Should the Tropical Zodiac Include Astrological Ages?

david starling said:

You still haven't answered the question I posed.

Click to expand...

david starling said:

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]

Click to expand...

JUPITERASC said:

you are entitled to your opinion

Click to expand...

david starling said:

This thread isn't about whether I'm "entitled to my opinion".
It's about YOUR own opinion regarding the topic of this thread.

Click to expand...

JUPITERASC said:

anyone posting an opinion on this thread is entitled to that opinion

Click to expand...

david starling said:

Anyone posting ON this thread should post an opinion regarding the thread topic.

Click to expand...

david starling said:

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?

Click to expand...

JUPITERASC said:

which includes the following

Click to expand...

david starling said:

Still waiting for your OWN opinion on this thread topic...

Click to expand...

david starling said:

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?

Click to expand...

JUPITERASC said:

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"

Click to expand...

Opal said:

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.

Click to expand...

david starling said:

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.

Click to expand...

Opal said:

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.

Click to expand...