In seriousness, why would I consider the ingress of a planet in a constellation over the ingress of a planet drastically changing the weather? Naturally speaking, the latter has obviously great effect for most regions of the Earth. The fact that someone does not experience such change, simply means he should not use a zodiac. It's brilliant.
Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.
- Thread starter petosiris
- Start date
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Concerning the argument
that mirroring the tropical zodiac
for the southern hemisphere
was impractical for equator birth
keep in mind that
we routinely do similar things in traditional astrology.
Would we consider sect an impractical part of astrology
if someone is born when the Sun is on the exact degree
of the ASC or DSC?
Or when does a planet enter a sign?
Where are the boundaries for these?
If astronomers in the past have solved such mathematical problems
we also can determine
which side of the exact equator a newborn entered first upon its birth.
Tropical zodiac is a seasonal zodiac, meaning astronomical seasons.
therfore
rationally we have to mirror the zodiac in the south.
So if we don't mirror the tropical zodiac in southern latitude
then we have left the tropical definition of the zodiac
and it's not the tropical zodiac anymore.
If we have done that
then we may as well use the sidereal zodiac.
that mirroring the tropical zodiac
for the southern hemisphere
was impractical for equator birth
keep in mind that
we routinely do similar things in traditional astrology.
Would we consider sect an impractical part of astrology
if someone is born when the Sun is on the exact degree
of the ASC or DSC?
Or when does a planet enter a sign?
Where are the boundaries for these?
If astronomers in the past have solved such mathematical problems
we also can determine
which side of the exact equator a newborn entered first upon its birth.
Tropical zodiac is a seasonal zodiac, meaning astronomical seasons.
therfore
rationally we have to mirror the zodiac in the south.
So if we don't mirror the tropical zodiac in southern latitude
then we have left the tropical definition of the zodiac
and it's not the tropical zodiac anymore.
If we have done that
then we may as well use the sidereal zodiac.
Concerning the argument
that mirroring the tropical zodiac
for the southern hemisphere
was impractical for equator birth
keep in mind that
we routinely do similar things in traditional astrology.
Would we consider sect an impractical part of astrology
if someone is born when the Sun is on the exact degree
of the ASC or DSC?
Or when does a planet enter a sign?
Where are the boundaries for these?
If astronomers in the past have solved such mathematical problems
we also can determine
which side of the exact equator a newborn entered first upon its birth.
Tropical zodiac is a seasonal zodiac, meaning astronomical seasons.
therfore
rationally we have to mirror the zodiac in the south.
So if we don't mirror the tropical zodiac in southern latitude
then we have left the tropical definition of the zodiac
and it's not the tropical zodiac anymore.
If we have done that
then we may as well use the sidereal zodiac.
It's only impractical for unnatural systems of astrology
In the Almagest, Ptolemy establishes the difference between the signs and day and night with exactitude of minutes. This makes sense because the difference of even half a degree at the horizon or the turnings of the Sun is observable to the senses.
The tropical zodiac's seasonal powers are imperceptible to the senses at the Equator, and therefore worthless. I don't see the same natural underpinnings of constellations compared with the seasons so I don't see them as an alternative to them either.
SunConjunctUranus
Well-known member
I don't see the same natural underpinnings of constellations compared with the seasons so I don't see them as an alternative to them either.
Mainstream science did not yet confirm the power of the fixed stars. Even Ptolemy failed to explain it scientifically.
So,
One must accept that astrology is mystical (for now), as you had previously address. Who knows that constellation Cancer have 7 or more pulsars or neutrons, compared to constellation Capricorn.
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Today, 11:09 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,849
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text
Quote:
7. (On simultaneous risings of arcs of the ecliptic and equator at sphaera obliqua
After we have thus set out the general characteristics which can be theoretically deduced for the [various] latitudes, our next task is to show how to calculate, for each latitude, the arcs of the equator, measured as time-degrees, which rise together with [given] arcs of the ecliptic. From this we shall systematically derive all the other special characteristics [of the climata]. We shall use the names of the signs of the zodiac for the twelve [30°-] divisions of the ecliptic, according to the system in which the divisions begin at the solsticial and equinoctial points. We call the first division, beginning at the spring equinox and going towards the rear with respect to the motion of the universe, ‘Aries’, the second ‘Taurus’, and so on for the rest, in the traditional order of the 12 signs.
Ptolemy, C. (1984). Almagest. Translated by GJ Toomer.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Traditionally, the qualities of the planets are dependent on their distance from the Sun and the Earth - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#4.
The Earth has its own astrological influence just like in modern
Today, 03:26 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,849
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius
It really doesn't. Aquarius qualities as described by authors have little to do with actual temperature, just a mention by Valens that they are cold in nature during that period in which the sign transits them. But then most of the descriptions are unchanged by changing hemispheres.
Ptolomy gives the Cancer and Leo to the Moon and Sun respectively because he places them as the most northern signs, matching them to the Luminaries:
- Cancer and Leo are the most northerly of all the twelve signs; they approach nearer than the other signs to the zenith of this part of the earth, and thereby cause warmth and heat: they are consequently appropriated as houses for the two principal and greater luminaries; Leo for the Sun, as being masculine; and Cancer for the Moon, as being feminine. It has hence resulted, that the semicircle from Leo to Capricorn has been ordained solar, and the semicircle from Aquarius to Cancer, lunar; in order that each planet might occupy one sign in each semicircle, and thus have one of its houses configurated with the Sun and the other with the Moon, conformably to the motions of its own sphere, and the peculiar properties of its nature.
The Sun placed in the northern most placed of the Ecliptic during the period right after the June solstice happens regardless of what hemisphere you are looking from. If during July-August (the Sun's regenecy) whether I'm standing in Buenos Aires (southern hemisphere) or New York City (northern hemisphere), she Sun is still tilted north in the ecliptic while transiting its regency period.
So ... it really changes nothing regarding the Sun rulership. Because the symbolical idea that the Sun is "higher" in the sky is still true from the southern hemisphere, thus making the Sun's rulership of Leo valid. Most of the attributes of the signs are related to its ruler, not the temperature of the period.
This is just laughable. It is our Capricorn and Aquarius that are nearest to your zenith and causing the greatest amount of warmth and heat. It then follows that they are houses of Sun and Moon for your hemisphere.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Today, 03:45 PM
petosiris
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,849
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text
Quote:
So ... it really changes nothing regarding the Sun rulership. Because the symbolical idea that the Sun is "higher" in the sky is still true from the southern hemisphere, thus making the Sun's rulership of Leo valid. Most of the attributes of the signs are related to its ruler, not the temperature of the period.
The Sun is highest in the sky at the ''Cancer tropic'' for the Northern Hemisphere, and at the ''Capricorn tropic'' for the Southern Hemisphere. The idea behind the Sun ruling Leo instead of Cancer is that Leo is masculine and the solid form of the fire (hot and moderately dry) element which predominates the summery signs. And by the way, the Northern Hemisphere does actually get greater amount of heat in Leo because it takes time to cool off which indicates that the ancients were very observant of this.
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,849
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text
Quote:
So ... it really changes nothing regarding the Sun rulership. Because the symbolical idea that the Sun is "higher" in the sky is still true from the southern hemisphere, thus making the Sun's rulership of Leo valid. Most of the attributes of the signs are related to its ruler, not the temperature of the period.
The Sun is highest in the sky at the ''Cancer tropic'' for the Northern Hemisphere, and at the ''Capricorn tropic'' for the Southern Hemisphere. The idea behind the Sun ruling Leo instead of Cancer is that Leo is masculine and the solid form of the fire (hot and moderately dry) element which predominates the summery signs. And by the way, the Northern Hemisphere does actually get greater amount of heat in Leo because it takes time to cool off which indicates that the ancients were very observant of this.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Today, 05:58 PM
Dirius
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,432
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text
Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris
The Sun is highest in the sky at the ''Cancer tropic'' for the Northern Hemisphere, and at the ''Capricorn tropic'' for the Southern Hemisphere. The idea behind the Sun ruling Leo instead of Cancer is that Leo is masculine and the solid form of the fire (hot and moderately dry) element which predominates the summery signs. And by the way, the Northern Hemisphere does actually get greater amount of heat in Leo because it takes time to cool off which indicates that the ancients were very observant of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris
The houses, the elevations, the triangles (winds), and the terms that are based on them all have to be reversed based on Ptolemy's tabular exposition from Book I.
....
Scrap what I said then. I had got it wrong. I admit my error in that area. But it still wouldn't explain why normal sign setup works in the southern hemisphere for regular chart reading.
And what do you suggest, sidereal instead? how do you rise above sidereal problems? Do you turn modalities to adjust them or keep them as they are?
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,432
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text
Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris
The Sun is highest in the sky at the ''Cancer tropic'' for the Northern Hemisphere, and at the ''Capricorn tropic'' for the Southern Hemisphere. The idea behind the Sun ruling Leo instead of Cancer is that Leo is masculine and the solid form of the fire (hot and moderately dry) element which predominates the summery signs. And by the way, the Northern Hemisphere does actually get greater amount of heat in Leo because it takes time to cool off which indicates that the ancients were very observant of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris
The houses, the elevations, the triangles (winds), and the terms that are based on them all have to be reversed based on Ptolemy's tabular exposition from Book I.
....
Scrap what I said then. I had got it wrong. I admit my error in that area. But it still wouldn't explain why normal sign setup works in the southern hemisphere for regular chart reading.
And what do you suggest, sidereal instead? how do you rise above sidereal problems? Do you turn modalities to adjust them or keep them as they are?
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Today, 08:10 PM
petosiris
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,857
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius
Scrap what I said then. I had got it wrong. I admit my error in that area.
I appreciate your realization.
Quote:
But it still wouldn't explain why normal sign setup works in the southern hemisphere for regular chart reading.
It is possible that they were wrong, but I don't see why.
It is possible that we were wrong, and that we can do better
(unless you are 100% satisfied with your practice of course).
Quote:
And what do you suggest, sidereal instead? how do you rise above sidereal problems? Do you turn modalities to adjust them or keep them as they are?
Actually, during the investigation of this area, I decided to switch back to tropical because of the obviousness of seasonal changes, and because I think they constitute a plausible causal mechanism for astrology. With that in mind, I think it is best for locations above the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn (23+N/S), it is best to use two mighty tropical zodiacs that have their elemental expressions of heat, moisture, dryness and cold so obvious to the senses (much more than the effect of sidereal considerations, and especially because I do not agree with the natural basis for constellations).
For the Equatorial zone, it is more natural to subtract some considerations of the zodiac proportionally the nearer the location is to the Equator, at which point there is should be no consideration of the zodiac, only of planets, aspects and angles, since there is imperceptible increase of daylight to the senses.
This does not seem peculiar to me, it is the same as with the arctic zones, the angles have less of an effect there until they become ineffective at the poles. Instead considerations of power are drawn from the planets and the zodiac exclusively at the north and south poles. There is more angularity from precession than from the houses.
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 1,857
Re: Random Thoughts, strictly Text
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius
Scrap what I said then. I had got it wrong. I admit my error in that area.
I appreciate your realization.
Quote:
But it still wouldn't explain why normal sign setup works in the southern hemisphere for regular chart reading.
It is possible that they were wrong, but I don't see why.
It is possible that we were wrong, and that we can do better
(unless you are 100% satisfied with your practice of course).
Quote:
And what do you suggest, sidereal instead? how do you rise above sidereal problems? Do you turn modalities to adjust them or keep them as they are?
Actually, during the investigation of this area, I decided to switch back to tropical because of the obviousness of seasonal changes, and because I think they constitute a plausible causal mechanism for astrology. With that in mind, I think it is best for locations above the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn (23+N/S), it is best to use two mighty tropical zodiacs that have their elemental expressions of heat, moisture, dryness and cold so obvious to the senses (much more than the effect of sidereal considerations, and especially because I do not agree with the natural basis for constellations).
For the Equatorial zone, it is more natural to subtract some considerations of the zodiac proportionally the nearer the location is to the Equator, at which point there is should be no consideration of the zodiac, only of planets, aspects and angles, since there is imperceptible increase of daylight to the senses.
This does not seem peculiar to me, it is the same as with the arctic zones, the angles have less of an effect there until they become ineffective at the poles. Instead considerations of power are drawn from the planets and the zodiac exclusively at the north and south poles. There is more angularity from precession than from the houses.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Cielo e Terra - association for the study of classical astrology
Some texts of our italian website have been translated in english
http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.index.html
Cielo e Terra (Sky and Earth) is a non-profit association
founded in 1999 with the intention to promote a serious and thorough study
of the ancient science of the stars
By the term classical astrology,
we mean the doctrinal corpus including the period from first centuries before the Christian age
until the first half of the XVII century
in particular referring to Ptolemy and his major commentators' works.
The Association considers important
the techniques of foresighting of the ancient astrologers,
the technical terms of this art,
organizes courses and lessons of classical astrology,
and intends to promote the exchange of knowledge
between scholars in Italy and abroad.
SunConjunctUranus
Well-known member
Ptolemy, aren't you correcting precession for a chart in annual revolution? 
Last edited:
Monk
Premium Member
The debate about the house and sign application will never be solved, i generally use the most ancient system being Paranatellonta or Parans, also i feel the projected fixed star calculation is in error to any visual astronomy, by this method you can get the pole star rising on Asc, which is impossible!
I do feel that fixed stars do need more use but by astronomy method.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10705808
Stars projected on to the ecliptic is using an inaccurate measure, how can Polaris ever be rising on Asc?
I do feel that fixed stars do need more use but by astronomy method.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10705808
Stars projected on to the ecliptic is using an inaccurate measure, how can Polaris ever be rising on Asc?
Last edited:
SunConjunctUranus
Well-known member
Hi Monk,
Doesn't it make a sense for you to use tropical zodiac instead? Since we knew that your residence is in tropic area too. In my personal study, tropic doesn't work in equator, therefore I should have to rely on fixed stars aka sidereal zodiac. There is a good idea, too, to not employ any zodiac instead, however (to my knowledge) there is no predictive tool for that framework. Am geniunenly interested to hear your thought for which predictive tool that could work in equatorial area. Thanks.
Doesn't it make a sense for you to use tropical zodiac instead? Since we knew that your residence is in tropic area too. In my personal study, tropic doesn't work in equator, therefore I should have to rely on fixed stars aka sidereal zodiac. There is a good idea, too, to not employ any zodiac instead, however (to my knowledge) there is no predictive tool for that framework. Am geniunenly interested to hear your thought for which predictive tool that could work in equatorial area. Thanks.
Last edited:
The debate about the house and sign application will never be solved, i generally use the most ancient system being Paranatellonta or Parans, also i feel the projected fixed star calculation is in error to any visual astronomy, by this method you can get the pole star rising on Asc, which is impossible!
I do feel that fixed stars do need more use but by astronomy method.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10705808
Stars projected on to the ecliptic is using an inaccurate measure, how can Polaris ever be rising on Asc?
I think that the usage of the ecliptic is completely justified in the case of the planets, because to think otherwise would be to claim that the Moon can change signs and elemental quality in the matter of hours, which seems to me entirely contrary to the orbits of the planets, which are similar to the Sun, thereby partaking of the same seasonal qualities by the consistent elevation.
When it comes to the usage of ecliptical projection for fixed stars, astrologers follow the same logic, the fixed stars can partake of the same seasonal qualities, which are always perpendicular to the ecliptic. However, I personally think that both systems (ecliptical projection and paranatellonta) should be used together in order to avoid the error of ''rising'' never rising stars like Alpha Centauri for 29N+ or circumpolar stars like Polaris for N. Some astrologers suggest using ecliptical projection only in the case of the zodiacal belt, but I think we should factor both and another method I refer to as ''proximate distance''. For example, since Polaris is way far from the ecliptic, it being paranatellonta with all planets at the Equator would not particularly affect all nativities with coolness and moisture. I don't think that the usage of its ecliptical projection is useful either, unlike the case for Regulus and Spica.
Last edited: