david starling
Well-known member
I don't see any logical reason why there shouldn't be an Age-indicator that transits the tropical zodiac. Since there's one for the sidereal zodiac, there should be one for tropical as well. [IMO]
nor have past geniusesYou still haven't answered the question I posed.
you are entitled to your opinionI don't see any logical reason why there shouldn't be an Age-indicator that transits the tropical zodiac.
Since there's one for the sidereal zodiac, there should be
one for tropical as well. [IMO]
you are entitled to your opinion
anyone posting an opinion on this thread is entitled to that opinionThis thread isn't about whether I'm "entitled to my opinion".
It's about YOUR own opinion regarding the topic of this thread.
anyone posting an opinion on this thread is entitled to that opinion
which includes the followingAnyone posting ON this thread should post an opinion regarding the thread topic.
Well, I'll describe how I arrived at a candidate for a tropical Ages method, and why I felt compelled to do it, in a new thread.
What I'm trying to understand on this one, is why nobody else bothered. Look at all the great thinkers and mystics, most of whom were and are tropicalists, who just automatically assumed that Ages were the sole province of the sidereal zodiac, without even exploring any other possibilities. Robert Hand and Robert Zoller for example. I think maybe they don't realize the Ages are the effect of Earth's wobble, and instead believe that they somehow beam down on us from the constellations. Even the sidereal Age-indicator is a function of Earth's tilt relative to the Sun. Why haven't they figured out that these are EARTH'S Ages?
which includes the following
do enlighten us all with your own opinionStill waiting for your OWN opinion on this thread topic...
Well, I'll describe how I arrived at a candidate for a tropical Ages method, and why I felt compelled to do it, in a new thread.
What I'm trying to understand on this one, is why nobody else bothered. Look at all the great thinkers and mystics, most of whom were and are tropicalists, who just automatically assumed that Ages were the sole province of the sidereal zodiac, without even exploring any other possibilities. Robert Hand and Robert Zoller for example. I think maybe they don't realize the Ages are the effect of Earth's wobble, and instead believe that they somehow beam down on us from the constellations. Even the sidereal Age-indicator is a function of Earth's tilt relative to the Sun. Why haven't they figured out that these are EARTH'S Ages?
do enlighten us all with your own opinion
as to "why all those great thinkers and mystics of the past
somehow did not mention Tropical Ages"
Sorry, I am so having Mercury Rx issues. I keep trying, I will be back when I can figure it where the other thread is.
There's a rather obvious lack of participatory interest in the topic. I haven't started the new thread yet, concerning the Voyage of Discovery. The Other Astrology section might be best.
I am interested. I think Ankar might be. Passiflora, sounds interested.
JupiterAsc, is interested, or he wouldn’t be here, testing your resolve.😄Moonkat and others might join in. David, you are an interesting guy who has a lot of support here, because you are nicer, than for instance, me😄
Why the reversed polarity for tropical? I agree with the theory of the next ring of ages beyond reversing, but as it is a different system would it not as tropical go clockwise then counter, over and over. Same as I think of sidereal.
Why is it in Capricorn now?
I prefer tropical for natal. So why not.