Is it wrong to ditch Tropical for Sidreal astrology?

[Vivien]

I discovered my Sidereal chart about a week ago and everything about it makes sense. For the longest Ive been confused over the fact that Venus isnt a forerunner in my tropical chart yet Art is so much apart of who I am. Ive owned a jewelery store, worked in a beauty salon, I am a model, actress, singer and painter, all which are Venus dominated. In my sidereal chart Venus is a close second in dominance, and Libra is third among the twelve signs. Taurus is my ascendant and Venus forms a harmonious aspect to it.
Could this mean that Sidereal is more accurate?...or have I failed in reading my tropical chart correctly?

[Olivia]

Both western astrology and Jyotish work. Modern astrology I personally have qualms about, but I've had no problem with medieval Persian and even Latin (western) astrology.

But I worked with modern astrology for 25 years. I had no problem leaving it aside when the traditional renaissance started and books began to be available - astrology finally made real sense.

For you, Jyotish may have done the same thing - in which case you ought to pursue it.

Why stick with an astrology you find inadequate? Not only will you be hurt by it, but so will your clients if you're a professional.

Pick up a good book or two on the subject, see what you can find for reputable web sites (like all astrologies, be careful - there's a lot of junk out there), and see where it goes.

Don't be afraid to ditch something that's never worked for you, though!

[kainous]

I think that this is a great question, because I've been questioning a lot of things about tropical astrology for awhile, and was finally convinced when I discovered Cyril Fagan's work with Western Sidereal astrology and the way that he confirmed it with Lunar then Solar return charts, and his use of astrology with rain data (I have seen the same success now that I'm using his information for astrometeorology).

Anyway, I had been moving to Sidereal for about a month before the "sudden announcement" of the people's wrong signs. Actually, what took me a while was to recognize that people were better suited for sidereal than tropical. I lost my Leo title for a Cancer, but I'm more of a homebody, a nurturer, and I'm really more emotional, as well as my Solar Return twin. My work calls me the honorary "mother-figure."

Many of my friends make sense now within sidereal zodiac, more so than the tropical.

Other examples: Pink and Charlie Sheen do NOT act like Virgos, they act like Leos, more so than I do.

I think that one of the issues that need to be resolved is that we relearn what things mean from the sidereal zodiac.

[Olivia]

The 'wrong signs' thing was cooked up by astronomers who don't realise that astrologers use the same ephemerides used - and mostly published by - astronomers. They mark planetary positions the same way we do.

Sidereal ties the Aries point to the precession of the equinoxes, whilst tropical nails it to the spring equinox.

Neither sidereal nor tropical astrology is constellational. Using fixed stars is constellational, but you can do that with either zodiac - though I've yet to hear anyone say something like 'you have sun conjunct Algol, therefore your sun-sign is Perseus, and you over here, your sun is conjunct Mirach, so your sign is Cetus'.

If we were going to go constellational, we'd have another 40 signs or so, and some people wouldn't have signs at all because there are 'gaps' between some of the constellations. Even if we were just looking at constellations that touch the ecliptic, why only add in Ophiuchus? Why not Cetus? Whales are cute, right? And several others.

So that's kind of a non-issue to either zodiac. But it's a good reason for astrologers to understand their own tradition, and that includes some basic astronomy.

I'll get off the soapbox and leave quietly now.

[piercethevale]

For me the proof that everything remains steady with the Tropical explanation is the Sabian Symbols.
When Marc Edmond Jones utilized clairvoyant Elsie Wheeler he did so in a blind and random manner...and He was inquiring as to the Tropical Zodiac. If the Tropical Zodiac is wrong then Elsies' responses would have made no sense or she would have drawn a blank in reply. The point is, that when the symbols Elsies visualized are put in their sequential order they are seen as an systematic, ordered and balanced progression of spiritual evolution. That there are sub-orders of manifest rational association and logical sequential progression in geometrical matrices* further substantiates this.
*[e.g. 'Grand Crosses', Pentagrams, Grand Trines, etc.]
I gave evidence of the validity of the symbols as per their order of progression and placement in the Zodiac via Rabbi Dobins Kabbalistic Astrology research where-in the Rabbi translated a passage from the Book of Habakkuk 3:2-4 to read that "...God shall come [from the direction of] Capricorn and Aquarius." As the symbol for the 30th degree of Capricorn represents 'The Godhead' and the symbol for th 1st degree of Aquarius represents 'The Divine act of creation' this demonstrates, both the authenticity of the symbols Elsie gave and the order they are arranged in [and it mutually validates Kabbalistic Astrology as the Rabbi utilized, gave and interpreted it]. The subsequent analogy of the Grand Cross matrix structured from that point {Aquarius 1*] depicts a wonderfully logical explanation for the purpose of creation.
The chart I've produced for the birth of Jesus/Yeshua is dead right on symbolically as to who the man was and his purported dharma/destiny.
The symbology applied to the Arabic Parts in that chart are repeatedly on theme as to the known facts [or consensus as to] of what occurred in the Mans life as per to the topic of each Part.
Presently the symbology applied to every chart I've analyzed in depth and discussed, with to whom it belonged, has been unquestionably accurate to both my and said clients reasoning and estimation.
Thus...it is without question that nothing has moved from the 'Beginning'. Elsie Wheeler designated what the symbols are and where they were located in 1926 and subsequent research and analysis has shown that they were in the same place at the creation of the cosmos, they were in the same place when Jesus/Yeshua was born and they are still in the same place presently.
...and, by simple logical deduction it can be gathered that 'fixed stars' don't have a single iota of influence. If the 'Principles' involved with each degree of the Zodiac remain fixed regardless of where the stars/constellations wander off to then it isn't the stars that confer these attributes. I've repeatedly stated that the constellations were drawn up, only for the simple reason, to be used as 'pointers', 'earmarks' or 'beacons' at one time in mankinds' ancient past. [...now... I'm not saying that the Planets don't have their ascribed influences...or our local 'Luminaries'.]
As the only astrologers that seem to be either confused or troubled by this latest controversy, instigated by Astronomers, are those of you that, either refuse to or, are unable to understand or at least accept the verity of the Sabian Symbols I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. But I am concerned as to the impressionable neophytes that have yet to form any such prejudices.
[and to the general public, that hopefully, will someday become converts to the belief of the validity of Astrology.]

[kainous]

Neophyte or not, I have seen the (pseudo)scientific(1) research by Garth Allen(2) showing that basketball player height in one study of 350 has a chi-square of 21.4 for Gemini/Leo Suns vs a 16.27 in the tropical. For the moon, the height correlation to Sagittarius and Leo are 20.86 vs the 10.51 chi-square value for the tropical moons.

Additionally, the capricorn lunar ingresses and lunations greatly match actual rainfall amounts under the sidereal returns transits instead of tropical transits.

However, I do believe that the equal delineations (12) of the zodiac are what were intended and prove more descriptive than using the constellations themselves. It has been a common attempt by scientists to disprove astrology because of precession, believing that astrologers don't know what they are talking about.

(Anything is pseudoscience if there hasn't been a model to explain why it works)

(1) Allen, Garth; Face the Facts and Figures; American Astrology, June 1973 vol 41., no 4.

[piercethevale]

Originally Posted by kainous

Neophyte or not, I have seen the (pseudo)scientific(1) research by Garth Allen(2) showing that basketball player height in one study of 350 has a chi-square of 21.4 for Gemini/Leo Suns vs a 16.27 in the tropical. For the moon, the height correlation to Sagittarius and Leo are 20.86 vs the 10.51 chi-square value for the tropical moons.

Additionally, the capricorn lunar ingresses and lunations greatly match actual rainfall amounts under the sidereal returns transits instead of tropical transits.

However, I do believe that the equal delineations (12) of the zodiac are what were intended and prove more descriptive than using the constellations themselves. It has been a common attempt by scientists to disprove astrology because of precession, believing that astrologers don't know what they are talking about.

(Anything is pseudoscience if there hasn't been a model to explain why it works)

(1) Allen, Garth; Face the Facts and Figures; American Astrology, June 1973 vol 41., no 4.

That is just about the most absolutely stupefying compendium of astro-babble I've ever encountered. It's just that kind of non-sense that garners astrology the dis-respect that it does get.

[kainous]

Originally Posted by piercethevale

That is just about the most absolutely stupefying compendium of astro-babble I've ever encountered. It's just that kind of non-sense that garners astrology the dis-respect that it does get.

First of all, I find that highly insulting. There was no babble in the previous message. In fact, I quoted sources and studies. I do both in mine. Why is it then that you believe that my sources and quotes are any different than your symbols, "feeling analysis," and reference to translations of scripture that greatly vary from the mainstream.

I'm not here to attack what you say, because it's not up for attack. However, you are attacking what I say merely because you don't want to consider the implication. I didn't convert easily, I had to be convinced with studies. However, I don't hold onto my pride so strongly to attack.

Please don't make this thread about insulting people by calling them neophyte or referring to their information as babble. The information is far removed from newspaper "Sun Sign" astrology.

Many of my Gemini friends are highly introverted. That's because their characteristics are much more Taurean in nature. My Virgo friends are off the wall social princes and princes. My Sagittarius friends seem to start social, then go back to their homes for weeks at a time because they are "emotional" and don't want it to show.

This isn't something I changed lightly from. In fact, I have been using astrometeorology to verify Fagan's methodology vs tropical methodology for the last year at this location, and Fagan's methodology is much more accurate in rainfall and temperature prediction.

BTW, Chi-Square is not an astrology term. It's a statistical term. I'm not sure what other kind of "babble" you may have been referring to, so give me an idea.

[piercethevale]

Originally Posted by kainous

First of all, I find that highly insulting. There was no babble in the previous message. In fact, I quoted sources and studies. I do both in mine. Why is it then that you believe that my sources and quotes are any different than your symbols, "feeling analysis," and reference to translations of scripture that greatly vary from the mainstream.

I'm not here to attack what you say, because it's not up for attack. However, you are attacking what I say merely because you don't want to consider the implication. I didn't convert easily, I had to be convinced with studies. However, I don't hold onto my pride so strongly to attack.

Please don't make this thread about insulting people by calling them neophyte or referring to their information as babble. The information is far removed from newspaper "Sun Sign" astrology.

Many of my Gemini friends are highly introverted. That's because their characteristics are much more Taurean in nature. My Virgo friends are off the wall social princes and princes. My Sagittarius friends seem to start social, then go back to their homes for weeks at a time because they are "emotional" and don't want it to show.

This isn't something I changed lightly from. In fact, I have been using astrometeorology to verify Fagan's methodology vs tropical methodology for the last year at this location, and Fagan's methodology is much more accurate in rainfall and temperature prediction.

BTW, Chi-Square is not an astrology term. It's a statistical term. I'm not sure what other kind of "babble" you may have been referring to, so give me an idea.

Studies that try to associate Astrological influence as per regarding the height of a person or the cause of varying rainfall amounts are as far fringe as any extrapolation derived from conjecture due to the 'Signs' as it can get.
It's hard enough to convince the un-informed or the skeptical that Astrology is valid in determining the personality and destiny without these kind of claims whether there is any truth to it or not...and I am one of the foremost champions of Astrological validity but I wouldn't bet two cents on these sort of claims.
I meant nothing personal intended towards you only these sort of claims and the people that initiate these studies...[besides you didn't give any explanation only a ref. of which there is no way of resourcing or investigating the origin/source.
The rainy season will always be the rainy season regardless of what sign anyone believes is in affect at the time...and the effects of lunations of the moon have to do with astronomy and nothing or little to do with 'astrology'.

...and the term, 'Neophyte' is in no way insulting...it is synonymous with the word 'apprentice' or 'sophomore' or 'rookie' or 'greenhorn' etc...we all start there.

[kainous]

I suppose you are correct in that regard, but I rarely state to "uninitiated" (non-astrologers) about these kinds of data. I typically give people readings that blow them away about how insightful they are, and pulling out past event like childhood close calls with intestinal cancer (only one reading I did), that I rarely have to deal with non-believers from a psychological point of view (except maybe my engineer coworkers that want data, not "feelings" that make them even dismissal of psychology itself).

In dealing with the rains, it also predicts the shiny intermission between the rains in the rainy season, but that still not the point of the post.

I don't mind actually being a neophyte, but what worried me is that we are all learning from each other, and when I was a teacher's assistant for a programming course, I noticed that I learned more from my students than they were learning from me. I have taken that into consideration of all life, to know that old souls still learn from the new souls, as much as we think we are teaching the new souls. In that respect, I have a "pride" aspect in myself as well, but I worried that just because I was still new into the practice, that doesn't mean I don't have things to offer either. However, I do want to learn as well. So I need teachers.

Perhaps timing is the issue, because I converted before the current "Internet announcement" of sidereal astrology, and isn't quite the same thing for me.

[piercethevale]

...and ps...I'm always immediately skeptical of people the newly arrive at these forums whenever there is some new controversial subject especially this recent re-attempt to discredit 'Tropical Astrology' with the Sideral argument. This was most noticeable in the last presidential election when new members would suddely appear at forums around the internet with an obvious agenda to accomplish nothing else but the dis-crediting of which ever candidate...most esp. Mr. Obama.
The fact that you have suddenly joined this forum at this particular time and so obviously 'zeroed' in on this topic makes you an immediate suspect in my eyes.
If I'm wrong...prove it to me by providing something other than a flippant referral to some obscure and dubious study. At least provide some details and explanations. Just how many members here do you think can identify or define statistical terms such as you have given. To me thats the old 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with b.s. routine.'
...again...it's nothing personal...unless it should be...prove me wrong!

[kainous]

The only way that I know to do that is with people using Celebrity astrology, because others know them. I already mentioned Pink and Charlie Sheen, but Michael Jackson is probably an even better description. He didn't care what people thought of him, put himself in the spotlight immediately, (I can't word this without it sounding different than I mean it) loved children, and surrounded himself with "yes men."

Elvis would have been a Sagittarius (hips), which fits more than the Capricorn who would stay away from the spot light for more mundane. His Moon in Aquarius fits his kind of "break-out" nature that was outside the mainstream music.

Cher would still be a Taurus, who is naturally a little more quiet and reserved. No change here.

Donald Trump would be a last degree Taurus on the Gemini cusp, but his moon would change to Scorpio. This would explain his cold "your fired" attitude, pitting people against each other the way he does.

(warning: exaggeration) As for Hillary Clinton... do you think that a Scorpio would allow her husband to cheat on her and not be in jail for murder right now? Her application and knowledge of law and her communication stance is more Libra.

[dr. farr]

No (in my opinion) it is NOT wrong to ditch tropical for sidereal IF one has become convinced through study and experience that sidereal "tastes" better and "works" better for that person, than the tropical model.
For me, though with much interest and study in Vedic astrology and methodology "under my belt" (late 1980's through the present), my choice is to continue to stick with the tropical model which has proven itself valid to me, time after time...but stars and constellations MEAN A GREAT DEAL, and (in my opinion) MUST be accorded due attention and consideration when delineating any given chart.

[juicey J.]

First off lets get something straight here, how social, how introverted a person is has way more to do with the chart as a whole then what sun sign they are so those people saying, well the virgo friends I have or all social butterflys therefore they must be leos are putting way too much stock on sun signs alone. Also, some would said michael jackson has sun leo traits, I agree but he also had insane self critical virgo ones as well. Besides how a person behaves if it comes down to one sign its often not the sun but the rising sign and what planets aspect it. Also, your not going to convince me I'm a capricorn rising with cappy sun as opposed to Aquarius rising/sun, I'm a rebelious towards authority and guestioning of everything Aquarius rising and sun thank you very much. Also, yes my rising and sun does change in the sidereal system. I have come to a sticky conclusion about tropical and sidereal astrology, THEY BOTH WORK. My sidereal rising, sun, moon, venus, you name it helps to explain parts of my psyche and behavior my tropical chart doesn't touch. I know there are those who would disagree but in my experience this is because they haven't studied both systems equally and fairly or have it stuck in their head only one of them must work which, prejuides their view from point one. I ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO LOOK AT THEIR CHART AS A WHOLE IN BOTH SIDEREAL AND TROPICAL WITH A CLEAR AND OPEN MIND AND THEY WILL FIND THE TWO EXPLAIN THEIR PERSONALITY IN ALL ITS BEAUTY, COMPLEXITY, AND CONTRIDICTIONS. Why both system work (at least as far as I can tell) is a mystery. I applaud those who want to educate people on sidereal astrology.

[dr. farr]

A POSSIBLE reason "why" sign (tropical) and sidereal (constellational) basic formats (the 12 signs or the 12 constellations) both "work", is that the 12 constellations are still partially in their respective 12 tropical signs (for example, the constellation Aries is still in the tropical SIGN of Aries, from 24 Aries through the end of the sign)
I have discussed this little hypothesis at more length, in another AW thread (see "Re:Astrology on the News", my post)

[Vivien]

I appreciate all the input. Both Kainous and princethevale bring up valid points... Princethevale this thread was in no way created to discredit tropical astrology. I understand it works for many, Im beginning to realize that it doesnt for me. As a westerner Ive grown up with it and maybe even formed a slight attachment to it. As you can see letting go of it isn't easy, however, I know myself very well and I am capable of setting aside the attributes prescribed to me by a chart and delving deep into who I am to discover my real attributes. My real attributes are in trine with sidereal.Kainous you bring up an interesting point about people who appear to be like their sidereal sign. Hitler is an example of this, his sun is in tropical Taurus, yet in sidereal he is an Aries (ruled by war lord mars) which seems more fitting (however I am aware that there is way more to a person than their sun sign)... I can not relate to this because my sun sign stays the same. This has made my transition into Sidereal alot smoother...
I was using Sidereal under the Placidus house system until I discovered that Vedics use the whole house system. When I updated the house system in my chart it became even more accurate, bumping Venus from second to first as my dominant planet (according to astro.com). The house placements make sense and resonates with my past... Is it possible that maybe Tropical could work if I tried another house system other than Placidus? its worth the try... but I doubt that any chart could be more accurate than my Sidereal whole house chart.

[dr. farr]

Try setting up your tropical in the original whole sign house system format used by all astrologers prior to the beginning of the 6th century AD (with the possible exception of Firmicus Maternus, who used equal house-like the Vedics still mostly do)
Also, remember that the signs (tropical) are subdivided quality wise-by decans/faces (10 degree areas), and by duodenaries (dwadashama's in Vedic), 2.5 degree areas; even by 1 degree Enochian subdivisions (each degree = a specific sign influence)
These divisions of each tropical sign were an important part of horoscopic delineation in the ancient West (Greco/Roman times), and only began to fade away (in Western astrology) during the Renaissance period. But, although out of fashion (in Modernist astrology, and even more or less so in contemporary traditionalist astrology too), these additional ways of delineating ARE available, and can add insights and even "...oh THIS is why..." explanations, which, without their use, we would never have...

[juicey J.]

Originally Posted by kainous

The only way that I know to do that is with people using Celebrity astrology, because others know them. I already mentioned Pink and Charlie Sheen, but Michael Jackson is probably an even better description. He didn't care what people thought of him, put himself in the spotlight immediately, (I can't word this without it sounding different than I mean it) loved children, and surrounded himself with "yes men."

Elvis would have been a Sagittarius (hips), which fits more than the Capricorn who would stay away from the spot light for more mundane. His Moon in Aquarius fits his kind of "break-out" nature that was outside the mainstream music.

Cher would still be a Taurus, who is naturally a little more quiet and reserved. No change here.

Donald Trump would be a last degree Taurus on the Gemini cusp, but his moon would change to Scorpio. This would explain his cold "your fired" attitude, pitting people against each other the way he does.

(warning: exaggeration) As for Hillary Clinton... do you think that a Scorpio would allow her husband to cheat on her and not be in jail for murder right now? Her application and knowledge of law and her communication stance is more Libra.

Hilary is said to be a cold person you don't mess with (definetly scorpio sorry)
Trump's my way or the high way attitude is due to his leo rising. Even Leo rising actor Johnny Depp who isn't in a postion of authority like Trump is notorious with getting his way on his films.

[juicey J.]

Originally Posted by Vivien

I appreciate all the input. Both Kainous and princethevale bring up valid points... Princethevale this thread was in no way created to discredit tropical astrology. I understand it works for many, Im beginning to realize that it doesnt for me. As a westerner Ive grown up with it and maybe even formed a slight attachment to it. As you can see letting go of it isn't easy, however, I know myself very well and I am capable of setting aside the attributes prescribed to me by a chart and delving deep into who I am to discover my real attributes. My real attributes are in trine with sidereal.Kainous you bring up an interesting point about people who appear to be like their sidereal sign. Hitler is an example of this, his sun is in tropical Taurus, yet in sidereal he is an Aries (ruled by war lord mars) which seems more fitting (however I am aware that there is way more to a person than their sun sign)... I can not relate to this because my sun sign stays the same. This has made my transition into Sidereal alot smoother...
I was using Sidereal under the Placidus house system until I discovered that Vedics use the whole house system. When I updated the house system in my chart it became even more accurate, bumping Venus from second to first as my dominant planet (according to astro.com). The house placements make sense and resonates with my past... Is it possible that maybe Tropical could work if I tried another house system other than Placidus? its worth the try... but I doubt that any chart could be more accurate than my Sidereal whole house chart.

With all due respect Hitler being a warmonger had little if anything to do with his sun sign being aries or not.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Hitler%2C_Adolf

Now, with this chart (I'm using whole signs here) we find he has libra rising Hitler was said to be in person so charming and gracious you would hardly recongnize him as the ravening loon in the videos. Now, hitler's chart ruler venus is conjunct mars (ruler of the 7th house of others) which, is square to the mc in the 11th house of society where saturn also happens to be. You see Hitler was able to sway libra/venus the masses into war (mars) and hate (saturn or the darker side of such). Now, you might argue him being sun in aries futher makes this fit, perhaps but Hitler was a deep lover of the arts and bull headly held a grudge (aries is too impatient to hold grudges at least generally) against a whole people for his whole life doesn't this sound quite Taurus, at least the darker side of the sign which fits with in part its ruler square to saturn with nothing to counter it.
Also, lets look at the rising sign of actress Katherine Hepburn using sidreal in Sidereal its libra beauty/charm which, somewhat fits but the scorpio rising fits much better in her case as she was notoriously private, stubborn, and she treated the media with suspisicion and coldness.

I do have an example of Sidereal at least on some level working better then tropical. Robert Hand probly the most well known astrologer (who practices both tropical and sidereal according to his offical site) and researcher in the world today, in tropical his rising is cancer and he does have the soft spoken and gentle characteristics of this sign but he is a well known intellectual, author, and lecture who moves around quite a bit, DEFINTELY GEMINI. He likes to dig deep for things true meaning which, fits a scorpio sun more so then Sag.

[piercethevale]

If the Sideral system were in affect I would be an Aries with a Libra asc. and I can most definitely state that is not even slightly plausible or of even any such minuscule possibility as to make me to have any degree of doubt that the Tropical method is the correct application.
Unless the mannerisms,traits, attitudes, actions, reactions and appearances of the signs, of what till now, have been ascribed to be the certified qualification of determining the positive identification of those that are Taurean or a Scorpio and now is being confessed to have had been erroneously stated, attested to and written of repeatedly all along and now, in all certain reality, all of that should have been ascribed all along to be that of those identifiable, conclusive characteristics and traits of the afore mentioned 'Cardinal Signs''.
Sarcasm aside, there is hardly any cause or imaginable conjecture of any possibility as to mis-identify the traits, habits and known profile signatures of the signs of Taurus and Scorpio as to be those of the signs of Libra and Aries...don't try to tell me after 30 years of observational study, analysis, evidence and repeated review and devoted chronicling that all aalong I've been using the wrong set of criteria and traits of certification, identification and authenticity....There's just no freakin way I'm going to be remotely convinced of any but the most remote possibility of that and certainly not to even the remotest degree of probability...I know myself and I also know and have studied and practiced Astrology well enough and long enough as to not have doubts as to my abilities of astrological analysis, evaluation and conclusions as to regarding my skills to evaluate, identify and conclude as to what the traits and characteristics of the Signs of the Zodiac are of conclusive determination...I might admit to about a margin of error of 2 to 5 % but no more than that.
Either I was repeatedly given the wrong instructional informational over the last 30 years or there is some very obscure and irreproachable authority and source of Astrological truths of heretofore unknown existence or of previously unattainable accessibility, to myself and to a multitude of other Astrologers, of whom has now suddenly made themself and said knowledge known ...in which case I most humbly apologize for my ignorance and my delusion of being adequately and correctly educated and now humbly beg to be so privy to the true knowledge and become most benevolently enlightened by your gracious approval and charity.

[juicey J.]

I do have one striking example of sidereal working better then tropical using mundane astrology (which, is the predicting of events using planetary alignments). The may 5th 2000 planetary alignment using tropical astrology it was in Taurus (a sign of stability) but using Sidereal it was in Aries a sign of war, destruction, just look at the major events in the world since 2000 up till now.

[juicey J.]

Originally Posted by piercethevale

If the Sideral system were in affect I would be an Aries with a Libra asc. and I can most definitely state that is not even slightly plausible or even to be such a minuscule possibility as to make me to have any degree of doubt that it the Tropical that is the correct application.
Unless the mannerisms, attitudes, actions, reactions and appearances of the signs of Taurus and Scorpio were mistakenly associated with those two signs and had been wrongly stated to be as such all along and in reality was always properly and should have been identified as those of Aries and Libra all along and somehow had got mis-identified/associated with the afore mentioned 'Fixed signs'.
There is hardly any cause or imaginable conjecture of any possibility as to mis-identify the traits, habits and known profile signatures of the signs of Taurus and Scorpio as to those of the signs of Libra and Aries...don't try to tell me after 30 years of observational study, analysis and compilation of analysis and evidence and repeated review and devoted chronicling that I've been using the wrong set of criteria and traits of certification, identification and authenticity....There's just no freakin way I'm going to be remotely convinced of any but the most remote possibility of that and certainly not to even the remotest degree of probability...I know myself and I also know and have studied and practiced Astrology well enough and long enough as to not have doubts as to my abilities of astrological analysis, evaluation and conclusions as to regarding my skills to evaluate, identify and conclude as to what the traits and characteristics of the Signs of the Zodiac are of definite conclusive certification.
Either I was repeatedly given the wrong instructional informational over the last 30 years and there is some very obscure and irreproachable authority and chronicler of heretofore unknown existence and or of previously unattainable accessibility to both myself and a multitude of other Astrologers...in which case I most humbly apologize for my ignorance and delusion of being so educated and humbly beg to be so privy to and most benevolently so enlightened!

Don't get me wrong the idea that I'm a Capricorn rising instead (this is an important distiction) of a Aquarius sun and rising is so laugable it makes my d@mned sides hurt!!!!!!!!!!

Also, lets get something straight here shall we, HOW MUCH YOU ARE ANY D@MNED SIGN HAS WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY MORE TO DO WITH HOW MANY PLANTES YOU HAVE IN THE ELEMENT AND QUALITY OF SAID SIGN AND THE STRENGTH OF ITS RULER BY POSTION AND ASPECT THEN IF ITS YOUR SUN OR RISING (although these most certainly play a factor). Oh, it will be a cold, cold time in h@ll before I give up tropical astrology for sidereal.

[kainous]

Originally Posted by juicey J.

Don't get me wrong the idea that I'm a Capricorn rising instead (this is an important distiction) of a Aquarius sun and rising is so laugable it makes my d@mned sides hurt!!!!!!!!!!

Also, lets get something straight here shall we, HOW MUCH YOU ARE ANY D@MNED SIGN HAS WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY MORE TO DO WITH HOW MANY PLANTES YOU HAVE IN THE ELEMENT AND QUALITY OF SAID SIGN AND THE STRENGTH OF ITS RULER BY POSTION AND ASPECT THEN IF ITS YOUR SUN OR RISING (although these most certainly play a factor). Oh, it will be a cold, cold time in h@ll before I give up tropical astrology for sidereal.

I understand that you must take the chart as a whole, and I guess things may be a little difficult for me to be completely objective because I'm either Solar Leo with Virgo Rising or Solar Cancer with Leo Rising, meaning that I have Leo characteristics either way. However, in one way, I've got 6 major planets in fire, the other, I have 7 major planets in water. I can tell I'm not the Fiery person that I should be, and I've always wondered why I'm not.

I'm am much more interested in exaltations, debilities and so on than pure attributes, because I know that attributes themselves change in an evolving manner. My brother is a perfect example of someone whose Moon went from Aquarius to Capricorn on the sidereal chart. He has ALWAYS complained to me that he has to "fake" emotions because he doesn't really feel them, and gets a little angry that people call him a robot. This is in stark contrast to my friend whose Aquarius Moon remains in Aquarius who still has an emotional nature that is very "airy."

Remember though, that we still have progressions in Western Sidereal, and people begin to act like their next sign by the time they are adults anyway.

[Olivia]

If you're looking at traditional temperament in western tropical astrology, then each element has two qualities. With the moon, you'd look at the phase, with the sun, you'd look at the season.

The sign comes into it somewhat as well, but for those two planets the phase and season predominate.

New to first quarter Moon - hot and wet (sanguine)
First quarter to full - hot and dry (choleric)
Full to last quarter - cold and dry (melancholic)
Last quarter to new - cold and wet (phlegmatic)

Sun seasons:

Spring - hot and wet
Summer - hot and dry
Autumn - cold and dry
Winter - cold and wet

Sign elements:

Fire - hot and dry
Air - hot and wet
Water - cold and wet
Earth - cold and dry

Especially look at sun, moon, ascendant, ascendant ruler, planets in or aspecting the ascendant, and the chart almuten.

Or at least that's the way it was done before simplifying it to elements with one quality each, and the older way of doing it seems to produce far more accurate results, in my experience.

[Vivien]

Juicy J. Thanks for explaining the planetary configurations in Hitler's chart. Very interesting! venus conjuncts his mars and the affinity between the two (with jupiter) is definitely a person whose capable of charming hundreds into war... I am very aware that tropical can be dead on! which is why im finding it difficult to cope with the fact that it isnt working for me. In Sidereal my ascendant is in Taurus, this seems so right because Im in the early stages of beginning my singing career and Taurus rules the throat... My moon sign is another instance in which sidereal works. The moon sign not only describes ones emotions but often times it describes ones relationship with their mother. My mother has an explosive temper, is highly suspicious and is highly emotional. This makes sense because my sidereal moon (mother) is in Scorpio. Ironically her sun and moon are in sidereal scorpio as well! The accuracy amazes me. In her tropical chart she has almost no planets in scorpio nor is pluto even close to her ascendant. If everything were to switch to tropical, both our moons and her sun would be in the optimistic and jovial Sagittarius. In this instance tropical doesnt seem as fitting. I understand your explanation on the planetary aspects in Hitlers tropical chart. Maybe I can delve deeper into uncovering the aspects in my mother's chart to find out why she has scorpio tendencies, but it seems as though having her moon and sun in scorpio is more than an explanation. There are many other configurations in sidereal that are in line with who I am. If I were to explain it all much of my personal attributes would be revealed and Im uncomfortable with that exposure on this forum.