Ok, I'm gonna rock the boat a little bit here...
So I was just introduced to this concept of "lacking an element emphasizing it," and I have to say it sounded very counter-intuitive. I started reading more about this, and if I understand correctly, lack of an element creates one of two possibilities:
1) The lacking element suddenly becomes strongly emphasized.
2) The lacking element stays just what it is... lacking.
With this all or nothing situation, it got me thinking about what else could be causing such results in the data (First of all, if I'm wrong in understanding that it creates these all or nothing types of results, you can stop me right here!).
So here's what I got to thinking... and I don't think people are gonna like this:
What if the tropical zodiac (based on the seasons) is not good for reflecting the distribution of elements, and we actually need to use the sidereal zodiac (based on the actual star positions) for this?
Due to the precession of the equinox, there is currently a discrepancy of about 22 degreed between the two zodiacs. So basically, in all of our charts, we would have to move everything back by 22 degrees, for them to reflect the actual position of the planets, the ascendant, etc, against the backdrop of the zodiac.
This could very well account for the very mixed results that we seem to be getting with this lack of an element theory.
For example, my chart drawn up with the tropical zodiac shows a complete lack of air. But the same chart drawn up with the sidereal zodiac shows 4 planets in air!!! (see attachments below)
Now, I haven't read the book that Astrologer50 has recommended (Shirley Lyons Meier, "Elemental Voids, More than Meets the Eye"), so I don't feel fully qualified to challenge the theory.
But all the same, I just thought I would bring up this idea. Because this would account for how in some charts, lack of an element emphasizes the element (as the actual location of planets as viewed from earth will reveal a greater emphasis on this element), while in some charts it will leave the element de-emphasized (because the shift is only 22 degrees, and not a whole 30 degrees... meaning if planets are at the 'end' of their signs, they will just 'move back' to the beginning of the sign in the sidereal zodiac).
Just a thought...
I can't imagine many folks liking this idea though, as it could potentially throw off 'everything we know' about astrology...
So I was just introduced to this concept of "lacking an element emphasizing it," and I have to say it sounded very counter-intuitive. I started reading more about this, and if I understand correctly, lack of an element creates one of two possibilities:
1) The lacking element suddenly becomes strongly emphasized.
2) The lacking element stays just what it is... lacking.
With this all or nothing situation, it got me thinking about what else could be causing such results in the data (First of all, if I'm wrong in understanding that it creates these all or nothing types of results, you can stop me right here!).
So here's what I got to thinking... and I don't think people are gonna like this:
What if the tropical zodiac (based on the seasons) is not good for reflecting the distribution of elements, and we actually need to use the sidereal zodiac (based on the actual star positions) for this?
Due to the precession of the equinox, there is currently a discrepancy of about 22 degreed between the two zodiacs. So basically, in all of our charts, we would have to move everything back by 22 degrees, for them to reflect the actual position of the planets, the ascendant, etc, against the backdrop of the zodiac.
This could very well account for the very mixed results that we seem to be getting with this lack of an element theory.
For example, my chart drawn up with the tropical zodiac shows a complete lack of air. But the same chart drawn up with the sidereal zodiac shows 4 planets in air!!! (see attachments below)
Now, I haven't read the book that Astrologer50 has recommended (Shirley Lyons Meier, "Elemental Voids, More than Meets the Eye"), so I don't feel fully qualified to challenge the theory.
But all the same, I just thought I would bring up this idea. Because this would account for how in some charts, lack of an element emphasizes the element (as the actual location of planets as viewed from earth will reveal a greater emphasis on this element), while in some charts it will leave the element de-emphasized (because the shift is only 22 degrees, and not a whole 30 degrees... meaning if planets are at the 'end' of their signs, they will just 'move back' to the beginning of the sign in the sidereal zodiac).
Just a thought...
I can't imagine many folks liking this idea though, as it could potentially throw off 'everything we know' about astrology...