How does Astrology work in polar regions or the Southern Hemisphere?

athenian200

Well-known member
This was something I've been thinking about recently.

Astrology is based in large part on the seasons, as well as the rising/setting of the sun. But in many polar regions... not only does the sun not rise or set that often, but the temperature is always freezing. Shouldn't that make anyone born in such a place more like a Capricorn or Aquarius?

Also, in the Southern Hemisphere, the seasons are reversed. Christmas happens in the summer for them. Should the signs be interpreted the same way, given that the seasonal influences are a part of why they are interpreted as they are in the first place?

My thinking is that Astrology (at least, unrevised Astrology) really only works in the Northern Hemisphere below the polar latitudes. I mean, if you think about it... all the ancient knowledge we've been handed down is from people who really had little experience with these places. They lived entirely in the Northern Hemisphere below polar latitudes.

Therefore, I have my doubts that Astrology can describe the reality of a person born living in a place with no seasons and no sunsets.... or even a place with reversed seasons unless the signs are "flipped" somehow.

I know a lot of people will insist that it works for them, but I just don't see any logical way that it could. I'm curious what other people think on this issue.
 
Last edited:

Culpeper

Premium Member
Use whole sign houses for the polar regions. It is the original house system and seems to work very well even in high latitudes. There are many astrologers in Australia and they seem to do very well. Many of them post on this forum.
 

athenian200

Well-known member
Use whole sign houses for the polar regions. It is the original house system and seems to work very well even in high latitudes. There are many astrologers in Australia and they seem to do very well. Many of them post on this forum.

Oh, I'm not talking about the houses, actually. I know that there are house systems that could work for those regions. I'm talking about the signs themselves.

For instance, the sign of Aries has a lot of symbolism associated with springtime, the new year, etc. But in the Southern Hemisphere, Aries heralds the start of autumn, the role Libra plays in our zodiac.

I don't doubt there's a way of compensating, but to just ignore the issues with it and claim it works without adjustment doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I've heard it said before that the zodiac is based on the seasons and not the stars. Well, if the seasons are different... then what exactly is behind the signs now? There would appear to be nothing holding them up aside from the dates themselves.
 
Last edited:

Culpeper

Premium Member
The tropical zodiac is connected to seasons. But the question of the southern hemisphere is a good one. I would like to see an astrologer from Australia, South Africa or South America come on an tell us what compensations they use if any. However, astrology is very adaptable.
 

ukdesifem

Well-known member
It shouldn't make a difference. The seasonal relationship is largely symbolic.

this is why the Rising sign is considered most important, as it captures the planets' positions at time of birth. Obviously celestial objects seen from Germany are seen differently from New Zealand or South Africa.
 

miquar

Well-known member
Hi. In 'The Pulse of Life', Rudhyar notes that the humanity we know today took shape in northern temperate regions, later spreading around the globe. So he claims that, for the time being at least, the astrology we use today is relevant for humanity as a whole. It could be that humanity needed to experience the seasonal cycle in order to become conscious of the polarities between which emphasis reciprocates during the tropical zodiacal cycle. Rudhyar describes these polarities as the 'Day-force' (the individualising tendency) and the 'Night-force' (a collectivising tendency).

There could be some qualitative difference between northerliness and southerliness which means that the declination of the ecliptic has meaning beyond the seasonal cycle of the Sun. In other words, the the winter solstice may occur in the southern hemisphere when the Sun is at the first point of tropical Cancer, but the meaning of this point of the zodiacal wheel may be defined by the fact that the ecliptic reaches its maximum southerly declination at this point - not by the fact that the southern hemisphere experiences its shortest day at this time.

It could also be that the capacity of human beings to become more fully individual loci of experience had to happen in northern temperate regions rather than southern temperate regions because northerliness corresponds to individualisation in some way. This doesn't mean that the people born in the northern hemisphere have a greater capacity for individuation or anything - all people born on Earth are born within the same zodiacal energy field. Its perhaps just that the advances had to take place in the part of the world where the longer days correspond with the northerly declination of the sun rather than the southerly declination of the Sun.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
This was something I've been thinking about recently.

Astrology is based in large part on the seasons, as well as the rising/setting of the sun. But in many polar regions... not only does the sun not rise or set that often, but the temperature is always freezing. Shouldn't that make anyone born in such a place more like a Capricorn or Aquarius?

Also, in the Southern Hemisphere, the seasons are reversed. Christmas happens in the summer for them. Should the signs be interpreted the same way, given that the seasonal influences are a part of why they are interpreted as they are in the first place?

My thinking is that Astrology (at least, unrevised Astrology) really only works in the Northern Hemisphere below the polar latitudes. I mean, if you think about it... all the ancient knowledge we've been handed down is from people who really had little experience with these places. They lived entirely in the Northern Hemisphere below polar latitudes.

Therefore, I have my doubts that Astrology can describe the reality of a person born living in a place with no seasons and no sunsets.... or even a place with reversed seasons unless the signs are "flipped" somehow.

I know a lot of people will insist that it works for them, but I just don't see any logical way that it could. I'm curious what other people think on this issue.
'.....Because the vernal point perpetually rose exactly due East and set exactly due West
in what the Greeks termed the eighth, or rotating, sphere,
the ancients were convinced
and more so after the discovery of precession -
that the equinoctial and solstitial points were the only fixed points in the heavens,
and hence no zodiac could be valid unless riveted to one of them
.....'



'......This conviction remained
until Copernicus, in the 17th Century
devised what is now known as the Copernican system
in contradistinction to the Ptolemaic system,
when he discovered that it was the earth that went around the Sun,
not vice versa.
In consequence therefore it was the equinoctial and solsticial points that were precessing -
or rather regressing, and not the fixed stars......'



'......Hipparchus, when compiling his star catalogue,
plotted the positions of the fixed stars from the equinoctial and solstitial points for the year 139BC,
approximately,
and

Posidonius apparently improved on this idea
by making the zodiac as a whole commence with the vernal point fixed in 0 Aries.


This then was the birth of the modern version of the Tropical zodiac.
Before Hipparchus's time it had no existence,
and it was entirely a Greek innovation,
based on Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.).....'
:smile:

"...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months commencing with the vernal equinox, in which each solar (tropical) month is named after one of each of the twelve signs..." Dr. Robert Powell
h http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Zodiac-Robert-Powell/dp/1597311529


 

athenian200

Well-known member
It shouldn't make a difference. The seasonal relationship is largely symbolic.

this is why the Rising sign is considered most important, as it captures the planets' positions at time of birth. Obviously celestial objects seen from Germany are seen differently from New Zealand or South Africa.

Symbolic of what, though? If you believe that the planetary positions in the stars are the most important factor, then that's basically sidereal astrology. Tropical astrology is specifically meant to be about the seasons and passage of time. It maintains the seasonal relationship over the celestial one, because it is regarded as more significant.

Hi. In 'The Pulse of Life', Rudhyar notes that the humanity we know today took shape in northern temperate regions, later spreading around the globe. So he claims that, for the time being at least, the astrology we use today is relevant for humanity as a whole. It could be that humanity needed to experience the seasonal cycle in order to become conscious of the polarities between which emphasis reciprocates during the tropical zodiacal cycle. Rudhyar describes these polarities as the 'Day-force' (the individualising tendency) and the 'Night-force' (a collectivising tendency).

There could be some qualitative difference between northerliness and southerliness which means that the declination of the ecliptic has meaning beyond the seasonal cycle of the Sun. In other words, the the winter solstice may occur in the southern hemisphere when the Sun is at the first point of tropical Cancer, but the meaning of this point of the zodiacal wheel may be defined by the fact that the ecliptic reaches its maximum southerly declination at this point - not by the fact that the southern hemisphere experiences its shortest day at this time.

It could also be that the capacity of human beings to become more fully individual loci of experience had to happen in northern temperate regions rather than southern temperate regions because northerliness corresponds to individualisation in some way. This doesn't mean that the people born in the northern hemisphere have a greater capacity for individuation or anything - all people born on Earth are born within the same zodiacal energy field. Its perhaps just that the advances had to take place in the part of the world where the longer days correspond with the northerly declination of the sun rather than the southerly declination of the Sun.

Thanks, that is probably the best argument I've heard for the Southern hemisphere using an unmodified tropical zodiac. Actually, it explains a lot of things about the way the world is today.

I'm still unsure how it repairs the seasonal relationship, although I am now thinking about the idea of polarity between signs. Maybe in some sense, the Southern hemisphere is a sort of "shadow world" where everything flows backwards.

Aries and Libra are opposites, but they can each manifest each other's traits. Perhaps the Southern hemisphere is the place where the seasons reflect the projections and shadows of the signs, rather than their essential nature. Almost like the people Plato's allegory of the cave.
 
Last edited:

Kannon

Well-known member
This was something I've been thinking about recently.

Astrology is based in large part on the seasons,

No, it isn't. That's like saying the sky is based on the ground because you are standing on the ground looking up at the sky.

That the tropical zodiac is aligned with the equinoxes does not mean that it is 'based on the seasons.' These equinoxes mark solar cycles. With astrology we are looking at solar system and cosmic cycles. Seasons are determined by the hemisphere of the globe as to their set-points.

as well as the rising/setting of the sun. But in many polar regions... not only does the sun not rise or set that often, but the temperature is always freezing. Shouldn't that make anyone born in such a place more like a Capricorn or Aquarius?

No.

Also, in the Southern Hemisphere, the seasons are reversed. Christmas happens in the summer for them. Should the signs be interpreted the same way, given that the seasonal influences are a part of why they are interpreted as they are in the first place?

No. Study better sources related to sign interpretation. Aries = spring equinox only in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere it is aligned with autumn. Period. That's all there is to it. Aries has its own character apart from any interpretation related to season. It expresses the martial principle through a field of cardinal fire.

My thinking is that Astrology (at least, unrevised Astrology) really only works in the Northern Hemisphere below the polar latitudes. I mean, if you think about it... all the ancient knowledge we've been handed down is from people who really had little experience with these places. They lived entirely in the Northern Hemisphere below polar latitudes.

Not true. Keep studying.

Therefore, I have my doubts that Astrology can describe the reality of a person born living in a place with no seasons and no sunsets.... or even a place with reversed seasons unless the signs are "flipped" somehow.

I know a lot of people will insist that it works for them, but I just don't see any logical way that it could. I'm curious what other people think on this issue.

There are numerous astrological systems. Not all of them have anything to do with the tropical zodiac. You've got tropical zodiac myopia. You haven't learned enough astrology yet to consider 'flipping' a zodiacal system to meet your limited understanding. Keep studying. Put aside futile attempts to wrap your 'logic' around it. The universe is too large for any one of us or any group of us to wrap 'logic' around it.

This is about patient, slow observation of patterns. If you don't see patterns yet, then you haven't been observing long enough or you will do better with a different system that reveals such patterns to you more clearly.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Sun was simply a convenient seasonal tracking device
marking a 'calendar of the seasons'
until Ptolemy morphed the idea
and created 'the Tropical Zodiac'
:smile:
 

athenian200

Well-known member

Posidonius apparently improved on this idea
by making the zodiac as a whole commence with the vernal point fixed in 0 Aries.


This then was the birth of the modern version of the Tropical zodiac.
Before Hipparchus's time it had no existence,
and it was entirely a Greek innovation,
based on Euctemon's tropical Calendar of Seasons (432 B.C.).....'
:smile:

"...dividing the solar year into twelve equal months commencing with the vernal equinox, in which each solar (tropical) month is named after one of each of the twelve signs..." Dr. Robert Powell
h http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Zodiac-Robert-Powell/dp/1597311529


Right, but the thing is that the vernal equinox in the Southern hemisphere happens in September. Shouldn't that reasoning put Aries starting in September there?

Well, in any case, it's clear that it was originally based on the seasons and equinoxes. Perhaps it's based on something else now, but that's a fairly new idea.
 
Last edited:

athenian200

Well-known member
No. Study better sources related to sign interpretation. Aries = spring equinox only in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere it is aligned with autumn. Period. That's all there is to it. Aries has its own character apart from any interpretation related to season. It expresses the martial principle through a field of cardinal fire.

It sounds like you're basically asserting the primacy of experience over everything else.

You're basically making some pretty heavy assumptions/assertions and treating them as objective fact.

If that's how you feel, that's fine, but you should realize that what you have is an opinion, not a fact.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Interesting comment from dr. farr, a student of astrology for more than five decades :smile:



At the time of Hipparchus, through Manilius and onto Ptolemy, Valens, and so on,
the signs and the zodiacal constellations were, essentially, in the same "place" (from the geocentric perspective).



That there was an implied difference between "sign" and "zodiacal constellation" MIGHT be suggested in Manilius (14 AD) who often used the term "shining sign", which could imply a zodiacal constellation "shining" in the specific sign (if not this,then why not just use the word "sign"-why add "shining" to it?) However, this observation of mine is quite speculative.


For me, I DO consider the whole thing symbolically, not mechanically. I also believe that the various approaches to astrology are all examples of whole system models, and it is well known that to be effective, whole system models only need to be consistent within themselves, and might not have much if any objective, reductionist, scientific-fact based validity. In healing we have several such whole system models that work-in restoring and enhancing health-very effectively, yet each model is quite seperate from each other in the elements/concepts/considerations which make up each one (eg, homeopathy, traditional Western herbalism, Unnani-Tibb, Ayurveda, Classical Chinese medicine) So, for me, the same thing goes for the various approaches to astrology (eg, Modern Western, Chinese, Traditional/Hellenistic Western, Parasara jyotish, Jaimini jyotish, Mahobte, etc) And, yes, each works well IN THE HANDS OF ADEPTS of that particular whole system astrological model, and each also has failings, increasingly so as the expertise level of the individual practitioner of that model, decreases.

But, you say, there just MUST be objective truth here SOMEWHERE-it just CANNOT all be relative only to a whole system model and levels of expertise with that model.

Yes, I agree-I myself don't care the least about this, so long as what I do consistently produces a high degree of reliable outcomes, but yes, in the end there must be some objective truth. How can one get a glimpse of what that is? Well, I;ll say this: (in my opinion) you will NOT get this glimpse through character analysis, or psychological analysis-this field is just too open to myriads of interpretations, and depends ENTIRELY upon which books (authors) you decide upon as authoritative.

No, the glimpse of truth can only be found based upon PREDICTION, where the outcome is definite and leaves no room for "interpretation": ie, yes the predicted outcome happened, or no the predicted outcome did not happen. I suggest that prediction of clear-cut, specific outcomes, is the only objective test which will yield the glimpse of truth, regarding, say, sidereal vs Vedic (rashi) vs tropical sign matrix, or the various house format systems, or the validity or otherwise of the outers, or of the Lots, or whatever else we want to contrast, one against the other...
 

unique_astrology

Well-known member
Astronomy uses neither signs nor houses and I think that astrology can work without regarding them either. And earth's seasons have no effect on astrological positions. EDITED TO Add: Nor do the hemispheres. Traits associated with a planet do not change because of the chart's location North or South of the Equator.

Personally, I do not use them when I work with astrological charts, using only the major bodies in our solar system (with the exception of my use of Pluto) and the Asc, MC, Zenith and Nadir points in a horoscope. All points that really exist in nature, if even for only a moment.

Here is a link to chart work I did years ago for a plane crash at almost 78° South latitude. Aside from the crash data, the basis for the work was a chart identified as a Caplunar in Western Sidereal Astrology (based on the Moon's entry into Sidereal Capricorn using the Fagan-Allen SVP). I believe the aspects from planetary or midpoint positions to the angles of the charts are appropriate for a disaster. Note that I make my measurements in right ascension or true body positions in space, just as astronomers (scientists) do. The charts are presented using the Tropical Zodiac.

On 28 November 1979, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 registered ZK-NZP, collided with Mount Erebus on Ross Island, Antarctica, killing all 237 passengers and 20 crew on board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Erebus

Latitude 77°S32' Longitude 167°E10'

http://imgur.com/a/jo3YH

Click on images to enlarge.
Bob
 
Last edited:

miquar

Well-known member
Hi athenian. I think perhaps Rudhyar's idea 'repairs the seasonal relationship' because the zodiacal cycle has a deeper and broader significance than the seasonal cycle, even though the two are intrinsically linked. The tropical zodiacal cycle is very much about the earth's relationship to the Sun because it is measured along the ecliptic (the Sun's apparent path around the Earth) and its location along the ecliptic is defined by the equinoctial and solstitial points (thus by the orientation of the Earth's equatorial plane to the ecliptic.) Our most vivid experience of the tropical zodiacal cycle is of course the Sun's transit of the ecliptic, which we experience as the annual seasonal cycle in the northern hemisphere. Nature adjusts its priorities as the seasonal cycle unfolds so as to make best use of the solar life-force. The tropical zodiacal placement of any celestial body reflects the priorities which colour the expression of the function symbolised by that body. This is true for all bodies - not just the Sun - and all locations within the tropical zodiacal energy field (not just those in the northern hemisphere.)
 

thelivingsky

Well-known member
This was something I've been thinking about recently.

Astrology is based in large part on the seasons, as well as the rising/setting of the sun. But in many polar regions... not only does the sun not rise or set that often, but the temperature is always freezing. Shouldn't that make anyone born in such a place more like a Capricorn or Aquarius?

Also, in the Southern Hemisphere, the seasons are reversed. Christmas happens in the summer for them. Should the signs be interpreted the same way, given that the seasonal influences are a part of why they are interpreted as they are in the first place?

My thinking is that Astrology (at least, unrevised Astrology) really only works in the Northern Hemisphere below the polar latitudes. I mean, if you think about it... all the ancient knowledge we've been handed down is from people who really had little experience with these places. They lived entirely in the Northern Hemisphere below polar latitudes.

Therefore, I have my doubts that Astrology can describe the reality of a person born living in a place with no seasons and no sunsets.... or even a place with reversed seasons unless the signs are "flipped" somehow.

I know a lot of people will insist that it works for them, but I just don't see any logical way that it could. I'm curious what other people think on this issue.

I agree with the response from Kannon to say that our way of thinking about Aries should really be that it is cardinal and fire - that's all you have to know and that holds true everywhere. The lore we have attached to it about "new birth" etc. as it happens to occur in springtime in the North is a cultural projection. When one is born in the far north or south they are still in the center of a full 360 degree space. The planets and other luminaries are still orbiting around those birthplaces and creating relationships such as squares, conjunctions etc. The only thing that changes is that the house systems sometimes make for weird uneven houses- this is because we are trying to take this 3-d space and flatten into a 2 dimensional map. This is a common problem that cartographers recognize not just in astrology. That is why different house systems can be employed.

It might be good for astrology to drop some of these cultural projections including the term "zodiac" and all references to the constellations. In truth all we are working with are 30 degree segments of the ecliptic which are called "signs", and we have decided the 0 point to be the vernal equinox. The constellations for which the Sun Signs are named are actually moving relative to the ecliptic, so that Aries may no longer be in the first 30 degree segment after the vernal equinox, but it doesn't matter because the constellation really has nothing to do with astrology - it was just a landmark on the path of the ecliptic, and landmarks come and go but the latitude and longitude is still the same. The first 30 degree segment is stillthe same and it is cardinal/fire associated with the energy of Mars.

We could debate that Libra might just as well be the starting point and a whole system of astrology could have been developed from that perspective. I think this is actually quite possible. (and maybe when the patriarchy is overthrown by a matriarchy Venus ruled Libra would then become a natural starting point! could be.) But maybe the reason that has not happened is the same reason that Uranus was discovered right about the time that the concept of democracy took hold in a major way on this planet, and that Neptune was discovered during the rise of the Romantic era in the 19th century and Pluto was discovered when the secrets of atomic power were unlocked and Chiron was discovered exactly when there was a great rebirth in the philosophy of the connection of mind and body in the late 20th century. These types of events suggest that maybe there is a higher intelligence at work in the unfolding of events.
 
Top