david starling
Well-known member
The discovery of a planet beyond Saturn was the result of another Age of Capricorn invention, the telescope.
A Voyage of Discovery: Astrological Ages for the Tropical Zodiac
- Thread starter david starling
- Start date
david starling
Well-known member
Magnetic energy drawn from Earth's magnetic field will replace the generation of electrical energy by means of combustion. This was Nicola Tesla's great contribution, but it will be so abundant that it can't be profitable. The Capitalist economic system of this Age of Capricorn requires profit.
david starling
Well-known member
Is the use of new technology in war, "Progress"? Is the pollution caused by the new developments in technology, "Progress"?
Saturn-oriented Capricorn:
Cardinal-sign, meaning innovative and inventive.
Earth-sign, meaning materialistic, focused on the physical level.
Keywords--Use, usefulness.
Money-oriented, meaning monetary profit.
The Renaissance (c.1400-1600 A.D.) was extremely inventive, and marked the beginning of the materialistic transition from the ancient to the modern world. That includes the banking system. Also, the telescope, which opened up astronomy to the "new" planets. Even the concept of a "Solar-system" began to replace the ancient Earth-centered paradigm.
Cardinal-sign Ages don't show their true results until the last Decant, which began around 1600, and accelerated from there. So, with only the sidereal Age of Pisces to go on, it APPEARS that a premature Aquarian Age is necessary to explain the technological advancements. Factor in the tropical Age of Capricorn, and that explains it far better. [IMO]
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
The industrial revolution and all of the technological advancements that followed have been supported by, and incorporated into, the Capitalist economic system, which is manifestly Capricornian, rather than Aquarian.
Opal
Premium Member
Well, it would depend on a person’s definition of progress is. Personally, I don’t think what we have is progress but, that is me. The people who built the pyramids were progressive.
Sidereal Aquarius is here. 😄 bumps, lumps, and down in the dumps.
They have closed some of the bottle depots. The poorest are losing spots to cash in. And lots of places are refusing cash. The poorest don’t have cards.
Everybody, watch your purses and wallets. It will get crazier if this keeps going.
david starling
Well-known member
Opal, do you see Aquarius as a Domicile of Saturn, along with Capricorn?
That would explain why you expect so little from an Aquarian Age.
Opal
Premium Member
Opal, do you see Aquarius as a Domicile of Saturn, along with Capricorn?
That would explain why you expect so little from an Aquarian Age.
Well, let’s pretend we are 2 degrees into Aquarius. It has a lot of time, to come into it’s own. Big change doesn’t happen overnight. I expect a lot from Aquarius. Just probably not in this lifetime, of mine. 😉
Opal
Premium Member
No, I don’t really see it domicile in Capricorn, I am apparently a modernist.
david starling
Well-known member
I think you meant you don't see Saturn as a Domicle-ruler of Aquarius. A lot of Modernistic astrologers are still using both Cap and Aqua as Saturn's Domiciles. To me, that makes much less sense than using both Aries and Scorpio as Domiciles for Mars, or Libra and Taurus as Domiciles for Venus.
Opal
Premium Member
I used to think that Saturn was domicile in Aquarius. The more I observe, the more I feel that the accuracy of Uranus being domicile in Aquarius makes more sense. Just as reading on Saturn as ruler, Uranus fits. When we were uninformed, Saturn was the best we could do. Now that we are informed, it is what it is. Observe, make your own choices, as always. Much like The Aquarian Age. Many theories, but each student, chooses what they believe, based on what they have read.
david starling
Well-known member
I agree about Saturn not being a good fit for Aquarius, based on Saturn's nature versus Aquarian Sign-qualities. Saturn not being even co-ruler makes a BIG difference regarding what either Age of Aquarius will ultimately portend.
I also agree, looking at the historical time-line, that the standard sidereal Ages don't show immediate results regarding what an Age will manifest which is intrinsic to the Age-sign.
The tropical Age-pattern shows a late manifestation for Cardinal-sign Ages, an immediate response to the Fixed-sign Ages, and a centered outcome in the Mutable-sign Ages.
I also agree, looking at the historical time-line, that the standard sidereal Ages don't show immediate results regarding what an Age will manifest which is intrinsic to the Age-sign.
The tropical Age-pattern shows a late manifestation for Cardinal-sign Ages, an immediate response to the Fixed-sign Ages, and a centered outcome in the Mutable-sign Ages.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
Here's the problem I have with the claim that the sidereal Aquarian Age has already begun:
First, sidereal Signs have variable settings, because unlike the tropical Signs, there isn't a unanimous decision on how to locate them....Second, those who are actually using siderealism for reading Charts, have the sidereal Aquarian Age still centuries away.
Thirdly, those who choose a start-date for the sidereal Aquarian Age having already begun, don't appear to BE siderealists EXCEPT when it comes to the Ages. There may be some, but I haven't become aware of anyone using a sidereal Chart with an Aquarian Age already "in progress" for any of the other transiting indicators, such as the Sun, Moon, or Asc, for example.*
*Macro-astrologer Terry MacKinnell is one notable exception. I'll be giving a brief description of his method, but be advised, it's quite different than the standard one, and gives a sidereal Aquarian Age beginning way back during the Renaissance era. I'm interested in what Opal will have to say about it.
First, sidereal Signs have variable settings, because unlike the tropical Signs, there isn't a unanimous decision on how to locate them....Second, those who are actually using siderealism for reading Charts, have the sidereal Aquarian Age still centuries away.
Thirdly, those who choose a start-date for the sidereal Aquarian Age having already begun, don't appear to BE siderealists EXCEPT when it comes to the Ages. There may be some, but I haven't become aware of anyone using a sidereal Chart with an Aquarian Age already "in progress" for any of the other transiting indicators, such as the Sun, Moon, or Asc, for example.*
*Macro-astrologer Terry MacKinnell is one notable exception. I'll be giving a brief description of his method, but be advised, it's quite different than the standard one, and gives a sidereal Aquarian Age beginning way back during the Renaissance era. I'm interested in what Opal will have to say about it.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
To start with, Terry MacKinnell doesn't arrive at such an early beginning for the sidereal Aquarian Age by twisting the sidereal zodiac to suit the Age-start. In fact, with his location of the sidereal Sign-boundaries, and using the standard sidereal Age-indicator, the Age wouldn't begin until about the year 2500.
This thread is really about tropical Ages. However, since determining the tropical Ages requires the use of the 30 degree Age-window, T.M.'s Age-method for the sidereal zodiac is a good illustration of how the setting of the Age-window can alter the time-line for the sidereal Ages relative to its standard sidereal setting.
He doesn't have really low expectations for the sidereal Aquarian Age, because he relies heavily on the Sign-overlap (that the Age-window explains so well)--in his opinion, even though the Age has been in progress for 500 years already, the sidereal Age of Aquarius can't fully MANIFEST its true results until the halfway-mark, which won't occur until about the year 2500.
This thread is really about tropical Ages. However, since determining the tropical Ages requires the use of the 30 degree Age-window, T.M.'s Age-method for the sidereal zodiac is a good illustration of how the setting of the Age-window can alter the time-line for the sidereal Ages relative to its standard sidereal setting.
He doesn't have really low expectations for the sidereal Aquarian Age, because he relies heavily on the Sign-overlap (that the Age-window explains so well)--in his opinion, even though the Age has been in progress for 500 years already, the sidereal Age of Aquarius can't fully MANIFEST its true results until the halfway-mark, which won't occur until about the year 2500.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
I credit the founder of Modernistic, Western siderealism, Cyril Fagan, with giving me the idea for an Age-window. This was before I realized it could be used to determine an Aquarian Age for the tropical zodiac.
First, he was quoted as saying that he didn't go along with the sidereal Ages as nearly everyone was describing them: An Age of Aries from about 2000 B.C.E., followed by an Age of Pisces from around One or 200 A.D. He saw that time-period for the Age of Aries to be more like an Age of Taurus, and for the Age of Pisces, more like an Age of Aries. In other words, a one-Sign lag. He said that would mean the Aquarian Age would be more like an Age of Pisces.
He also dismissed the tropical Signs as non-existent, made-up divisions, because they aren't tied to the named constellations. So, he resented that the sidereal Age-indicator was invariably described as "the First Point of Aries", meaning tropical Aries, and called it the "VP", meaning "Vernal Point", which is where the first point of tropical Aries is located astronomically speaking.
So, I solved both problems for him: I kept the entire measured, zodiacal division we call tropical Aries, which is 30 degrees in length, like the measured, 30 degree equal sidereal Signs; but, I eliminated the other tropical Signs and called it the "Age-interval". Since it has two boundaries, it designates two Age-signs at once, a "foreground" Age-sign, following the leading point of the Age-interval in the direction of motion; and, a trailing, "background" Age-indicator, 30 degrees back. And, when the Age-interval (which I'm now calling the Age-window) CONVERGES with the Age-sign, the foreground Age of the next Sign begins, and the old foreground Age-sign shifts to the background.
Now, there was no need to even mention the tropical Zodiac in relation to the sidereal Ages. And, it meant that he was concentrated on the background, rather than the foreground Age. Taurus was background to the Age of Aries, just as Aries is background to the Age of Pisces. It also describes the continuity in cultural development, with the new, foreground cultures building on, and learning from, the cultures that arose during the PREVIOUS foreground Ages.
Terry MacKinnell is using a heliacal-point 15 degrees in ADVANCE of the VP, which nearly everyone else is using as the leading point. In terms of the Age-window, he's in effect CENTERING that constructed, 30 degree interval on the astronomical point, the VP, which moves the foreground Age-indicator (which I refer to as "the Age-indicator" for simplicity) 15 degrees ahead.
As it turned out, the way to determine the Age tropically that I've been describing, is to center the tropical Age-window on a DIFFERENT, but equally appropriate, astronomical point that transits the tropical Zodiac.
This puts the tropical Ages very much in line with the standard sidereal Ages, rather than T.M.'s time-line, so I'm personally sticking with them. I'm not dismissing his method though, and it's worth checking it out.
First, he was quoted as saying that he didn't go along with the sidereal Ages as nearly everyone was describing them: An Age of Aries from about 2000 B.C.E., followed by an Age of Pisces from around One or 200 A.D. He saw that time-period for the Age of Aries to be more like an Age of Taurus, and for the Age of Pisces, more like an Age of Aries. In other words, a one-Sign lag. He said that would mean the Aquarian Age would be more like an Age of Pisces.
He also dismissed the tropical Signs as non-existent, made-up divisions, because they aren't tied to the named constellations. So, he resented that the sidereal Age-indicator was invariably described as "the First Point of Aries", meaning tropical Aries, and called it the "VP", meaning "Vernal Point", which is where the first point of tropical Aries is located astronomically speaking.
So, I solved both problems for him: I kept the entire measured, zodiacal division we call tropical Aries, which is 30 degrees in length, like the measured, 30 degree equal sidereal Signs; but, I eliminated the other tropical Signs and called it the "Age-interval". Since it has two boundaries, it designates two Age-signs at once, a "foreground" Age-sign, following the leading point of the Age-interval in the direction of motion; and, a trailing, "background" Age-indicator, 30 degrees back. And, when the Age-interval (which I'm now calling the Age-window) CONVERGES with the Age-sign, the foreground Age of the next Sign begins, and the old foreground Age-sign shifts to the background.
Now, there was no need to even mention the tropical Zodiac in relation to the sidereal Ages. And, it meant that he was concentrated on the background, rather than the foreground Age. Taurus was background to the Age of Aries, just as Aries is background to the Age of Pisces. It also describes the continuity in cultural development, with the new, foreground cultures building on, and learning from, the cultures that arose during the PREVIOUS foreground Ages.
Terry MacKinnell is using a heliacal-point 15 degrees in ADVANCE of the VP, which nearly everyone else is using as the leading point. In terms of the Age-window, he's in effect CENTERING that constructed, 30 degree interval on the astronomical point, the VP, which moves the foreground Age-indicator (which I refer to as "the Age-indicator" for simplicity) 15 degrees ahead.
As it turned out, the way to determine the Age tropically that I've been describing, is to center the tropical Age-window on a DIFFERENT, but equally appropriate, astronomical point that transits the tropical Zodiac.
This puts the tropical Ages very much in line with the standard sidereal Ages, rather than T.M.'s time-line, so I'm personally sticking with them. I'm not dismissing his method though, and it's worth checking it out.
Last edited:
Opal
Premium Member
Here's the problem I have with the claim that the sidereal Aquarian Age has already begun:
First, sidereal Signs have variable settings, because unlike the tropical Signs, there isn't a unanimous decision on how to locate them....Second, those who are actually using siderealism for reading Charts, have the sidereal Aquarian Age still centuries away.
Thirdly, those who choose a start-date for the sidereal Aquarian Age having already begun, don't appear to BE siderealists EXCEPT when it comes to the Ages.
Yes, I think, that is what it was meant to be used for.
There may be some, but I haven't become aware of anyone using a sidereal Chart with an Aquarian Age already "in progress" for any of the other transiting indicators, such as the Sun, Moon, or Asc, for example.*
*Macro-astrologer Terry MacKinnell is one notable exception. I'll be giving a brief description of his method, but be advised, it's quite different than the standard one, and gives a sidereal Aquarian Age beginning way back during the Renaissance era. I'm interested in what Opal will have to say about it.
I'll be back!
Opal
Premium Member
Here's the problem I have with the claim that the sidereal Aquarian Age has already begun:
First, sidereal Signs have variable settings, because unlike the tropical Signs, there isn't a unanimous decision on how to locate them....Second, those who are actually using siderealism for reading Charts, have the sidereal Aquarian Age still centuries away.
Thirdly, those who choose a start-date for the sidereal Aquarian Age having already begun, don't appear to BE siderealists EXCEPT when it comes to the Ages. There may be some, but I haven't become aware of anyone using a sidereal Chart with an Aquarian Age already "in progress" for any of the other transiting indicators, such as the Sun, Moon, or Asc, for example.*
*Macro-astrologer Terry MacKinnell is one notable exception. I'll be giving a brief description of his method, but be advised, it's quite different than the standard one, and gives a sidereal Aquarian Age beginning way back during the Renaissance era. I'm interested in what Opal will have to say about it.
They say in mundane, that when a planet is in the process of cusping it is at its strongest and purest. That is partially why I think that we are already in Aquarius. In the early 1800's there was a surge of electric knowledge. The man who invented coral castle and Tesla, who incidentally grew up within 100 miles of each other. Not sure what was in there water.
That said, if we entered in the late 1800's that would explain the surge of electronic, steam and other energy surges, in knowledge.Is there a link for this guy?
Opal
Premium Member
I need to read more of him to see what I think of him and his theories.
david starling
Well-known member
Last edited:
Opal
Premium Member
This also was what his intentions were, and why he did not achieve the heights of Edison. J P Morgan was a money monger. Tesla was an advocate of the people. He wanted electricity to be available freely to the people. One of his inventions, was denied. It was called a solar something or other. Sorry, can’t recall the exact name. Anyhow, it was denied because it worked at night as well, therefore the patent official’s could not grant it as to be solar, it would only work in the light of day. I guess he should have used the title of “Magnetic field” as that is where he was drawing from. He knew it. I am not sure why he called it differently.
Opal
Premium Member
He is not an easy read thus far. I will try again tomorrow.🙂