER enough Virgos in the world...

Ok, not only that the 13th sign is transforming us Sagittarians in to something new but with more Virgos around us we will have to finaly put ourself in order and start taking care about detailes and scadule and time and all that ``Virgo`` stuff? No more freedom...?

We will suffer double I think
Who ever invented this 13th sign is destroing Sagittarians...

The ``New World Order`` is a secret plan to ``Put the World in Order`` with more Virgos around (finaly - without clumsy superficial free Sagittarians

[queenfluff]

Originally Posted by natasa

Ok, not only that the 13th sign is transforming us Sagittarians in to something new but with more Virgos around us we will have to finaly put ourself in order and start taking care about detailes and scadule and time and all that ``Virgo`` stuff? No more freedom...?

We will suffer double I think
Who ever invented this 13th sign is destroing Sagittarians...

The ``New World Order`` is a secret plan to ``Put the World in Order`` with more Virgos around (finaly - without clumsy superficial free Sagittarians

Hehe. Actually I think Scorpios are getting the short stick here. According to those new dates, they only get a week!

Hmm, as a Virgo myself, I never deny anyone their freedom. Having two planets in Sag myself, I love my freedom too.

There would still be plenty of Sags I think - you still get around a month. Scorpios would dwindle down to a small percentage. Although, true, they did give Virgo a big chunk of time for whatever reason. I don't know - to me October is NOT Virgos month. That would be September. October belongs to Scorpio for sure.

Nothing wrong with having more order in the world. Think about it this way - if the world is more in order there will less things for the clumsy Sagittarians to trip over! Us Virgos will do all the ordering work, you Sags can relax while we work.

In a few years, they will probably change it again and Virgo will get a week and Scorpios will get the extra time! Lol! Than in another couple of years Sags will get the extra time. And on and on and on...

[07.Re]

The very same day Ophiuchus raised its erm... ugly head, there were over 1,000 guests online (!) researching a particular thread that had been raised in the past: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=22731

[Mark]

In speaking of a 13-sign zodiac, we must remember that every astrological system is just that: a system. If a system is internally and externally consistent, and it always works to describe extant qualities in the Universe, then it is a functional system unto itself. That doesn't mean that 12-sign and 13-sign systems should ever be compatible. Actually, I would say that they probably would never be compatible because they are based on different assumptions. That doesn't mean that each can't do its own part to describe the Universe. Systems are not mutually exclusive without a dichotomy and we don't have a dichotomy here. Each can be functional in its own way without stepping on the other's toes. Toes only get stepped on when pig-headed people say, "The way I learned is the only way!"