Would calling myself a Scorpio make me a poser

waybread

Well-known member
Thankyou sibylline. As for the 8th house Pluto connections. May I add that I did my tropical and sidereal heliocentric charts too, my tropical heliocentric is a cancer dominant and a water dominant chart with fixed as a prominent modality, giving Scorpio power here too. Also with my sidereal heliocentric chart Pluto again is in Scorpio along with Mercury and Chiron, here it has power too. I've been fixed on astrology because of Scorpio as I didn't fit my tropical sign I searched now I'm at a crossroads where even different versions of the charts hint at Scorpio energy, and people peg me as a Scorpio no matter how hard I try to blend in (I'm good at blending btw). It's just the system that many astrologers love has no place for me.

I don't like the term "over-thinking" but I wonder if you are overthinking your horoscope. Try getting to know your tropical zodiac chart.

Very few astrologers use heliocentric charts. Astrology, whether sidereal or tropical or constellational comes from a geocentric perspective.

If you "feel like a Scorpio" then chances are that your tropical chart is a better fit for you than your sidereal chart. And yes, precession of the equinoxes did move the planets "backwards." If you don't believe me, cast your chart using the tropical zodiac.

Notice, too, how planets tell your story. A sign shows how or in what manner a planet operates. But any planet making a major aspect to Pluto is going to become Plutonized.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Did I? Precession of the equinoxes goes backwards, not forward. All of my tropical Aquarian planets slip back into sidereal Capricorn. Tropical planetary placements will be earlier, not later, than sidereal placements. Try doing your chart on the Astrodienst free chart pages at www.astro.com. The western tropical zodiac is their default position, although you can also specify severeal sidereal zodiacs if you wish.

You will probably learn that you're more Scorpio than you believe from a sidereal perspective.

The easiest way for me to look at it is as a Progression of the Constellations through the Tropical Zodiac. So, the constellation of Capricorn has moved well into Tropical Aquarius, for example, and, as you said, in Sidereal your Sun would be in Capricorn. The confusion is that the listing was Sidereal, not Tropical.
I got a kick out of a journalist interviewing people after a professor at some university got some attention by reiterating the old "revelation" that the Zodiacal constellations had moved about one Sign ahead in the well-known Tropical coordinates. After asking, "What's your Sign", he would say that "ACTUALLY your Sun-sign is in the PREVIOUS constellation, so you're REALLY a [....]" He did this with a young man who proudly announced, "I'm an Aries!" And when this journalist told him, that, according to this professor, he's "really" a Pisces, he said "PISCES?! Oh cr*p!" :lol:
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
I am glad your all flustered and having fun. Nothing you say is bothering me. I tell people I am a scorpionic person clearly you need to alert your other only tropic peers to study more, not me. I understand the differences between all of my charts how to calculate them and read them. I know myself not to be a Capricorn personality so I say I have a scorpionic personality. You think I know this topic wouldn't upset people...
 

obsidianmineral

Well-known member
I already said what I think about this and yet people keep discussing the viability of sidereal. It's completely fine to accept it, but if we're gonna use sidereal then reject tropical completely. If OP doesn't identify with Capricorn then he's the first of many that I've witnessed to not identify with their Sun sign and placements using the tropical zodiac. They could however show us their tropical natal chart and let us see for ourselves what astrology says about him.

The annoying thing about this is that people are more inclined to changing the signs completely in a chart than actually admitting that astrology failed. If astrology failed then it did and that's it.

There can be no more than one true house system or zodiac system. It's a fallacy to think that both things work. That just demonstrates how illusive, manipulable and single-minded the way people think can be. If you're so willing to accept a new zodiac and house system then go ahead and read the wikipedia article about astrology. Astrology could very well be false. What the article says is way more rational than anything 99% of the people say here. People insist on using different astrological techniques and there is also a division between modern and traditional, but the thing you don't guys get is that this very variability and lack of unity in the astrological technique goes as far as to tell how ******** everything really is.


So, either accept a single method and stick to it, see the results and find out it works or accept astrology is entirely false.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science
 

david starling

Well-known member
I already said what I think about this and yet people keep discussing the viability of sidereal. It's completely fine to accept it, but if we're gonna use sidereal then reject tropical completely. If OP doesn't identify with Capricorn then he's the first of many that I've witnessed to not identify with their Sun sign and placements using the tropical zodiac. They could however show us their tropical natal chart and let us see for ourselves what astrology says about him.

The annoying thing about this is that people are more inclined to changing the signs completely in a chart than actually admitting that astrology failed. If astrology failed then it did and that's it.

There can be no more than one true house system or zodiac system. It's a fallacy to think that both things work. That just demonstrates how illusive, manipulable and single-minded the way people think can be. If you're so willing to accept a new zodiac and house system then go ahead and read the wikipedia article about astrology. Astrology could very well be false. What the article says is way more rational than anything 99% of the people say here. People insist on using different astrological techniques and there is also a division between modern and traditional, but the thing you don't guys get is that this very variability and lack of unity in the astrological technique goes as far as to tell how ******** everything really is.


So, either accept a single method and stick to it, see the results and find out it works or accept astrology is entirely false.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_science

Several viewing angles of the same phenomenon is necessary to get the complete picture. Btw, which Religion has the "one True" version of a Deity, in your opinion? :biggrin:
 

david starling

Well-known member
Relating Astrology to Modern Science, Astrology is less like Classical Mechanics, and more like Theoretical Physics. Several different viewpoints there, as well.
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
Different angles are required to survive in this world. I may be dead if I didn't evolve and adapt... I've shared more than I would have liked to. I'm not a poser, I know this. I'm different but I'm still real, I'm a dominant scorpionic person off of the paper, I was just seeing if the paper aligned with my personality. Tropical astrology failed to do this for me, sidereal has not however.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Different angles are required to survive in this world. I may be dead if I didn't evolve and adapt... I've shared more than I would have liked to. I'm not a poser, I know this. I'm different but I'm still real, I'm a dominant scorpionic person off of the paper, I was just seeing if the paper aligned with my personality. Tropical astrology failed to do this for me, sidereal has not however.

Personally, I have no problem with different versions "working" for different people. Tropical works well for my own Chart, and many others I've studied and discussed with the people those Charts represent. But, I'm well aware that the Tropical view doesn't work for everyone. I just don't see Astrology as a "one-fits-all" practice. There is something you might want to consider, even if it's a long shot--several times, when a Chart didn't matchup with the person, it turned out the birthtime, and in two cases, the birthdate was incorrect. Not everyone is born in a hospital with someone recording the exact time. My attitude is, if the time is accurate, and the Chart doesn't do the job, it's the type of Astrology that needs to change. Clearly, Tropical isn't your type of Astrology (again. If you're certain about the time of birth).
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
Thanks for that information. My mother is certain that i was born 7:23 am. However i came out six days late according to the second estimation which was a month later than the first to begin with. As for using tropical charts even in someones chart i read, i emphasize their dominant sign, planet, etc. due to the fact that it is often times more accurate to them than their sun sign. This is the case of Scorpio in my sidereal chart. It is dominant, its element and modality are dominant, and Pluto is my dominant planet, doc. in its own sign of Scorpio.
 

folelser

Well-known member
Different angles are required to survive in this world. I may be dead if I didn't evolve and adapt... I've shared more than I would have liked to. I'm not a poser, I know this. I'm different but I'm still real, I'm a dominant scorpionic person off of the paper, I was just seeing if the paper aligned with my personality. Tropical astrology failed to do this for me, sidereal has not however.

I think escorpio has the fame of being "cool",
You are really not accepting the reality.

I know many people who are Capricorn, and they are very secretive as well they have an interesting personality and very intense as well.
 

obsidianmineral

Well-known member
Different angles are required to survive in this world. I may be dead if I didn't evolve and adapt... I've shared more than I would have liked to. I'm not a poser, I know this. I'm different but I'm still real, I'm a dominant scorpionic person off of the paper, I was just seeing if the paper aligned with my personality. Tropical astrology failed to do this for me, sidereal has not however.

Relating Astrology to Modern Science, Astrology is less like Classical Mechanics, and more like Theoretical Physics. Several different viewpoints there, as well.

Several viewing angles of the same phenomenon is necessary to get the complete picture. Btw, which Religion has the "one True" version of a Deity, in your opinion? :biggrin:

With all due respect, all these arguments are horrible. You can't simply deduce the validity of a pseudo-science based on analogies. How does evolution and religion have anything to do with how astrology works? With all due respect once again, all religions describe a single god but in different manners and that is correct, but religions are not based on empirical and logical convictions. I do believe in God myself, however I know that it is irrational and I don't care if it is. I just feel that he is there. However, when astrology is supposed to be provable and based on observation and statistics, you can't just throw out there that it works just because it does.

Astrology is meant to work because it follows a lot of guidelines and rules that it diligently follows. It's a pseudoscience because it starts off premises that are irrational (balance and symmetry of the planets, aesthetics in their placements, the fact that they affect human life from a distance, etc.) hence its irrationality and designation as a pseudoscience. It is up entirely to us to decide to believe in it or not.

Astrology is absolutely, not in the least related to theoretical physics. If by theoretical physics you mean quantum mechanics then it still doesn't have anything to do either. Quantum mechanics is proven because there have been experiments that have validated its premises 100% of the time, not because they were conceived by scientists randomly and suddenly were proven much to the surprise of everyone. No.

You're in your right to believe sidereal works as well as tropical does, but understand how irrational it sounds. Instead of focusing in your specific natal chart Whoam1, why don't you think about almost everyone else who identifies with their tropical charts? I invite you once again to share with us your natal chart so we can see what you might have not noticed in the chart. Sidereal seems like a poor excuse to everyone who didn't identify initially with tropical. Can't you see how cynical the system is? People can identify with tropical, but if they don't then we magically make up a new zodiac system that ensures everyone identifies with their charts.
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
Astrology in India, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, is probably older than that made tropically by Greece and eventually the Christian church... so wouldn't (if was I speculate is true) the tropical version be a bastardized version of the Kevin's of astrology to begin with. Also if you all are so smart just count the dregrees back on the chart I showed you to get the tropical placement of the signs... btw Scorpios in real life are totally awkward nerds who have a lot of social weirdness. Also I can't relate to earth signs in general... and in my tropical chart I have a earth grand trine a Capricorn sun Virgo moon and Taurus as a dominant sign.
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
What's more cynical is that's people need these signs to support there personalities because they don't know who they are as people. So they can find a way to label who they are, but deep down they have some level of insecurity and if that builds up, people won't know who they are and society could collapse if astrology somehow failed. Maybe it's a good thing one system doesn't exist so people can define themselves.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
SOLAR & LUNAR RETURNS

In 1944, Cyril Fagan discovered the superiority of
Sidereal Solar and Lunar Returns (“Solunars”)
over their Tropical counterparts.
These returns, calculated in a precession-free reference frame
yield quite different results from Tropical returns.
For example, the difference in the time of a Solar Return
amounts to a whole day at age 72 :smile:

The literature on this subject is very rich, though much is out of print.
You may be able to find two books on the subject:
Solar & Lunar Returns
by Donald A. Bradley (1948)
and
Interpreting Solar Returns
by James A. Eshelman (1979).
http://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
I could see maybe why i feel related to water signs in my natal tropical chart. Tell me if this remotely makes any sense. There is a void for water in my natal chart, with only one celestial planet total in a water sign, and a normal four or more bodies in all of the other elements. The other elements could possibly be trying to balance this void. This would manifest in Venus as it is the only place in my natal chart that has water placement. Then this manifestation is then outwardly expressed in the way I love others, the way I want to be loved and in my aesthetic, which is very, lets say dark :venus::scorpio::devil:. Then there are compensations in a chart that try to express the missing element, i have three of 5 that i have found. That is moon in a water house, moon in aspect to the sun, and moon in aspect to Pluto. I have 8th house moon, moon trine the sun, and moon square pluto.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
With all due respect, all these arguments are horrible. You can't simply deduce the validity of a pseudo-science based on analogies. How does evolution and religion have anything to do with how astrology works? With all due respect once again, all religions describe a single god but in different manners and that is correct, but religions are not based on empirical and logical convictions. I do believe in God myself, however I know that it is irrational and I don't care if it is. I just feel that he is there. However, when astrology is supposed to be provable and based on observation and statistics, you can't just throw out there that it works just because it does.

Astrology is meant to work because it follows a lot of guidelines and rules that it diligently follows. It's a pseudoscience because it starts off premises that are irrational (balance and symmetry of the planets, aesthetics in their placements, the fact that they affect human life from a distance, etc.) hence its irrationality and designation as a pseudoscience. It is up entirely to us to decide to believe in it or not.

Astrology is absolutely, not in the least related to theoretical physics. If by theoretical physics you mean quantum mechanics then it still doesn't have anything to do either. Quantum mechanics is proven because there have been experiments that have validated its premises 100% of the time, not because they were conceived by scientists randomly and suddenly were proven much to the surprise of everyone. No.

You're in your right to believe sidereal works as well as tropical does, but understand how irrational it sounds. Instead of focusing in your specific natal chart Whoam1, why don't you think about almost everyone else who identifies with their tropical charts? I invite you once again to share with us your natal chart so we can see what you might have not noticed in the chart. Sidereal seems like a poor excuse to everyone who didn't identify initially with tropical. Can't you see how cynical the system is? People can identify with tropical, but if they don't then we magically make up a new zodiac system that ensures everyone identifies with their charts.

I don't really care if Modern Science ever develops enough to be able to explain, in its own terminology and according to its own "Laws of Nature", how and why Astrologically determined synchronicity exists. But if it does, it will be done by the theoretical physicists, most likely through advancements in their understanding of Quantum-mechanics.
 

Starry595

Member
I'm a bit late to the party, but I have my 2 cents.

Well, the fact is that most people use the tropical zodiac for a reason. If you're gonna be so hard on choosing the exact constellation that's rising in your birth, then use Ophiucus as your rising sign, because it's the actual constellation. The zodiac we use is there for a reason, it's based on symbolism and seasons, like most of the techniques used in astrology.

That makes no sense. If the stars are irrelevant, why even call it astrology? Saying, "it's all about the seasons" seems like a cop out. You hear astrologers refer to your "star sign" and tell "what the stars hold for you", but if you bring up procession they retreat to all this talk about seasons.

Originally, astrology took large account of the fixed stars (even a "tropical" astrologer such as Ptolemy did), but for some reason they ignore the stars these days. Astrology was sidereal from Egypt to at least 300 AD. The oldest surviving horoscope is dated July 16, 2767 BC, where the Sun is cast in Leo.

Heliacal Phenomina

Page 10-11 of Primer

Chaldean Forum

There's really no point in trying to be more exact or real in using the actual position of the constellations when pretty much all of astrology is based upon the symbolism and symmetry of things. I don't know if you did know this, but the aspects, rulerships, triplicities, symbols for the planets, order, elements, etc. are all based on symbolical meaning, not exact facts.

All maths and sciences are, more or less, based on symbolism and symmetry (trying to communicate abstract concepts and finding patters in the universe by creating natural laws). Yet scientists, such as astronomers, still take empirical reality for what it is. Astrologers should return to doing the same.

I personally am fine with a pure 12 constellation zodiac (with Ophiuchus/Scorpio simply treated as Scorpio). Either way, uneven constellations do not negate attempts to pin down a sidereal ayanamsha. Sidereal astrologers are not united in where to being the sidereal zodiac, but that doesn't make their ideas invalid.

Personally, I find the 12 uneven constellations the most valid form of astrology. You can bleat how the Moon is in Virgo right now all you want, but once night falls and you look up at the sky you will see the Moon in Leo, and nothing can change that reality.

For example, trines are said to be harmonious because they represent the triangle, a figure that's regarded as spiritual and harmonious. And, going even beyond the basic structure of astrology, there's a lot of empirical research being done on astrology and most of it is done using the tropical zodiac. In personal experience I've seen vedic to fail a lot more times than tropical. I've asked many people about their charts in vedic and they just don't see it. If you use vedic as a result of opinion then you're free to do it, but it's a couple of testimonies against the much more vast and common use of the tropical zodiac.

Plenty of research was done in sidereal astrology, primarily by Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley in the past and Jim Eshelman today. I don't know how much is "a lot" regarding scientists researching tropical astrology (source plz?). If they focus only on tropical zodiac, it's probably because they don't even know sidereal astrology exists.

As for your testimonies, yours is as good as mine. The tropical zodiac never made much sense to me as I observed people around me; and I always found it severely lacking in any true understanding of human nature. Western sidereal astrology makes way more sense.

I think people have issues with sidereal astrology for three main reasons. 1. Tropical astrology is all they have ever known, and they want to be comfortable. 2. Some base their entire sense of self on their supposed zodiac sign, so they have an existential crises when exposed to new information. 3. The ancients described the characters of the zodiac signs somewhat differently than we moderns do. Hack astrologers also do a fair amount of gross stereotyping, but this issue is a whole different kettle of fish.

There are also people who like to use the argument of "Vedic and Tropical are both correct because astrology is so mysterious and magical that in both systems, natal charts describe the same person" - Yeah, that's probably the weakest argument you can come up with. If you firmly believe this is the case then you firmly believe astrology is false.

Do you have any idea how many people justify any form of astrology with the exact same argument? There is a form of astrology where the tropical zodiac and the fixed stars are both taken into account. The website is called Dark Side Astrology. Take it for what it's worth.

If things do "match up" even after changing the signs it's because your mind is telling you so, trying to find connections and patterns, a job at which our minds are really good at.It's like denying confirmation bias .

Your typical scientist will say you're doing exactly the same thing.
 
Top