Meaning of signs derived from planetary rulers or independent?

waybread · Aug 21, 2018

pschutz said:
@Petosiris: Thank you for the explanation. I think I am going to be satisfied by researching all the sources you mention and reading the threads you link to. Very interesting stuff.

Just a quick check on one fact: In my understanding the Sun spends 46 days in Virgo, which means the constellation is around 46 degrees long. I was unable to verify if that is the result of IAAU redrawing, precession or it was always like this. Could you set me straight on this?

@waybread: Thank you very much for your constructive opposition in this topic. I am going to check Robert Zoller's work, from what I am reading it seems more and more that in fact the constellation mythology has inspired all meaning in astrology.

The constellation Virgo is 46-47 degrees along the ecliptic, while Cancer, Libra, and Aries are much less. (Somewhere I've got the list, and it's probably on-line.) Then Ophiuchus crosses the ecliptic and Cetus just touches it. There are also a few gaps along the ecliptic, while Capricorn and Aquarius overlap.

The Babylonians used a sexagesimal (base-60) arithmetic system, which we inherit today with our degrees of the circle, clocks, compasses, and system of latitude and longitude. Using 30-degree signs just made their predictions a lot easier than using constellations.

petosiris · Aug 21, 2018

waybread said:
The constellation Virgo is 46-47 degrees along the ecliptic, while Cancer, Libra, and Aries are much less. (Somewhere I've got the list, and it's probably on-line.) Then Ophiuchus crosses the ecliptic and Cetus just touches it. There are also a few gaps along the ecliptic, while Capricorn and Aquarius overlap.

The Babylonians used a sexagesimal (base-60) arithmetic system, which we inherit today with our degrees of the circle, clocks, compasses, and system of latitude and longitude. Using 30-degree signs just made their predictions a lot easier than using constellations.

Besides seeming so worthless, they based the 30-degree signs on the constellations and their gaps.

from what I am reading it seems more and more that in fact the constellation mythology has inspired all meaning in astrology.

I wouldn't be so sure about that because there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. In my opinion one should still use some meteorological, seasonal and light phenomena on top of the sidereal signs as the ancients were doing. You would not be doing traditional astrology anymore if you remove entirely those parts, and in my view they are important considerations to take into account (along with their reversal in the south and less focus on the equator). My qualms about tropical astrology comes from the fact that it mostly ignores that aside from the convenience of starting the zodiac from the spring equinox.

However, the opposite belief of yours, that the seasons influenced all astrology, even the constellations is pure dark ages ignorance, evidenced by the fact that some images are at least six thousand years old, Taurus even being paleolithic - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=880026&postcount=225
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=880070&postcount=226

The power of the solstices and the daylight ratio of the signs is greater than the motion and turnings of the Moon. I base this on examinations of Southern and Northern Hemisphere charts, as well as simply to the fact that seasons have large causal effects on Earth and human activity - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034866
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1817/20151453

petosiris · Aug 24, 2018

I've noted many times that some constellations (Aries, Scorpio) barely touch the ecliptic and occupy less than 30 degrees.

Sure waybread, if you think of IAU Aries as made of two lines - from Bharani to Hamal and to Sheratan, it sure is small, arbitrary and ''barely touching the ecliptic'' (new discovery, the IAU Aries does not touch the ecliptic!, therefore there are twelve signs with Ophiuchus). Also Scorpio is 7 degrees and Ophiuchus is 19 /sarcasm.

https://ia801407.us.archive.org/23/items/lastrologiegrecq00boucuoft/lastrologiegrecq00boucuoft.pdf - see page 131 for the reference from Goold

The way the tropical astronomers and astrologers saw Aries, it touches the ecliptic (contrary to your statements) and it is at least 25 degrees long.

From Chapter 2.1 of Vettius Valens: ''This image/sign has 19 bright stars. On the belt are 14 bright stars, 27 dim, 28 somewhat bright, and 48 faint.'' He also lists how many stars are there sidereally (the 30 degrees of the belt), and how many constellationally (the sign itself, which he takes as synonymous with the constellation) for a few signs (this chapter is very fragmentary and full of interpolations, making it unlikely that Valens authored this chapter, but let's use him as a placeholder for Hellenistic X). You have to see the image of the constellation. Sometimes this will make the constellation appear larger than whatever fixed stars and lines you use as basis. The IAU Aries does not have a body, tail, legs, head, horns, all which are part of astrological significations. Ptolemy says ''The stars in the head of Aries, then, have an effect like the power of Mars and Saturn, mingled; those in the mouth like Mercury's power and moderately like Saturn's; those in the hind foot like that of Mars, and those in the tail like that of Venus.'' - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#9

Not tell me where exactly are the tail, head, foot and mouth of Aries. Aries is not made of 4 stars and three lines, but is an image of many stars.

waybread · Aug 24, 2018

petosiris said:
Besides seeming so worthless, they based the 30-degree signs on the constellations and their gaps.

What do you mean by "seeming so worthless"? I don't follow.

Incidentally, are you familiar with Bernadette Brady's "visual astrology"? She is one astrologer who has tried actually to put Babylonian astrology into practice. Also, Gavin White's Babylonian Star Lore?

I wouldn't be so sure about that because there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

In arguing that mythology was extremely important in understanding ancient astrology, this is in no way negates the role of additional influences. We're not talking either-or, but a kind of casserole of various influences. The one Hellenistic exception to this that I can think of was Ptolemy. (Who knows about Hipparchus.)

But for a guy who calls himself Petosiris, I'm puzzled by your aversion to mythology. You know what Vettius Valens said about your namesake.

In my opinion one should still use some meteorological, seasonal and light phenomena on top of the sidereal signs as the ancients were doing. You would not be doing traditional astrology anymore if you remove entirely those parts, and in my view they are important considerations to take into account (along with their reversal in the south and less focus on the equator)

Agreed. Mostly. As southern hemisphere astrologers seem to get along fine with the northern hemisphere model.

My qualms about tropical astrology comes from the fact that it mostly ignores that aside from the convenience of starting the zodiac from the spring equinox.

Well, we've talked about this before, have we not? A tropical astrologer can still used fixed stars independently of any disjuncture between today's signs and constellations. But as you know, fixed stars do move a degree every 72 years. So they've moved about 28 degrees over the past 2000 years, not counting shifts in the earth's axis. Our sky isn't exactly the ancient sky.

However, the opposite belief of yours, that the seasons influenced all astrology, even the constellations is pure dark ages ignorance, evidenced by the fact that some images are at least six thousand years old, Taurus even being paleolithic - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=880026&postcount=225
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=880070&postcount=226

Sorry, I don't get your meaning here. What is my view? What would be the opposite view? I've often pointed out that archaeologists think they've found a sky map in the caves of Lascaux.

The power of the solstices and the daylight ratio of the signs is greater than the motion and turnings of the Moon. I base this on examinations of Southern and Northern Hemisphere charts, as well as simply to the fact that seasons have large causal effects on Earth and human activity - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034866
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1817/20151453

Sorry, but if you believe this, then wouldn't this make you a fan of the tropical zodiac? By "motion and turnings" of the moon, do you mean its orbit? As you know, it doesn't rotate on its axis ("turnings"?)

petosiris · Aug 24, 2018

Waybread, apologies, I was replying to pschutz.

By "motion and turnings" of the moon, do you mean its orbit? As you know, it doesn't rotate on its axis ("turnings"?)

That is true, but the Hellenistic astrologers sort of implied a similarity, both Valens and Ptolemy liken the quarters of the phases to the seasons.

Sorry, but if you believe this, then wouldn't this make you a fan of the tropical zodiac?

Yes, I am big fan of the tropical zodiac. But I think it is more correct to say, I am big fan of the equinoxes and solstices and their use in astrology, rather than the tropical zodiac.

Well, we've talked about this before, have we not? A tropical astrologer can still used fixed stars independently of any disjuncture between today's signs and constellations. But as you know, fixed stars do move a degree every 72 years. So they've moved about 28 degrees over the past 2000 years, not counting shifts in the earth's axis. Our sky isn't exactly the ancient sky.

That is only in a tropical zodiac. The only not moving point in Ptolemy's zodiac is the celestial equator itself (see Almagest, the fixed stars are not fixed and he regards it as absurd to base the length of the year and the zodiac on fixed stars which are ''so-called'' and no different than planets).

There is some evidence that some Hellenistic astronomers and astrologers, who were aware of precession (or trepidation), conceptualized the zodiac as sidereal and the equinoxes as moving. See Theon's formula or the newly discovered papyrus with nativity which says: ''the tropical points are displaced in the retrograde sense (εἰς τὰ προηγούμενα) since the time of Hipparchus'' - translation by Anne Tihon, ''An Unpublished Astronomical Papyrus Contemporary with Ptolemy'', you said you have ''Ptolemy in Perspective'' - it is the first chapter

(i.e. the equinoxes are moving in relation to the zodiac rather than the fixed stars relative a tropical zodiac)

Both perspectives and zodiacs are possible in a geocentric worldview.

Agreed. Mostly. As southern hemisphere astrologers seem to get along fine with the northern hemisphere model.

That furnishes no acceptable argument except bias or chance. It is impossible.

waybread · Aug 24, 2018

petosiris said:
Sure waybread, if you think of IAU Aries as made of two lines - from Bharani to Hamal and to Sheratan, it sure is small, arbitrary and ''barely touching the ecliptic'' (new discovery, the IAU Aries does not touch the ecliptic!, therefore there are twelve signs with Ophiuchus). Also Scorpio is 7 degrees and Ophiuchus is 19 /sarcasm.

https://ia801407.us.archive.org/23/items/lastrologiegrecq00boucuoft/lastrologiegrecq00boucuoft.pdf - see page 131 for the reference from Goold

The way the tropical astronomers and astrologers saw Aries, it touches the ecliptic (contrary to your statements) and it is at least 25 degrees long.

From Chapter 2.1 of Vettius Valens: ''This image/sign has 19 bright stars. On the belt are 14 bright stars, 27 dim, 28 somewhat bright, and 48 faint.'' He also lists how many stars are there sidereally (the 30 degrees of the belt), and how many constellationally (the sign itself, which he takes as synonymous with the constellation) for a few signs (this chapter is very fragmentary and full of interpolations, making it unlikely that Valens authored this chapter, but let's use him as a placeholder for Hellenistic X). You have to see the image of the constellation. Sometimes this will make the constellation appear larger than whatever fixed stars and lines you use as basis. The IAU Aries does not have a body, tail, legs, head, horns, all which are part of astrological significations. Ptolemy says ''The stars in the head of Aries, then, have an effect like the power of Mars and Saturn, mingled; those in the mouth like Mercury's power and moderately like Saturn's; those in the hind foot like that of Mars, and those in the tail like that of Venus.'' - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#9

Not tell me where exactly are the tail, head, foot and mouth of Aries. Aries is not made of 4 stars and three lines, but is an image of many stars.

Thanks for the IAU update.

I think the problem was, a 12-constellation or 12-sign zodiac needed to trim and stretch the star-pictures in order to get something more or less across the ecliptic. Then with overlapping constellations, arbitrary decisions were made as to which zodiacal constellation was in or out. I've mentioned the Capricorn-Aquarius overlap, but things get a little sticky around Sagittarius, Ophiuchus, and Scorpio, as well.

Here is Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore, on Aries: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/babylonian_aries.pdf

Ptolemy's Almagest probably indicates just which stars he used, and possibly he had a differently configured constellation.

Usually the connect-the-dot constellation Aries looks like a crooked line. However, at certain times the constellation does look like a chevron, the symbolic sheep (or goat) horns. We see this in the glyph for Aries. :aries:

Take a gander at this picture of wild bighorn sheep.

petosiris · Aug 24, 2018

Sorry, I can't take Gavin White seriously. Most of his work is very speculative taken as certain facts. He seems to be unaware of the cavemen Taurus, which would certainly ruin the seasonal-occult paradigm of his research (I assume he has played his great role in spreading this belief).

''Bull of Heaven (Taurus) The Bull of Heaven symbolizes the fecund powers of the spring-time skies – rain and sunshine – which bring life and growth to the earth. The Bull also represents the Golden Calf of biblical fame, which symbolizes the new-born sun emerging from the cosmic waters of creation just as the new-born calf emerges from the waters of the womb'' - https://solariapublications.com/2011/10/25/a-brief-guide-to-the-babylonian-constellations/

Ah, you are trying to be all-scholarly when it suits you.

waybread · Aug 26, 2018

petosiris said:
Sorry, I can't take Gavin White seriously. Most of his work is very speculative taken as certain facts. He seems to be unaware of the cavemen Taurus, which would certainly ruin the seasonal-occult paradigm of his research (I assume he has played his great role in spreading this belief).

''Bull of Heaven (Taurus) The Bull of Heaven symbolizes the fecund powers of the spring-time skies – rain and sunshine – which bring life and growth to the earth. The Bull also represents the Golden Calf of biblical fame, which symbolizes the new-born sun emerging from the cosmic waters of creation just as the new-born calf emerges from the waters of the womb'' - https://solariapublications.com/2011/10/25/a-brief-guide-to-the-babylonian-constellations/

Ah, you are trying to be all-scholarly when it suits you.

Sorry, what was that snide remark all about? I do call myself an information junkie. (In a pre-Internet information era, I was a library rat.)

I think Gavin White did a good job, overall, other than that my edition of his book lacks footnotes and references. I think that's since been remedied.

I don't see why Taurus couldn't have been known during the Paleolithic. This doesn't mean it would have had the identical meaning throughout the subsequent millennia.

Arguably, the ceiling sky map at Lascaux is speculative as well. That's kind of how archaeology works in situations where little can be demonstrated conclusively.

petosiris · Aug 26, 2018

waybread said:
Sorry, what was that snide remark all about? I do call myself an information junkie. (In a pre-Internet information era, I was a library rat.)

I think Gavin White did a good job, overall, other than that my edition of his book lacks footnotes and references. I think that's since been remedied.

I don't see why Taurus couldn't have been known during the Paleolithic. This doesn't mean it would have had the identical meaning throughout the subsequent millennia.

Arguably, the ceiling sky map at Lascaux is speculative as well. That's kind of how archaeology works in situations where little can be demonstrated conclusively.

Well it does not contain footnote and references because he made most of it up.

petosiris · Aug 26, 2018

Arguably, the ceiling sky map at Lascaux is speculative as well. That's kind of how archaeology works in situations where little can be demonstrated conclusively.

Sure, it is possible that someone a few years ago just drew 7 dots with mud, Another possibility is that archaelogists and anthropologists are making everything up, we know from the Bible that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, they surely have not scientific methods of dating.

waybread · Aug 26, 2018

petosiris said:
Well it does not contain footnote and references because he made most of it up.

On what basis do you say that? I'd love to see your go-to sources on Mesopotamian astrology.

Alleging that someone falsified his information is a serious charge, and therefore one that should not be made without substantial justification.

As I said, I believe that White included his references in a revised edition. I recall that after his book came out in 2007, he posted them on-line.

Here is Deborah Houlding's positive review of Gavin White's, Babylonian Star Lore: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rev_BSL.html She notes that he wanted to make his book accessible to the layperson-- who in my experience, is not so interested in citations and bibliographies (unlike serious scholars.)

This discussion is in The Classical Astrologer blog: https://classicalastrologer.me/tag/babylon/

This one (in French) is by Patrice Guinard of CURA:
http://cura.free.fr/09-10/1002gavin.html

BTW, in searching for reviews, I came across this bibliography, which you might find interesting: https://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/babylon/babybibl_fixedstars.htm

waybread · Aug 26, 2018

petosiris said:
Sure, it is possible that someone a few years ago just drew 7 dots with mud, Another possibility is that archaelogists and anthropologists are making everything up, we know from the Bible that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, they surely have not scientific methods of dating.

It's nice to see you have a sense of humour, Petosiris, but flippancy isn't the same as a decent, substantiated argument. Here, too, you're suggesting that professional researchers make up their data, which is a serious charge. I don't know how much you've gotten under the hood of archaeology, but in my experience, today they are extremely careful with their data. What those data mean, however, is often unclear. So archaeologists will often give an explanation their best shot. This leaves them open to differering interpretations, notably based on the analysis of new data, but this seems to be how the profession progresses.

I can think of all kinds of examples where archaeologists amassed a huge amount of data and drew conclusions from it (are you familiar with the work of Marija Gimbutas, for example?) only to be disputed by scholars who interpreted the data differently and came up with contrary instances.

On the other hand, catalogues of raw archaeological data are not very exciting to non-experts....

petosiris · Aug 27, 2018

Here, too, you're suggesting that professional researchers make up their data, which is a serious charge.

Really? Was it me that brought that argument?

Arguably, the ceiling sky map at Lascaux is speculative as well. That's kind of how archaeology works in situations where little can be demonstrated conclusively.

What is speculative about it? It is seems like the Bull with the Pleiades.

This doesn't mean it would have had the identical meaning throughout the subsequent millennia.

Are you saying that the meaning of fixed stars depends on the Northern Hemisphere weather? Did Taurus signify the autumn, winter and summer powers at certain points in history?

My argument was more about Taurus being missing limbs, incomplete, terrestrial, quadrupedal, rising backwards, semi-vocal, related to farming, hard-working, blindness, productive of large eyes, nostrils, lips and full faces, and the like, an influence that comes from nothing else but the shape and asterisms of the sign. Or am I wrong in this assumption?

waybread · Aug 28, 2018

petosiris said:
Really? Was it me that brought that argument?

What is speculative about it? It is seems like the Bull with the Pleiades.

Are you saying that the meaning of fixed stars depends on the Northern Hemisphere weather? Did Taurus signify the autumn, winter and summer powers at certain points in history?

My argument was more about Taurus being missing limbs, incomplete, terrestrial, quadrupedal, rising backwards, semi-vocal, related to farming, hard-working, blindness, productive of large eyes, nostrils, lips and full faces, and the like, an influence that comes from nothing else but the shape and asterisms of the sign. Or am I wrong in this assumption?

Petosiris, I think you need to read more on how conclusions in archaeology are drawn. There are so many examples of archaeologists who went into the field with `a priori theories about what they expected to find, and then based their conclusions on those biases. While their excavating, lab, and cataloguing techniques might have been sound, their conclusions were not restricted merely to the results of those techniques. The field of biblical archaeology is another prime example.

Today, some archaeologists are so aware of the problem of faulty conclusions that they don't make many, thus infuriating old-school colleagues who want them to speculate on the bigger picture.

Whatever you want to say about "Taurus being missing limbs, incomplete, terrestrial, quadrupedal, rising backwards, semi-vocal, related to farming, hard-working, blindness, productive of large eyes, nostrils, lips and full faces," this wouldn't have been the Paleolithic understanding of it.

petosiris · Aug 28, 2018

waybread said:
Petosiris, I think you need to read more on how conclusions in archaeology are drawn. There are so many examples of archaeologists who went into the field with `a priori theories about what they expected to find, and then based their conclusions on those biases. While their excavating, lab, and cataloguing techniques might have been sound, their conclusions were not restricted merely to the results of those techniques. The field of biblical archaeology is another prime example.

Today, some archaeologists are so aware of the problem of faulty conclusions that they don't make many, thus infuriating old-school colleagues who want them to speculate on the bigger picture.

Whatever you want to say about "Taurus being missing limbs, incomplete, terrestrial, quadrupedal, rising backwards, semi-vocal, related to farming, hard-working, blindness, productive of large eyes, nostrils, lips and full faces," this wouldn't have been the Paleolithic understanding of it.

The important thing for me is that the Bull existed before April, and that those qualities I mentioned are based on the constellation rather than on April.

waybread · Aug 28, 2018

Whatever......

JUPITERASC · Sep 6, 2018

petosiris said:
The important thing for me is that the Bull existed before April, and

that those qualities I mentioned

are based on the constellation rather than on April.

Meaning of signs derived from planetary rulers or independent?

waybread

Well-known member

petosiris

Banned

petosiris

Banned

waybread

Well-known member

petosiris

Banned

waybread

Well-known member

Attachments

petosiris

Banned

waybread

Well-known member

petosiris

Banned

petosiris

Banned

waybread

Well-known member

waybread

Well-known member

petosiris

Banned

waybread

Well-known member

petosiris

Banned

waybread

Well-known member

JUPITERASC

Well-known member