Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > Anything Else... > Chat > Show off board

Show off board A tiny place to show off pictures of yours, your environment, favorite pictures, whatever you want and it\'s legal ;)


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 03-27-2018, 07:40 PM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Argument 1: Appeal to Antiquity
• The Sidereal Zodiac was the original form of sign division.
• Also the dominant form of sign division for the first thousand years of western astrology.
• Virtually all of the Babylonian and most of Hellenistic astrologers in Antiquity used it.
- Nechepso and Petosiris, Thrasyllus, Teucer of Babylon, Balbilus, Manilius, Dorotheus of Sidon, Vettius Valens.
• Even used by late Hellenistic and early Persian and Arabic astrologers
- ''Palchus'', Masha’allah.

Argument 2: Many Core Sign Significations Are Derived from the Sidereal Zodiac
• Since it was the original system, many of the core significations of the signs were originally developed within the framework of the sidereal zodiac.
• Even though many of these significations are still attributed to the signs today due to tradition, many of them only make sense conceptually in the context of the sidereal zodiac.
• This is due to the connection between the signs and the constellations, as the signs clearly originate after the imagery of the constellations.

Argument 3: The Shift to the Tropical Zodiac Was Sudden and Not Well-Considered
• ''Palchus'' and Masha’alah still used a sidereal zodiac.
• Ptolemy is the originator of the tropical zodiac who is definitely not nearly as cool as the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians.

Why Did Ptolemy decide to implement the Tropical Zodiac In Astrology?
• Almagest (Geocentric and Northern Hemisphere Temperate Climate) naturalistic thinking which today is proven beyond any doubt to be total BS conceptualization of how the universe works.
• The two zodiacs roughly coincided at his time which made it easier to mislead, like a Trojan Horse.

Argument 4: Solves a Longstanding Dispute
• The media and scientists no longer troll astrology.
• Astrologers frequently have poor reasons for favoring the tropical zodiac.
– “It works for me.” or “It is the one that Rudhyar/Alan Leo/Lilly used.”

Argument 5: Easily Testable
• Such radically different approach is very easy to test.

Argument 6: Still the Primary Form of Sign Division in India
• Hellenistic astrology was transmitted to India in the 2nd century CE.
• Merged with the indigenous form of astrology based on the nakshatras to create what they have today.
• They have had a more stable transmission that we have had in the west in the past 2000 years.
• As a result of this the Sidereal Zodiac is still the primary form of sign division used amongst Indian astrologers to this day.

Argument 7: It Was Used in the Earliest Texts on Initiations like Questions
• Dorotheus of Sidon wrote the most influential text on initiations by travelling and compiling Egyptian and Babylonian ideas.
• One of the earliest complete text on questions that has survived was written by Masha’allah.

Inspired by http://theastrologypodcast.com/wp-co...ign-houses.pdf

Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (03-27-2018), Luney (03-27-2018), MoonBucket (04-17-2018), pschutz (08-21-2018)
  #2  
Unread 03-29-2018, 09:21 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,128
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

As a tropical user myself, I will try to elaborate a response. However I wish to state that I do not dismiss the sidereal zodiac, and I am open to a dicussion in favour of progress in astrological practice.

Most of the arguments seem to tackle the reasoning out of convenience, rather than general evidence in favour of the sidereal system. Thus I will focus on few mostly.

Argument 2: seems to be the most compelling, but I have to reject it based on analysis of both systems.

A large number of sign qualities and attributes are inconsistent with a moving zodiac. The concept of permanent solsticial/equinoccial signs that lend a lot of the significations to the signs today is incompatible with sidereal. It is the same case for the concept of the exaltation/fall cycle of the Sun, which is clearly derived from the spring/autumn qualities.

This climate pattern seems to be present in other sign rulerships and attributes as well. Its not coincidence that Saturn, which since antiquity has been regarded as the "cold"/"dark" planet happens to rule the first two winter signs (Capricorn/Aquarius), which coincidentally opposes the Sun's rulership over the Summer.

In truth it seems more accurate to say that sign attributes are more related to climate than actual constellation mythos.

As for the sub-argument that the imagery of the constellation defines the sign, seems rather redundant. The images in the sky can be re-arranged by perception, and thus have no actual meaning.

Argument 4 and 5: the majority of serious traditional astrologers that focus on the medieval/reinassance techniques certainly have more of a "works for me" standard for evaluating its succes. It has been succesfully proven that the tropical zodiac works very well both with Horary and Elective.

Arguments 1/3/6/7: These arguments are based on the time in which sidereal and tropical were almost the same; and thus the specifications of astrology were constructed using both sidereal and tropical attributes. It does not seem like a well suited argument to use one in favour of the other, and rather seems to propose the use of sidereal based on preference, rather than objectivity.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

http://medieval-astrology.blogspot.com.ar/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (03-29-2018), katydid (03-30-2018), MoonBucket (04-17-2018), pschutz (08-21-2018), waybread (03-31-2018)
  #3  
Unread 03-29-2018, 09:44 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 37,351
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post

As a tropical user myself, I will try to elaborate a response. However I wish to state that I do not dismiss the sidereal zodiac, and I am open to a dicussion in favour of progress in astrological practice.

Most of the arguments seem to tackle the reasoning out of convenience, rather than general evidence in favour of the sidereal system. Thus I will focus on few mostly.

Argument 2: seems to be the most compelling, but I have to reject it based on analysis of both systems.

A large number of sign qualities and attributes are inconsistent with a moving zodiac. The concept of permanent solsticial/equinoccial signs that lend a lot of the significations to the signs today is incompatible with sidereal. It is the same case for the concept of the exaltation/fall cycle of the Sun, which is clearly derived from the spring/autumn qualities.

This climate pattern seems to be present in other sign rulerships and attributes as well. Its not coincidence that Saturn, which since antiquity has been regarded as the "cold"/"dark" planet happens to rule the first two winter signs (Capricorn/Aquarius), which coincidentally opposes the Sun's rulership over the Summer.

In truth it seems more accurate to say that sign attributes are more related to climate than actual constellation mythos.

As for the sub-argument
that the imagery of the constellation defines the sign, seems rather redundant.
The images in the sky can be re-arranged by perception, and thus
have no actual meaning.
'…..man did not see pictures in the night skies
and THEN
circumscribe the constellations
according to artistic vision.

INSTEAD

man noted that
people born when certain groupings of stars
were
rising

or
setting

or
directly overhead

exhibited certain characteristics in common

These characteristics seemed:
animalistic

bird like,
aquatic
heroic
or
ultra humanistic.

Once this correlation was made
the symbolic mind of man
assigned SHAPE to groupings of stars
for easy reference.
Some shapes were earthly, human
some creative fantasies
but
each shape or constellation

represented symbolically
THE OBSERVED EFFECTS OF THAT GROUP OF STARS
when manifested in the life of a person...' Robert Huntz Granite

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post

Argument 4 and 5: the majority of serious traditional astrologers that focus on the medieval/reinassance techniques certainly have more of a "works for me" standard for evaluating its succes. It has been succesfully proven that the tropical zodiac works very well both with Horary and Elective.

Arguments 1/3/6/7: These arguments are based on the time in which sidereal and tropical were almost the same; and thus the specifications of astrology were constructed using both sidereal and tropical attributes. It does not seem like a well suited argument to use one in favour of the other, and rather seems to propose the use of sidereal based on preference, rather than objectivity.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let your food be your medicine: let your medicine be your food. Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY red cabbage sliced Equatorially illustrates the Golden Mean Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JUPITERASC For This Useful Post:
petosiris (03-29-2018)
  #4  
Unread 03-29-2018, 09:56 PM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Most of the arguments seem to tackle the reasoning out of convenience, rather than general evidence in favour of the sidereal system.

Can you elaborate a bit on that? I was using the whole sign houses presentation as a template (notice the awkward use of words like sign division). This was intended to be a bit of a parody, but then Jupiterasc began to quote it elsewhere, as obviously things are to a certain extent true, little known and ignored. The only reason I did not post it in Humor, is that it was going to be taken as offensive to some. There is the reason why I posted in the chat subforum.

For example I did not use the usual arguments involving ''precession and you are one sign behind!!!'' I actually gave mostly unusual historical arguments which tropicalists very underestimate.

''A large number of sign qualities and attributes are inconsistent with a moving zodiac. The concept of permanent solsticial/equinoccial signs that lend a lot of the significations to the signs today is incompatible with sidereal.''

They are also totally unnecessary. The only argument usually given is the quadruplicities, or should I say ''groups'' - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...&postcount=117

I have not encountered a single other sign quality argument that is meteorological. For example Sagittarius is a Fire Sign, but at that time the weather is much cold compared to Watery Cancer (sorry Southern Hemisphere, but you are going to be ignored for the rest of the post). I understand that some astrologers did not use those elements, nor do I, but I just give them as a possible point to think about.

''It is the same case for the concept of the exaltation/fall cycle of the Sun, which is clearly derived from the spring/autumn qualities.''

Actually no one can give a completely satisfying rationale for the exaltations, so I do not use them. There is evidence that the concept is sidereal and that they originate from the Babylonians (secret houses). The 19th degree of Aries was not the vernal equinox and the other degrees remain absolutely mysterious for now. Btw, you should also know that the majority of astrology was done in Babylonia and especially Egypt where the snow is not as Saturnian as in the north. Also if you read about the climate there, I think you will be asking yourself whether Ptolemy even lived in Egypt. He probably was writing for northern latitudes, as there is almost zero rain around the equinox, although his, Valens, Teucer, Hephaistio and others statement that the Aries 8 or Aries 0 equinox produces rainstorms is true for my experience at the temperate climate zone.

''In truth it seems more accurate to say that sign attributes are more related to climate than actual constellation mythos.''

That is wrong even if someone thought it was true. The climate differs greatly for different places, especially the southern and northern hemisphere is absolutely incompatible with tropical illogic. Even historically, it is hard to prove this idea, outside of causal models, the majority seemed to treat it as divination - the idea that stars signify, but do not directly influence events on Earth, this is confirmed by Babylonian tablets and several Greek philosophers who argued against the causal model. Even in Ptolemy's time it was common knowledge that Rome and Britannia had four seasons, but southern regions including even Greece has something more close to three seasons, they were not as stupid as we think they are. Also Sirius rising and Nile delta.

But, yeah it is the strongest one. Why is Aries - Aries, why is Taurus - Taurus, why is Gemini - Gemini... Pisces - Pisces? The only reason is constellational.

''Argument 4 and 5: the majority of serious traditional astrologers that focus on the medieval/reinassance techniques certainly have more of a "works for me" standard for evaluating its succes. It has been succesfully proven that the tropical zodiac works very well both with Horary and Elective.''

Good for them.

Arguments 1/3/6/7: These arguments are based on the time in which sidereal and tropical were almost the same; and thus the specifications of astrology were constructed using both sidereal and tropical attributes. It does not seem like a well suited argument to use one in favour of the other, and rather seems to propose the use of sidereal based on preference, rather than objectivity.

The sidereal and the tropical did not coincide at the first century at the time of Thrasyllus and Dorotheus, nor did they even nearly coincide at the eighth century in the time of Mashaallah. Those authors were not tropicalists. That is not a preference, that is an objective fact.

Last edited by petosiris; 03-29-2018 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (03-29-2018), pschutz (08-21-2018)
  #5  
Unread 03-29-2018, 10:27 PM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

The difference for the Persians at the 8th century and the Babylonians of the 5th century BC was around the same. Try a substraction or addition of 10 degrees and tell me whether the tropical is almost the same.

Last edited by petosiris; 03-29-2018 at 10:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (03-30-2018)
  #6  
Unread 03-30-2018, 12:14 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,128
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Can you elaborate a bit on that? I was using the whole sign houses presentation as a template. This was intended to be a bit of a parody, but then Jupiterasc began to quote is elsewhere, as obviously things are to a certain extent true, little known and ignored. The only reason I did not post it in Humor, is that it was going to be taken as offensive to some. There is the reason why I posted in the chat subforum.

For example I did not use the usual arguments involving ''precession and you are one sign behind!!!'' I actually gave mostly unusual historical arguments which tropicalists very underestimate.
Well almost none of the arguments present a practical reason as to why favour the sidereal over the tropical one, except for argument number 2. While there is certainly strong evidence that supports the sidereal system, the author didn't really talked about them. Thats why most of those arguments are merely about convinience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
''A large number of sign qualities and attributes are inconsistent with a moving zodiac. The concept of permanent solsticial/equinoccial signs that lend a lot of the significations to the signs today is incompatible with sidereal.''

They are also totally unnecessary. The only argument usually given is the quadruplicities, or should I say ''groups'' - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...&postcount=117

I have not encountered a single other sign quality argument that is meteorological. For example Sagittarius is a Fire Sign, but at that time the weather is much cold compared to Watery Cancer. I understand that some astrologers did not use those elements, nor do I, but I just give them as a possible point to think about.

''It is the same case for the concept of the exaltation/fall cycle of the Sun, which is clearly derived from the spring/autumn qualities.''

Actually no one can give a completely satisfying rationale for the exaltations, so I do not use them. There is evidence that the concept is sidereal and that they originate from the Babylonians (secret houses). The 19th degree of Aries was not the vernal equinox and the other degrees remain absolutely mysterious for now. Btw, you should also know that the majority of astrology was done in Babylonia and especially Egypt where the snow is not as Saturnian as in the north. Also about the climate there, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

''In truth it seems more accurate to say that sign attributes are more related to climate than actual constellation mythos.''

That is wrong even if someone thought it was true. The climate differs greatly for different places, especially the southern and northern hemisphere is absolutely incompatible with tropical illogic. Even historically, it is hard to prove this idea, outside of causal models, the majority seemed to treat it as divination - the idea that stars signify, but do not directly influence events on Earth, this is confirmed by Babylonian tables and several Greek philosophers who argued against the causal model.

But, yeah it is the strongest one. Why is Aries - Aries, why is Taurus - Taurus, why is Gemini - Gemini... Pisces - Pisces? The only reason is constellational.

The sidereal and the tropical did not coincide at the first century at the time of Thrasyllus and Dorotheus, nor did they even nearly coincide at the eighth century in the time of Mashaallah. Those authors were not tropicalists. That is not a preference, that is an objective fact.
As a start, whether you personally use or dismiss the concepts of exaltation or quadriplicity is not really relevant to the discussion unless you present your reasonings for it as an opposition for their existance. These concepts are however, present in some of the astrological authors that were quoted in the arguments. If the author's intention was to quote an astrological source, then he can't dismiss the bits and pieces that are in opposition to his argument; if the author did such a thing, the arguments would be by definition biased, and not really acceptable.

As for the reasoning, Valens for instances, employs the concept of tropical signs extensively in his discourse for many of the configurations, and prescribes attributes for specific groupings.

While most of the argument is speculative in nature, historical data and understanding of egyptian/babylonian traditions exert a compelling case that the origin of astrology resides in understanding natural patterns. For example it is largely believed that the sign of Cancer, referred to as watery in every astorlogical archive, is connected to the flooding of the nile: Sirius used to rise in late June, the tropical time for the Sun's entry into Cancer, which marked the beginning (to the egyptians) of the period of overflowing of the nile river; this is in contrast mirrored by the time of what we call the 2nd flooding that occurs in late October (again, when the Sun enters Scorpio, another watery sign). So it is not unsafe to assume that the definition of "water" signs relate to periods of overflowing waters within those cultures.

While none of these denys the sideral zodiac, denying that a large portion of astrological mythos is based around the percieved patterns of the earth around the time of each sign is ludicrous.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

http://medieval-astrology.blogspot.com.ar/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!


Last edited by Dirius; 03-30-2018 at 12:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 03-30-2018, 12:29 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,128
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

As for the point about climate differing from region to region. Astrology was developed within large empires, largely the Assyrian empire which had Mesopotamia and Egypt under it power, which the northern part extended into temperate climates.

The assumption that the egyptians didn't consider winter to be colder, or summer hotter is just ignoring evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
The difference for the Persians at the 8th century and the Babylonians of the 5th century BC was around the same. Try a substraction or addition of 10 degrees and tell me whether the tropical is almost the same.
I did not say they coincided, I said they were "almost the same", there was a 6 or 7 degrees deviation between them. However ancient computation techniques were not as accurate as ours are now days. And by astronomical archives of the time, many contemporary authors had different numbers. So the idea that they were that far apart for anyone to see is a bit of an over-reach. It has also been proven that not even ancient authors had the same divisions for the zodiac, and some calculated the starts with different positions.

They did however had the solstices/equinoxes within a short range, and in the same sign, which makes sidereal and tropical discourses indistinguishible from one or the other for the time. Thus they were similar. If you dislike my wording, I can change it to "sensibly close to each other".
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

http://medieval-astrology.blogspot.com.ar/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
katydid (03-30-2018)
  #8  
Unread 03-30-2018, 02:29 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

I'll make 2 simple statements, based on my personal experiences over the past 50 + years in dealing with this matter of sidereal vs tropical:

1) Among the Jaimini adepts of Ponmudi Forest (Kerala India) a sidereal zodiacal model is used: they have kept the ayanamsha they use as a top-secret initiatory matter: now, in all of my experience I have never found more exactly correct analytical and PREDICTIVE results, than these adepts have consistently achieved with their model.

2) In my OWN personal researches and experiences over several decades, regardless of which sidereal model (ayanamsha) I have applied (and I have applied in testing ALL known ones) my results, both analytically and predictively, have never even approached the degree of accuracy I have consistently achieved using the Tropical zodiac model (in accordance with a highly eclectic application)

I include the use of stars and asterisms in my eclectic model, but my basis is Tropical. Therefore-exclusively based on my own researches and experiences-I am a confirmed tropicalist-however, if I ever learn the secret modification and ayanamsha of the Ponmudi Forest adepts, I would instantly become a siderealist, because of the results those adepts have accomplished using their secret model.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dr. farr For This Useful Post:
MoonBucket (04-17-2018)
  #9  
Unread 03-30-2018, 08:27 AM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
Well almost none of the arguments present a practical reason as to why favour the sidereal over the tropical one, except for argument number 2. While there is certainly strong evidence that supports the sidereal system, the author didn't really talked about them. Thats why most of those arguments are merely about convinience.



As a start, whether you personally use or dismiss the concepts of exaltation or quadriplicity is not really relevant to the discussion unless you present your reasonings for it as an opposition for their existance. These concepts are however, present in some of the astrological authors that were quoted in the arguments. If the author's intention was to quote an astrological source, then he can't dismiss the bits and pieces that are in opposition to his argument; if the author did such a thing, the arguments would be by definition biased, and not really acceptable.

As for the reasoning, Valens for instances, employs the concept of tropical signs extensively in his discourse for many of the configurations, and prescribes attributes for specific groupings.

While most of the argument is speculative in nature, historical data and understanding of egyptian/babylonian traditions exert a compelling case that the origin of astrology resides in understanding natural patterns. For example it is largely believed that the sign of Cancer, referred to as watery in every astorlogical archive, is connected to the flooding of the nile: Sirius used to rise in late June, the tropical time for the Sun's entry into Cancer, which marked the beginning (to the egyptians) of the period of overflowing of the nile river; this is in contrast mirrored by the time of what we call the 2nd flooding that occurs in late October (again, when the Sun enters Scorpio, another watery sign). So it is not unsafe to assume that the definition of "water" signs relate to periods of overflowing waters within those cultures.

While none of these denys the sideral zodiac, denying that a large portion of astrological mythos is based around the percieved patterns of the earth around the time of each sign is ludicrous.
If one culture timed their year around the rising of a fixed star, that year could not have been tropical one. The Egyptian civil calendar on the other hand skipped many days, so I am not sure what your are trying to say with October.

The burden of proof of the origin of exaltation is not mine. I actually do not dismiss quadruplicity and I have referred you to my post with linguistic and historical analysis.

Are you saying that Valens is a tropical astrologer? The elements seem to not have been popular in Hellenistic astrology, in fact they are present only with four authors. Most people saw the Scorpion as a reptile and terrestrial sign. Capricorn and Aquarius were watery signs, amongst the majority of astrologers, including Vettius Valens even though he is the first known astrologer to use the elements scheme.

Yes, there was huge meteorological use of the signs. Let me quote a bit:

''Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive. The middle degrees up to 15° are mild <and fruitful; the following degrees are hot and cause plagues> of animals. This sign has 19 bright stars. On the belt are 14 bright... '' - Vettius Valens

The same talk is in Ptolemy, although his equinox was at the first degree. So basically I can continue to use meteorology with a sidereal zodiac, just as Vettius Valens and his source (likely Teucer of Babylon) used it. What is ludicrous is the naivete of tropical astrologers who try to find an ancient origin of their system.

Last edited by petosiris; 03-30-2018 at 08:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (03-30-2018), MoonBucket (04-17-2018), pschutz (08-21-2018)
  #10  
Unread 03-30-2018, 01:26 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,128
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Are you saying that Valens is a tropical astrologer?
Not at all. Neither am I trying to ascribe an ancient origin to the tropical zodiac, as you seemed to imply.

I'm merely mentioning the astrological factors that are inherit to a tropical system, whose meaning would seem lost with precession. In many cases a large number of significations would be lost (in time) with a moving zodiac, and remain incompatible with the system, despite the fact that many siderealists seem to employ them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
What is ludicrous is the naivete of tropical astrologers who try to find an ancient origin of their system.
Quite the contrary we are well aware of the miss-givings of the system. However, some prefer to find a logical conclusion in order to change systems, rather than some badly composed arguments. After all, as I mentioned before, the tropical system does work to an empirical degree.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

http://medieval-astrology.blogspot.com.ar/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 03-30-2018, 02:54 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,128
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
If one culture timed their year around the rising of a fixed star, that year could not have been tropical one. The Egyptian civil calendar on the other hand skipped many days, so I am not sure what your are trying to say with October.

The burden of proof of the origin of exaltation is not mine. I actually do not dismiss quadruplicity and I have referred you to my post with linguistic and historical analysis.

Yes, there was huge meteorological use of the signs. Let me quote a bit:

''Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive. The middle degrees up to 15° are mild <and fruitful; the following degrees are hot and cause plagues> of animals. This sign has 19 bright stars. On the belt are 14 bright... '' - Vettius Valens
The importance of Sirius to the egyptians was because his rising happened to coincide with the flooding of the river Nile. The mythos and reverance it recieved came from that reasoning. But the important factor was the natural phenomena that was associated with its appearance in the sky.

Becuse of the precession, Sirius rising no longer accurately marks the flooding of the river Nile. But the rising of the waters still occurs. So it means that the star's marking of the season was just coincidental.

The problem with sidereal zodiac is that it ignores most of the natural phenomena that helped shape and build the mythos behind the signs and the planets. Sure, not all of them are related to natural phenomena. And yes the sidereal system was first (although both zodiacs would have been rather close).

As I mentioned earlier, if the Sun in Aries no longer marks the spring equinox, then why have descriptions of Aries based on that?
As for the argument of "well sidereal was first, so it is the true astrology", that isn't very logical. We know that around the 2nd century BC, which is what it is believed by historians to be the period in which Horoscopic astrology was most likely developed, that the aligment of the constellations with what would later be called "tropical zodiac" was only a few degrees apart. So any observation or prediction based on the constellations would have most likely match one done with the tropical zodiac. So on the practical subject, the argument is quite small.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

http://medieval-astrology.blogspot.com.ar/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!


Last edited by Dirius; 03-30-2018 at 03:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
MoonBucket (04-17-2018)
  #12  
Unread 03-30-2018, 02:56 PM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
Not at all. Neither am I trying to ascribe an ancient origin to the tropical zodiac, as you seemed to imply.
There is only one thing I want by tropical astrologers. No it is not that they become sidereal astrologers, I want people to stop making false historical claims pertaining to argument 1.

They can keep their theoretical and empirical arguments (they certainly have the right of opinion, which should be respected), but many of their historical arguments I find misleading and false. I know, because I suffered from them and I was constantly mislead to believe that tropical was the original practice of the ancient astrologers. But all of the earliest astrological authors I have examined, they all used a non-tropical zodiac.

''As I mentioned earlier, if the Sun in Aries no longer marks the spring equinox, then why have descriptions of Aries based on that?''

He describes meteorology based on an equinox of 8th degree, which was converted into meteorology that begins 8 degrees earlier in Ptolemy and Hephaistio. Why is there then, a problem of using that meteorology with 33 degrees backwards? I just want the stars fixed and the Earth revolving around the Sun.

That is, I still have Aries with 19 bright stars, with the constellation Aries, with similar natal and mundane significations, only with a different meteorological signification due to the equinoxes. I say mundane, because the source of Valens and Hephaistio - Odapsos assigned all known geographical zones to parts of the constellations (Ptolemy was different by assigning countries to whole signs, you can guess why).

Is astrological meteorology your great ''practical'' argument for the tropical zodiac?

The rising of Sirius is related to a heliacal rising and does not have to with any zodiac is what I am saying. But it is a star, not the cycle of the Sun. I am just saying that many calendars were not tropical, there were many lunar, indeed among the Babylonians and Egyptians. Those calendars would be very bad for the prognostication of weather, they were used mostly for time-keeping and religious observance. The total ignorance of the indications of thousand visible stars (suns), some brighter than the planets is not an error of siderealists, but of tropicalists. By having them displaced, you say that stars do not matter at all.

This has an implication in my thesis that the Egyptian bounds, like their ancient Babylonian counterparts were sidereal and based on specific fixed stars. Regulus - first Jupiter bound of Leo, not Mercury bound of Virgo. Pisces in the space alloted to Mars (Aries) - the first Jupiter bound of Aries. The first degrees of Taurus - to Venus, because of the beautiful and many Pleaides, 8 because of the planetary years. The sting of the Scorpion - Saturn bound, does not change to a benefic bound every dozen years etc.

Ptolemy and others used fixed stars for meteorology - ''The sign of Cancer as a whole is one of fair, warm weather; but, part by part, its leading portion and the region of Praesepe is stifling, productive of earthquakes, and misty; its middle temperate, and its following parts windy.'' The question is did he mean the star cluster or something around the 13th degree of tropical Cancer.

http://www.narit.or.th/en/files/2011.....14..180T.pdf - notice that a hypothetical causal influence of certain stars is not modern or unique to Ptolemy. In my opinion, Valens or his source could also have been a rationalist, not a diviner. Indeed, a few times Valens disparages Nechepso, Petosiris, Critodemus and many times prefers methods that appear ''natural'' to him. Although he is partly mystical compared to Ptolemy, he is just as straight-forward as him. For it is one thing to say a king of some nation will fall, and another thing that a sector of the ecliptic produces earthquakes.

The ancient Babylonian Scientists diligently recorded every event on the sky and on earth, and they were seeking for correlation. If something happened on earth, then the significance of the sky would indicate the same a few years later and vice versa. This is empirical, but notice that today there is no Akkadian King, so obviously mundane significations (and thus natal*) have to be slightly changed every few years, same as meteorological significations. Weather also changes. I respect astrological meteorology, despite no one to have practiced that since a few centuries. In fact, some of Ptolemy's atmospheric signs have astronomical truthfulness to them, they are primitive compared to modern meteorology, but it is something compared to nothing.

Dirius, the problem with admitting that argument 1 is true compared to partly admitting argument 2, is that the tropical zodiac loses the populum and antiquity arguments - the two crutches on which it stands. It already lost any theoretical value with the discovery of people living in the Southern Hemisphere and modern physics.

*For example, the Hellenistic Lot of Being Away and related to travel involves measuring the distance between the two malefics. At that time, travel was highly undesirable and dangerous, however today it is much more neutral, which is why I measure from the Moon (natural signification) to Mercury (somewhat) distance for travel in nativities instead.

Last edited by petosiris; 03-30-2018 at 05:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (03-30-2018), pschutz (08-21-2018)
  #13  
Unread 03-31-2018, 12:42 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,128
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Dirius, the problem with admitting that argument 1 is true compared to partly admitting argument 2, is that the tropical zodiac loses the populum and antiquity arguments - the two crutches on which it stands. It already lost any theoretical value with the discovery of people living in the Southern Hemisphere and modern physics.
I rejected both arguments 1 and 2. Problem is that there is no such thing as an "antiquity argument". The period of time in which Horoscopic astrology was developed in the hellenistic world (believed by historians to be between 2nd and 3rd centuries BC.), the constellation positions would be roughly aligned with what was later called tropical zodiac.

We also know that different astrologers had different calculations for the actual position of the constellations. So if you go from author to author (and that still happens even today with our refined and advanced methods of calculation), most of them seem not to agree with the position.

So I can ask one sidereal astrologer today in the 21st century in what degree of a certain sign a planet is in, and I can get 2 completely different responses, based on the 10 or more systems of sidereal computation.

As for the actual practical ramifications of this aligment, you can analyse most techniques that were used those days, and use the examples charts both in a tropical zodiac and sidereal zodiac, and they would net the same results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
''As I mentioned earlier, if the Sun in Aries no longer marks the spring equinox, then why have descriptions of Aries based on that?''

He describes meteorology based on an equinox of 8th degree, which was converted into meteorology that begins 8 degrees earlier in Ptolemy and Hephaistio. Why is there then, a problem of using that meteorology with 33 degrees backwards? I just want the stars fixed and the Earth revolving around the Sun.

That is, I still have Aries with 19 bright stars, with the constellation Aries, with similar natal and mundane significations, only with a different meteorological signification due to the equinoxes. I say mundane, because the source of Valens and Hephaistio - Odapsos assigned all known geographical zones to parts of the constellations (Ptolemy was different by assigning countries to whole signs, you can guess why).

Is astrological meteorology your great ''practical'' argument for the tropical zodiac?

The rising of Sirius is related to a heliacal rising and does not have to with any zodiac is what I am saying. But it is a star, not the cycle of the Sun. I am just saying that many calendars were not tropical, there were many lunar, indeed among the Babylonians and Egyptians. Those calendars would be very bad for the prognostication of weather, they were used mostly for time-keeping and religious observance. The total ignorance of the indications of thousand visible stars (suns), some brighter than the planets is not an error of siderealists, but of tropicalists. By having them displaced, you say that stars do not matter at all.

This has an implication in my thesis that the Egyptian bounds, like their ancient Babylonian counterparts were sidereal and based on specific fixed stars. Regulus - first Jupiter bound of Leo, not Mercury bound of Virgo. Pisces in the space alloted to Mars (Aries) - the first Jupiter bound of Aries. The first degrees of Taurus - to Venus, because of the beautiful and many Pleaides, 8 because of the planetary years. The sting of the Scorpion - Saturn bound, does not change to a benefic bound every dozen years etc.

Ptolemy and others used fixed stars for meteorology - ''The sign of Cancer as a whole is one of fair, warm weather; but, part by part, its leading portion and the region of Praesepe is stifling, productive of earthquakes, and misty; its middle temperate, and its following parts windy.'' The question is did he mean the star cluster or something around the 13th degree of tropical Cancer.

http://www.narit.or.th/en/files/2011.....14..180T.pdf - notice that a hypothetical causal influence of certain stars is not modern or unique to Ptolemy. In my opinion, Valens or his source could also have been a rationalist, not a diviner. Indeed, a few times Valens disparages Nechepso, Petosiris, Critodemus and many times prefers methods that appear ''natural'' to him. Although he is partly mystical compared to Ptolemy, he is just as straight-forward as him. For it is one thing to say a king of some nation will fall, and another thing that a sector of the ecliptic produces earthquakes.

The ancient Babylonian Scientists diligently recorded every event on the sky and on earth, and they were seeking for correlation. If something happened on earth, then the significance of the sky would indicate the same a few years later and vice versa. This is empirical, but notice that today there is no Akkadian King, so obviously mundane significations (and thus natal*) have to be slightly changed every few years, same as meteorological significations. Weather also changes. I respect astrological meteorology, despite no one to have practiced that since a few centuries. In fact, some of Ptolemy's atmospheric signs have astronomical truthfulness to them, they are primitive compared to modern meteorology, but it is something compared to nothing.


*For example, the Hellenistic Lot of Being Away and related to travel involves measuring the distance between the two malefics. At that time, travel was highly undesirable and dangerous, however today it is much more neutral, which is why I measure from the Moon (natural signification) to Mercury (somewhat) distance for travel in nativities instead.
You are attempting to deminish my argument by referring to it as "meteorological astrology", which won't really work. The symbolism in the signs and planets is pretty clear.

For example, there is plenty of evidence that the Sun's exaltation in Aries is because of the spring equinox. While you may dismiss exaltation, authors you quote do not. So in a sidereal system you would need to change the exaltation signs, otherwise it wouldn't really make much sense. This true also for many other characteristics of astrology.

As for the rising of Sirius, as I explained before, its importance isn't because its a shining star in the sky, but because its cycle is presumed to be tied to a natural phenomena. If Sirius didn't mark the flooding of the nile, the egyptians wouldn't have revered the star. Another example, Saturn has long been associated with death, disease and coldness, which coincidentally marks the rulership of Saturn over the winter months.

There is archeological evidence that every ancient culture paid homage to stars and gods because they presumed a benefit was to come from it, not just because. Thus most of the mythos behind constellations and planets, are bound in what they percieved as natural phenomena occuring.

I agree with your assertion that the importance of the fixed stars influence may be miss-match for tropical users, but that may be the reason why tropicalists rarely use them.

-- The practical argument for tropical astrology may not suit your taste because of its simplicity and direct correlation with historical discoveries. It is however solid, considering a major part of the astrological cannon seems to be derived from natural phenomena (exaltations, and possibly rulerships). While the argument does not actually oppose sidereal astrology, it does point out to some inconsistencies within the sidereal system, just as the sidereal argument points out some inconsistencies within the tropical techniques. --

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
There is only one thing I want by tropical astrologers. No it is not that they become sidereal astrologers, I want people to stop making false historical claims pertaining to argument 1.

They can keep their theoretical and empirical arguments (they certainly have the right of opinion, which should be respected), but many of their historical arguments I find misleading and false. I know, because I suffered from them and I was constantly mislead to believe that tropical was the original practice of the ancient astrologers. But all of the earliest astrological authors I have examined, they all used a non-tropical zodiac.
Thats fair, but I have to admit I rarely see tropicals doing such a thing. If I would have to guess, it is the siderealists that usually promote the debate between both schools, probably in scheme to attempt to gain more credibility in the western market.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

http://medieval-astrology.blogspot.com.ar/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!


Last edited by Dirius; 03-31-2018 at 12:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
MoonBucket (04-17-2018), pschutz (08-21-2018)
  #14  
Unread 03-31-2018, 01:04 AM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
I rejected both arguments 1 and 2. Problem is that there is no such thing as an "antiquity argument". The period of time in which Horoscopic astrology was developed in the hellenistic world (believed by historians to be between 2nd and 3rd centuries BC.), the constellation positions would be roughly aligned with what was later called tropical zodiac.

We also know that different astrologers had different calculations for the actual position of the constellations. So if you go from author to author (and that still happens even today with our refined and advanced methods of calculation), most of them seem not to agree with the position.

So I can ask one sidereal astrologer today in the 21st century in what degree of a certain sign a planet is in, and I can get 2 completely different responses, based on the 10 or more systems of sidereal computation.

As for the actual practical ramifications of this aligment, you can analyse most techniques that were used those days, and use the examples charts both in a tropical zodiac and sidereal zodiac, and they would net the same results.
Still, that means they were not tropical astrologers and even if there is a degree or even two difference, their zodiacs would still align with a sidereal frame, but be about 25 degrees and increasing every year away from a tropical frame. Speaking of that, you are arguing in every post by now that 10 degrees do not matter with ancient calculations, but now you are arguing for one or two being too great of a difference to overcome. That is hypocritical.

The difference between tropical and any ayanamsha is not a matter of a degree or two, which is the largest difference between one of the most popular ayanamshas of India and the west - Raman and Aldebaran, with Lahiri (the most popular one and official one of India) and Krishnamurti being around the middle of those two. Those are the most popular, although one might even exclude Aldebaran if he goes by population as India is quite big in that regards.

What I am saying is that they applied sidereal corrections, even if it ''only'' meant a difference of two or three degrees.

Of course you are not going to admit that they used a sidereal zodiac, but nice argument from convenience with the too many zodiacs point, I agree.

It does not matter what the author calculated, but what he intended. If an author says that the equinoxes do not define the zodiac, then everything else he says will be coloured by that opinion to a certain degree (pun intended). For example one would delineate constellations and stars under the signs like they all did. I have never seen anything remotely similar to their delineations by a medieval or modern tropical astrologer.

''You are attempting to deminish my argument by referring to it as "meteorological astrology", which won't really work. The symbolism in the signs and planets is pretty clear.''

I am not trying to diminish the importance of meteorological astrology, but that is what you refer to.

''For example, there is plenty of evidence that the Sun's exaltation in Aries is because of the spring equinox. While you may dismiss exaltation, authors you quote do not. So in a sidereal system you would need to change the exaltation signs, otherwise it wouldn't really make much sense. This true also for many other characteristics of astrology.''

I am still waiting for an actual tropical explanation of the exaltation degrees and the exaltation signs of the rest of the planets, using your presumed tropical rationale. There are 12 signs, it is bound to be one of them, maybe it was accidental (or using Porphyry and Brennan's rationale related to triplicity like Jupiter and Saturn). In fact there are lots of evidence of a sidereal origin of those exaltations - http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2...-in-astrology/ - *

Also I wonder about which ''many other'' characteristics you refer to? If I were you I would look at the names of all my signs and ask where do their characteristics come from - is it the month or the constellation.

Thats fair, but I rarely see tropicals doing such a thing. If I would have to guess, it is the siderealists that usually promote the argument between both schools, probably in scheme to attempt to gain more credibility in the western market.

I have never asked for money, I have asked for honesty.

* ''Current academic scholarship tells us that the exaltations are one of the few techniques that were directly inherited and incorporated into the Hellenistic system from the Mesopotamian tradition of astrology, and at the present time this transmission is assumed to have occurred by the majority of historians in the field, both astrologer and academic alike.'' - Brennan quotes [1] For a small sampling of this see Francesca Rochberg, Elements of the Babylonian Contribution to Hellenistic Astrology, esp. pgs. 53-57; Rochberg, Babylonian Horoscopes, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA, 1998, pgs 46-50; David Pingree, From Astral Omens to Astrology, pg. 27; James Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, pg. 4; Ulla-Koch-Westenholz, Mesopotamian Astrology, pg. 52.

Even if the ancients based their astrology completely (which does not seem to be the case to me, but anyways) on seasonal meteorology (the chapter on the atmospheric signs in the Tetrabiblos is fully applicable in a sidereal zodiac), one should reject it by now, knowing that there is a Southern Hemisphere, where even antipodes live.

Last edited by petosiris; 03-31-2018 at 01:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 03-31-2018, 02:09 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,128
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Still, that means they were not tropical astrologers and even if there is a degree or even two difference, their zodiacs would still align with a sidereal frame, but be about 25 degrees and increasing every year away from a tropical frame. Speaking of that, you are arguing in every post by now that 10 degrees do not matter with ancient calculations, but now you are arguing for one or two being too great of a difference to overcome. That is hypocritical.

The difference between tropical and any ayanamsha is not a matter of a degree or two, which is the largest difference between the most popular ayanamshas of India and the west - Raman and Aldebaran, with Lahiri and Krishnamurti being around the middle of those two. Those are the most popular, although one might even exclude Aldebaran if he goes by population as India is quite big in that regards.

What I am saying is that they applied sidereal corrections, even if it ''only'' meant a difference of two or three degrees.
The one that implies that sidereal is more accurate because it follows the degree of the stars is you, not me. So the existance of a discrepancy between computation systems among the stars would make your claim a hipocritical bias, not me.

In that regard, a small diference in zodiac degrees did not overwhelmingly affect the larger majority of predictions from that time, meaning I don't care there was a discrepancy. So your statement of me being hypocritical, is not only false, but a miss-direction from your own opinion.

As for the actual depth of the discrepancy between a tropical zodiac and a sidereal one, reveals a huge flaw in your rhetoric: you are suggesting computations of the sidereal zodiac that were created in the 20th century. If we are talking about ancient times, whether babylonian or joytish, you have to use the presumed computations they had available. If we use presumed calculations for the Aryabhata or Suryasiddhanta we have 5 degree discrepancy only. And if we use the Babylonian ayanamshas method, the diference is only 2 degrees.

So this subject is based on an erroneous and carefully constructed response using modern computations instead of the original ones in the hands of ancient astrologers, thus invalid to any prospective reader.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Of course you are not going to admit that they used a sidereal zodiac, but nice argument from convenience with the too many zodiacs point, I agree.

It does not matter what the author calculated, but what he intended. If an author says that the equinoxes do not define the zodiac, then everything else he says will be coloured by that opinion to a certain degree. For example one would delineate constellations and stars under the signs like they all did. I have never seen anything remotely similar to their delineations by a medieval or modern tropical astrologer.
There was no distinction between a sidereal or tropical zodiac at the time horoscopic astrology was developed. You are the one focusing your argument in the importance of accuracy of the degrees, thus you can't really backtrack your opinion to change it "intention".

Most reinassnce and medieval astrologers simply quote previous authors on the capacity of the stars. This is usually in the introductory volumes of astrological books. How many of them actually use the stars of constellations for practical methodology an techniques? Very few, if any at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
I am not trying to diminish the importance of meteorological astrology, but that is what you refer to.

I am still waiting for an actual tropical explanation of the exaltation degrees and the exaltation signs of the rest of the planets, using your presumed theoretical rationale. There are 12 signs, it is bound to be one of them, maybe it was accidental. In fact there are lots of evidence of a sidereal origin of those exaltations http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2...-in-astrology/ - *

I have never asked for money, I have asked for honesty.

* ''Current academic scholarship tells us that the exaltations are one of the few techniques that were directly inherited and incorporated into the Hellenistic system from the Mesopotamian tradition of astrology, and at the present time this transmission is assumed to have occurred by the majority of historians in the field, both astrologer and academic alike.'' - Brennan quotes [1] For a small sampling of this see Francesca Rochberg, Elements of the Babylonian Contribution to Hellenistic Astrology, esp. pgs. 53-57; Rochberg, Babylonian Horoscopes, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA, 1998, pgs 46-50; David Pingree, From Astral Omens to Astrology, pg. 27; James Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, pg. 4; Ulla-Koch-Westenholz, Mesopotamian Astrology, pg. 52.
I have never denied the origin of most astrological factors has been in ancient mesopotamian astrology. What I have questioned is whether some of thoese theorems should remain in use by siderealists still today.

The Sun's exaltation is clearly based on the spring equinox in Aries, in ancient times. Considering that this is no longer the case, why would siderealists still consider Aries as the exaltation of the Sun? Also should the rulership of Saturn over the clearly correlated winter months be abolished once capricorn/aquarius move into another season? These are just some of the easily identifiable mistakes in the sidereal zodiac applications.

I never said you asked for money, I just said the discussion is usually pushed foward by siderealists, not tropical users. The tropical zodiac is dominant in the western world, so there is no need for us to defend it. In fact, we rarely bring the subject up.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

http://medieval-astrology.blogspot.com.ar/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!


Last edited by Dirius; 03-31-2018 at 02:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 03-31-2018, 02:22 AM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

There is no hypocrisy on my part. I openly prefer the Babylonian zodiac to the other Indian zodiacs and especially to the tropical system which distances itself from the sidereal every year, evidently symbolic of the incompatibility and enmity between them. You realize that if Nechepso and Petosiris, Thrasyllus, Dorotheus, Valens etc. intended a non-tropical zodiac, then they would use something more similar to what I use now (like a Babylonian zodiac, you know as their rising times come from it), not than what you use now, right?

Quote from Chris Brennan's book - Hellenistic Astrology: The Study of Fate and Fortune (which I recommend, despite the author defending a tropical position):
''Whatever the case, Ptolemy's argument does not initially seem to have gained many supporters, and the sidereal zodiac continued to be used as the primary reference system from what we can tell according to most of the surviving horoscopes through the fourth century, until around 350 CE when there was a shift and Ptolemy's tropical values and tables became more widely adopted.''

And even then, not entirely, if it is to be judged from the horoscopes of ''Palchus''. We are speaking of a late fifth century Byzantine Emperor court astrologer.

Here is your part:
''I did not say they coincided, I said they were "almost the same", there was a 6 or 7 degrees deviation between them.''

''So I can ask one sidereal astrologer today in the 21st century in what degree of a certain sign a planet is in, and I can get 2 completely different responses, based on the 10 or more systems of sidereal computation.''

6-7 degrees and almost the same =/= 2 degrees and completely different , therefore I am pretty reasonable in my judgement on hypocrisy on your part. Can you apply the same logic to my posts?

By the way, they are almost the same compared to sidereal and tropical difference. I agree with your first post, but disagree with your second post, I wonder what made this change of heart. With a naked eye, the difference of 1-2 degrees is indistinguishable. However, a difference larger than five degrees is definitely distinguishable. Aries 8, Aries 10 and Aries 15 systems (why no Pisces systems?) are of these sort.

''The Sun's exaltation is clearly based on the spring equinox in Aries, in ancient times. Considering that this is no longer the case, why would siderealists still consider Aries as the exaltation of the Sun? Also should the rulership of Saturn over the clearly correlated winter months be abolished once capricorn/aquarius move into another season? These are just some of the easily identifiable mistakes in the sidereal zodiac applications.''

What kind of argument is that? Should you not reverse the zodiac then? You get more and more desperate.

Capricorn and Aquarius are alloted to Saturn because of the constellations, stars and asterisms that occupy them, in my view and in the view of the ancients.

''I never said you asked for money, I just said the discussion is usually pushed foward by siderealists, not tropical users. The tropical zodiac is dominant in the western world, so there is no need for us to defend it. In fact, we rarely bring the subject up.''

Just admit the ancients were siderealists and I personally will stop bringing the subject up.

Last edited by petosiris; 03-31-2018 at 03:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 03-31-2018, 03:05 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,128
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
There is no hypocrisy on my part. I openly prefer the Babylonian zodiac to the other Indian zodiacs.

Here is your part:
''I did not say they coincided, I said they were "almost the same", there was a 6 or 7 degrees deviation between them.''

''So I can ask one sidereal astrologer today in the 21st century in what degree of a certain sign a planet is in, and I can get 2 completely different responses, based on the 10 or more systems of sidereal computation.''

6-7 degrees - almost the same =/= 2 degrees - completely different , therefore I am pretty reasonable in my judgement on hypocrisy on your part. Can you apply the same logic to my posts?

By the way, they are almost the same compared to sidereal and tropical difference. I agree with your first post, but disagree with your second post, I wonder what made this change of heart. With a naked eye, the difference is indistinguishable.
Yeah, so? I'm not a sidereal astrologer, so when I posted that I did so using the information of the first available system that is in my software. It wasn't until you mentioned your prefered systems that I checked which one was actually closer to the one the ancients employed, which once applied, actually revealed there was less of a discrepancy. And still, a 6 degree discrepncy is less than the "10" you proposed.

So, yeah, I was wrong at first, and it turned out my argument was even stronger than I realised. Kudos to me I guess (?)

There is however a much larger gap between 2 and 10. And considering that unlike me, you are a sidereal astrologer, then this knowledge was probably known to you. So claiming 10, while the truth is 2, is seemingly bias in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
''The Sun's exaltation is clearly based on the spring equinox in Aries, in ancient times. Considering that this is no longer the case, why would siderealists still consider Aries as the exaltation of the Sun? Also should the rulership of Saturn over the clearly correlated winter months be abolished once capricorn/aquarius move into another season? These are just some of the easily identifiable mistakes in the sidereal zodiac applications.''

???? Should you not reverse the zodiac then? You get more and more desperate.

Capricorn and Aquarius are alloted to Saturn because of the constellations, stars and asterisms that occupy them, in my view and in the view of the ancients.

''I never said you asked for money, I just said the discussion is usually pushed foward by siderealists, not tropical users. The tropical zodiac is dominant in the western world, so there is no need for us to defend it. In fact, we rarely bring the subject up.''

Just admit the ancients were siderealists and I personally will stop bringing the subject up.
Actually Capricorn and Aquarius are assigned to Saturn, through the thema mundi to oppose both Luminaries. There is a clear correlation between Saturn's characteristics of cold, dark, death and bringer of ruin, with the qualities of the season in which the Sun transits both signs (Winter).

As for zodiac reversal I presume you mean about the issue of the southern hemisphere perspective. Civilization developed in the northern Hemisphere, and thus the creation of the mythos behind signs and errant-stars was developed around the conditions that these ancient cultures experienced through-out their development. So regardless of the conceptual issue, it doesn't affect the historical development of astrology.

Regarding sign-reveral, tropical astrologers do debate about the issue of the southern hemisphere. It does however, seem not to affect chart techniques at all, and all configurations performed with the tropical zodiac work the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Just admit the ancients were siderealists and I personally will stop bringing the subject up.
Its not a question of admitting anything. I have said plenty of times that the zodiac computations they employed were the ones used by the babylonians that were based on the constellations. However considering the constellations are not the same size, and do not have perfect 30 degree segments, they certainly had to determine the markers with additional perception.

Your mistake is equating this to saying they were "siderealists", given that there is no evidence they knew about axial precession, and thus calculated the zodiac based on perception, and not only the constellations.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

http://medieval-astrology.blogspot.com.ar/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!


Last edited by Dirius; 03-31-2018 at 03:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 03-31-2018, 03:31 AM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Thank you for the discussion, maybe you got sincerely confused with your many fallacies and did not meant falsehood. Having confronted all available arguments, I will leave it to the noble reader of this thread to decide whether the ancients used a sidereal or a tropical zodiac, and I encourage him to investigate the question for himself. For example he can investigate whether the originators of the Thema Mundi used a tropical zodiac or an Aries 8 or 10 sidereal zodiac.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 03-31-2018, 05:33 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 13,020
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Argument 1: Appeal to Antiquity
• The Sidereal Zodiac was the original form of sign division.
• Also the dominant form of sign division for the first thousand years of western astrology.
• Virtually all of the Babylonian and most of Hellenistic astrologers in Antiquity used it.
- Nechepso and Petosiris, Thrasyllus, Teucer of Babylon, Balbilus, Manilius, Dorotheus of Sidon, Vettius Valens.
• Even used by late Hellenistic and early Persian and Arabic astrologers
- ''Palchus'', Masha’allah.
I don't buy the argument ad antiquitatum. Unless we read horoscopes out of an antiquarian interest, only. I note that jyotish (Vedic) astrology uses a sidereal zodiac. They seem to get good results, but then their interpretations are very different from western interpretations.

Also, by the time we get to late Antiquity, there isn't much difference between western sidereal and tropical degrees.

Quote:
Argument 2: Many Core Sign Significations Are Derived from the Sidereal Zodiac
• Since it was the original system, many of the core significations of the signs were originally developed within the framework of the sidereal zodiac.
• Even though many of these significations are still attributed to the signs today due to tradition, many of them only make sense conceptually in the context of the sidereal zodiac.
• This is due to the connection between the signs and the constellations, as the signs clearly originate after the imagery of the constellations.
It is more accurate to call the "original system" constellational, but then the "original" Babylonian zodiac wasn't identical to ours. (See Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore.) Note that sidereal signs are not co-equal with sidereal constellations. The constellation Virgo occupies about 47 degrees on the ecliptic, while Aries scarcely touches it.

Quote:
Argument 3: The Shift to the Tropical Zodiac Was Sudden and Not Well-Considered
• ''Palchus'' and Masha’alah still used a sidereal zodiac.
• Ptolemy is the originator of the tropical zodiac who is definitely not nearly as cool as the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians.

Why Did Ptolemy decide to implement the Tropical Zodiac In Astrology?
• Almagest (Geocentric and Northern Hemisphere Temperate Climate) naturalistic thinking which today is proven beyond any doubt to be total BS conceptualization of how the universe works.
• The two zodiacs roughly coincided at his time which made it easier to mislead, like a Trojan Horse.
So what is this, the argument ad hominem? argumentum ad verecundiam? The problem with the sidereal zodiac was and is precession of the equinoxes (axial precession.) The problem was far bigger than astrology, as the idea of the equinox slipping back into Pisces had many religious and civic repercussions.

Don't knock Mr. Pt. If Valens was the great compiler, Ptolemy was the great systematizer. His big project in the first book of Tetrabiblos was refuting astrology's critics. He tried to correlate astrology with Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy. Science then isn't science now, but for what it's worth Mr. Pt tried to make astrology more consistent with the proto-science of his day.

Quote:
Argument 4: Solves a Longstanding Dispute
• The media and scientists no longer troll astrology.
• Astrologers frequently have poor reasons for favoring the tropical zodiac.
– “It works for me.” or “It is the one that Rudhyar/Alan Leo/Lilly used.”
Scientists aren't going to lap up astrology just because you make a case for the sidereal zodiac. The problem is that astrology is methodologically troubled, and we've never solved the causality problem.

Quote:
Argument 5: Easily Testable
• Such radically different approach is very easy to test.
Unclear what you mean.

Quote:
Argument 6: Still the Primary Form of Sign Division in India
• Hellenistic astrology was transmitted to India in the 2nd century CE.
• Merged with the indigenous form of astrology based on the nakshatras to create what they have today.
• They have had a more stable transmission that we have had in the west in the past 2000 years.
• As a result of this the Sidereal Zodiac is still the primary form of sign division used amongst Indian astrologers to this day.
argument ad populum? (aka band wagon?)

Quote:
Argument 7: It Was Used in the Earliest Texts on Initiations like Questions
• Dorotheus of Sidon wrote the most influential text on initiations by travelling and compiling Egyptian and Babylonian ideas.
• One of the earliest complete text on questions that has survived was written by Masha’allah.

Inspired by http://theastrologypodcast.com/wp-co...ign-houses.pdf
argument ad antiquitatum

Note that I've said "argument," not fallacy. But don't tempt me!

Millions of people think the tropical zodiac works fine. So maybe the issue isn't our zodiac, but something more profound.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 03-31-2018, 06:04 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 13,020
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
....

I have not encountered a single other sign quality argument that is meteorological. For example Sagittarius is a Fire Sign, but at that time the weather is much cold compared to Watery Cancer (sorry Southern Hemisphere, but you are going to be ignored for the rest of the post). I understand that some astrologers did not use those elements, nor do I, but I just give them as a possible point to think about.
The idea of signs representing particular weather patterns comes from the zodiacal signs meaning the same thing as months. We even find this in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, where people think about going on pilgrimages when the blustery portion of March gives way to April's more moderate spring-like weather, and the sun is halfway through its course in "the Ram."

The earth-air-fire-water division is basically the Aristotelian elements. These alternate, along with the so-called male-female signs. (air-fire=male, earth-water=female.) This latter bit is really ancient, going back to a belief in a mother Earth and father Sky. We know them as Gaia and Ouranos (Uranus)

Quote:
''It is the same case for the concept of the exaltation/fall cycle of the Sun, which is clearly derived from the spring/autumn qualities.''

Actually no one can give a completely satisfying rationale for the exaltations, so I do not use them. There is evidence that the concept is sidereal and that they originate from the Babylonians (secret houses). The 19th degree of Aries was not the vernal equinox and the other degrees remain absolutely mysterious for now. Btw, you should also know that the majority of astrology was done in Babylonia and especially Egypt where the snow is not as Saturnian as in the north. Also if you read about the climate there, I think you will be asking yourself whether Ptolemy even lived in Egypt. He probably was writing for northern latitudes, as there is almost zero rain around the equinox, although his, Valens, Teucer, Hephaistio and others statement that the Aries 8 or Aries 0 equinox produces rainstorms is true for my experience at the temperate climate zone.
There is a debate as to whether the exaltations were Babylonian or Egyptian in origin. Possibly they diffused from Egypt to Babylon. Are you familiar with the work of Egyptologist and astrologer Joanne Conman?

Also, Ptolemy was a Renaissance Man-- prior to the Renaissance. He wrote extensively about the geography of the known world. He certainly read about places that he didn't personally visit, just as you might today.

Alexandria, Egypt is part of the Mediterranean climate zone, with cool rainy winters and hot rainless summers. It's not far from the true desert, but equally there was snow in the mountains of Greece, Iraq, and Lebanon. Educated Egyptians would have known about them. The onset and cessation of the rainy season would vary somewhat annually and in drought-wet cycles. Don't forget trade: Egypt was part of a Mediterranean network of trade that brought Egyptians into contact with the wider world.

Quote:
''In truth it seems more accurate to say that sign attributes are more related to climate than actual constellation mythos.''

That is wrong even if someone thought it was true. The climate differs greatly for different places, especially the southern and northern hemisphere is absolutely incompatible with tropical illogic. Even historically, it is hard to prove this idea, outside of causal models, the majority seemed to treat it as divination - the idea that stars signify, but do not directly influence events on Earth, this is confirmed by Babylonian tablets and several Greek philosophers who argued against the causal model. Even in Ptolemy's time it was common knowledge that Rome and Britannia had four seasons, but southern regions including even Greece has something more close to three seasons, they were not as stupid as we think they are. Also Sirius rising and Nile delta.

But, yeah it is the strongest one. Why is Aries - Aries, why is Taurus - Taurus, why is Gemini - Gemini... Pisces - Pisces? The only reason is constellational.
Well, both the myths and the climate are a moving target. Myths vary over time and across nations. The climate varies with location. What holds them together is the concept of diffusion-- star and weather lore moving across places by oral or written transmission.

.....

Quote:
Arguments 1/3/6/7: These arguments are based on the time in which sidereal and tropical were almost the same; and thus the specifications of astrology were constructed using both sidereal and tropical attributes. It does not seem like a well suited argument to use one in favour of the other, and rather seems to propose the use of sidereal based on preference, rather than objectivity.

The sidereal and the tropical did not coincide at the first century at the time of Thrasyllus and Dorotheus, nor did they even nearly coincide at the eighth century in the time of Mashaallah. Those authors were not tropicalists. That is not a preference, that is an objective fact.
I'll have to scrounge into my stash of scholarly artices when I have time, but the point being that the tropical zodiac comes into its own when the "scientists" of the day realized that the spring equinox was going to slip back into Pisces. (Try interpreting the New Testament in this light, incidentally-- a new deity who befriends fishermen, multiplies loaves and fishes, walks on water, stills the waves, and so on. Revelation ends with the Triumph of the Lamb-- i. e., the Aries equinox.)

What happens subsequently is that the sidereal equinox did move seriously back into Pisces. Because we don't know exactly what the equinox was back around 0 CE, it is guesstimated that today the two zodiacs are 24 or 27 degrees different.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by waybread; 03-31-2018 at 06:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Unread 03-31-2018, 02:13 PM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Another rabbit hole, great...

''I don't buy the argument ad antiquitatum. Unless we read horoscopes out of an antiquarian interest, only. I note that jyotish (Vedic) astrology uses a sidereal zodiac. They seem to get good results, but then their interpretations are very different from western interpretations.

Also, by the time we get to late Antiquity, there isn't much difference between western sidereal and tropical degrees.''


You are quoting part of my post where I do not mention a single jyotish astrologer. Only western astrologers are cited.

''It is more accurate to call the "original system" constellational, but then the "original" Babylonian zodiac wasn't identical to ours. (See Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore.) Note that sidereal signs are not co-equal with sidereal constellations. The constellation Virgo occupies about 47 degrees on the ecliptic, while Aries scarcely touches it.''

From my sentence of a thousand years it is obvious that I mean the equal sidereal zodiac of 30 degrees each. All scholars and astrologers agree that the first zodiac was sidereal and of which we have records from the 5th century BC. Are you going to dispute that, or do you want me to find academics... but for what? Everytime I quote academics, you just ignore them.

''So what is this, the argument ad hominem? argumentum ad verecundiam? The problem with the sidereal zodiac was and is precession of the equinoxes (axial precession.) The problem was far bigger than astrology, as the idea of the equinox slipping back into Pisces had many religious and civic repercussions.

Don't knock Mr. Pt. If Valens was the great compiler, Ptolemy was the great systematizer. His big project in the first book of Tetrabiblos was refuting astrology's critics. He tried to correlate astrology with Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy. Science then isn't science now, but for what it's worth Mr. Pt tried to make astrology more consistent with the proto-science of his day. ''


There are more than a few tropical astrologers who are criticizing Ptolemy's rationalism - ''Holden emphasizes the technical rather than the philosophical departures that Ptolemy made from the rest of the astrological tradition, calling the Tetrabiblos an “abridged” and “deviant” version of Hellenistic astrology (Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, pg. 44). To a certain extent this represents a strong reactionary movement against Ptolemy that arose in the 1980s and ’90s, partially as a result of the recovery of other Hellenistic astrological sources, and the subsequent realization that Ptolemy’s work was not necessarily representative of the mainstream of the Greco-Roman tradition of astrology.'' - http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/...udius-ptolemy/

I like and highly respect Ptolemy, indeed use some of his methods, but I am not blind that he spew the most bs out of all.

''Unclear what you mean.''

I have been using sidereal coordinates for hundreds of charts now and I prefer that system of reference to the tropical one. I also use mostly traditional and Hellenistic techniques.

''argument ad populum? (aka band wagon?)''

We are dealing with astrology, a field that has trouble proving a single empirical statement, so I guess I have to do with other types of arguments.

''argument ad antiquitatum

Note that I've said "argument," not fallacy. But don't tempt me!

Millions of people think the tropical zodiac works fine. So maybe the issue isn't our zodiac, but something more profound.''


I said that there are two crutches for the tropical zodiac - a false appeal to antiquity and an argument from popularity.

''The idea of signs representing particular weather patterns comes from the zodiacal signs meaning the same thing as months. We even find this in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, where people think about going on pilgrimages when the blustery portion of March gives way to April's more moderate spring-like weather, and the sun is halfway through its course in "the Ram."

The earth-air-fire-water division is basically the Aristotelian elements. These alternate, along with the so-called male-female signs. (air-fire=male, earth-water=female.) This latter bit is really ancient, going back to a belief in a mother Earth and father Sky. We know them as Gaia and Ouranos (Uranus)''


Enough storytelling, I want citations to ancient astrologers.

''There is a debate as to whether the exaltations were Babylonian or Egyptian in origin. Possibly they diffused from Egypt to Babylon. Are you familiar with the work of Egyptologist and astrologer Joanne Conman?

Also, Ptolemy was a Renaissance Man-- prior to the Renaissance. He wrote extensively about the geography of the known world. He certainly read about places that he didn't personally visit, just as you might today.

Alexandria, Egypt is part of the Mediterranean climate zone, with cool rainy winters and hot rainless summers. It's not far from the true desert, but equally there was snow in the mountains of Greece, Iraq, and Lebanon. Educated Egyptians would have known about them. The onset and cessation of the rainy season would vary somewhat annually and in drought-wet cycles. Don't forget trade: Egypt was part of a Mediterranean network of trade that brought Egyptians into contact with the wider world.

Well, both the myths and the climate are a moving target. Myths vary over time and across nations. The climate varies with location. What holds them together is the concept of diffusion-- star and weather lore moving across places by oral or written transmission.''


A smart guy like him would definitely know that Saturn does not produce snow, nor does the equinox produce storms, nor anything else he talked about, happens in Sahara, a few hundred kilometres away from him. This also explains why many early astrologers do not talk of Aries as spring like or Capricorn as wintry. This is part of the degeneration of knowledge, including geography of Antiquity to the Middle Ages.

''I'll have to scrounge into my stash of scholarly artices when I have time, but the point being that the tropical zodiac comes into its own when the "scientists" of the day realized that the spring equinox was going to slip back into Pisces. (Try interpreting the New Testament in this light, incidentally-- a new deity who befriends fishermen, multiplies loaves and fishes, walks on water, stills the waves, and so on. Revelation ends with the Triumph of the Lamb-- i. e., the Aries equinox.)

What happens subsequently is that the sidereal equinox did move seriously back into Pisces. Because we don't know exactly what the equinox was back around 0 CE, it is guesstimated that today the two zodiacs are 24 or 27 degrees different.''


Did not expect an argument from the Bible. I would like a scholarly or theologian citation that the Lamb meant the Triumph of Aries rather than Jesus, because the latter is certainly what the patristic Fathers intended.

It is around 25 degrees, this is unacceptable.

Last edited by petosiris; 03-31-2018 at 02:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 03-31-2018, 10:13 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 13,020
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Well, it's nice to see Dirius in a big dust-up with someone other than me. (But maybe we'll get there.)

Petosiris, I dredged up a bunch of articles and conference proceedings that I think are relevant to this discussion, but I'm going to have to scan the lot to locate the relevant nuggets. As time permits. Which it doesn't just now.

I realize that you feel passionate about this topic, but I hope you can avoid insulting people. I'll try hard, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
Another rabbit hole, great...

....

You are quoting part of my post where I do not mention a single jyotish astrologer. Only western astrologers are cited.
Is this a problem? you mentioned jyotish in a subsequent point. Just to be clear, I'm entitled to make my own points that may not correlate precisely with yours.

Quote:
From my sentence of a thousand years it is obvious that I mean the equal sidereal zodiac of 30 degrees each. All scholars and astrologers agree that the first zodiac was sidereal and of which we have records from the 5th century BC. Are you going to dispute that, or do you want me to find academics... but for what? Everytime I quote academics, you just ignore them.
Which ones did I ignore???

For sure the Babylonians used a sidereal sign-based zodiac after about 500 BCE, but I don't see the argument ad antiquitatum as valid-- for what exactly?? If you want to make a pragmatic argument that it gives you better interpretive results today in horoscope readings, with evidence, I'll pay attention to that.

The Mesopotamians relied on a constellational astrology for centuries until they found it too cumbersome for predicting eclipses. With their sexagesimal arithmetic system, it was a lot simpler to convert to 30-degree signs.

The Babylonians also used the pathway of the moon, not the sun, and had a solar-lunar calendar that differed from our calendar today. So how authentic do you want to go with an ad antiquitatum argument for their sidereal zodiac? Why cherry-pick just their sidereal zodiac?

(See Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing.)

(BTW, are you familiar with Bernadette Brady's re-invention of their constellational astrology? It's on YouTube. I think she calls it visual astrology.)

If you want to make an argument that you hope to faithfully replicate some form of early astrology, I would respect that choice, even though it's not one most traditional western astrologers make.

Quote:
There are more than a few tropical astrologers who are criticizing Ptolemy's rationalism - ''Holden emphasizes the technical rather than the philosophical departures that Ptolemy made from the rest of the astrological tradition, calling the Tetrabiblos an “abridged” and “deviant” version of Hellenistic astrology (Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, pg. 44). To a certain extent this represents a strong reactionary movement against Ptolemy that arose in the 1980s and ’90s, partially as a result of the recovery of other Hellenistic astrological sources, and the subsequent realization that Ptolemy’s work was not necessarily representative of the mainstream of the Greco-Roman tradition of astrology.'' - http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/...udius-ptolemy/

I like and highly respect Ptolemy, indeed use some of his methods, but I am not blind that he spew the most bs out of all.
Let's take another look. One academic principle of criticizing a work is that it should be done in the context of what the author set out to achieve. We don't criticize a scholar for focusing on his stated objectives, vs. on your or someone else's different objectives. You are familiar with the scholarship of Professor Emeritus Mark Riley (CSU Sacramento) on both Valens and Ptolemy.

In "Theoretical and Practical Astrology: Ptolemy and His Colleagues ( 1987, Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc, 117: 235-256) Riley notes that Ptolemy's project was to set up astrology "as a theoretical science." We don't think of Aristotle as scientific today, but in his era, men like Ptolemy and Aristotle were trying to understand the cosmos from a rational perspective. (Vs. as mythology.) This is why Ptolemy gets into more pure astronomy, astrological geography, and meteorology, and does so in a systematic way, as though he were writing a textbook.

With all due respect, a lot of Ptolemy's critics are not credentialed scholars but practicing astrologers, so their objectives are different. Neo-traditionalist "backlash" against Ptolemy seems pointless to me. Let's look at each of our few surviving written texts with a view to what the author set out to accomplish; as well as the lack of standards for plagiarism in Antiquity.

Quote:

I have been using sidereal coordinates for hundreds of charts now and I prefer that system of reference to the tropical one. I also use mostly traditional and Hellenistic techniques.
OK, got it.

.... I wrote:

Millions of people think the tropical zodiac works fine. So maybe the issue isn't our zodiac, but something more profound.''

Quote:
I said that there are two crutches for the tropical zodiac - a false appeal to antiquity and an argument from popularity.
Then I think you missed my point. I was thinking more along the lines of Nicholas Campion, "Astronomy? Souls, Stars & Cosmology," (2014, J. of Cosmol., 13 pp.) Campion points to a strong theme in parts of Hellenistic astrology, notably in the Egyptian Hermetic tradition, that the horoscope is actually a tool for the soul's salvation. If this is the case, then it's hard to see the sidereal vs. tropical argument as so very relevant for the soul's journey to the stars.

Surely the tropical zodiac has been around for over 2000 years. But a sidereal zodiac is not therefore more valid merely because it is older. Apart from astrology, many far more ancient cultures used a solar "wheel of the year" or a lunar calendar in their cultural astronomies.


Quote:
Enough storytelling, I want citations to ancient astrologers.
Bossy, are we? These would be generalized for the Mediterranean culture region, which contains near-desert as well as mountains and shipping lanes.

Valens, Anthologies book 1:2. Read the signs and degrees weather forecasts here as a calendar, in which the degrees of different signs would refer to our calendar dates.

Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos,book 2:11. Ditto. He discusses "leading," "middle," and "following portions of signs as roughly 10-day periods-- similar to our long-range weather forecasts today. "Northern" and "southern parts" is a geographical distinction.

Quote:
A smart guy like him would definitely know that Saturn does not produce snow, nor does the equinox produce storms, nor anything else he talked about, happens in Sahara, a few hundred kilometres away from him. This also explains why many early astrologers do not talk of Aries as spring like or Capricorn as wintry. This is part of the degeneration of knowledge, including geography of Antiquity to the Middle Ages.
I'm not sure where you're coming from, Petosiris. Saturn-ruled months (Capricorn and Aquarius) were cold months in the Mediterranean region. By "Mediterranean" I here refer to the name for the climate and environmental belt skirting the Meditteranean Sea. Some of it is desert, but it wouldn't be desert in Greece, Italy, the Levant, or a thin belt in northern Egypt. The spring equinox, again, relates to a calendar date of roughly March 21 today. Remember "In like a lion, out like a lamb"? This is elementary physical geography.

Obviously temperate Europe, lower-latitude mountains, and the true desert zones would have different climates than the classic Mediterranean region. (This coastal climatic zone also exists in SoCal, Chile, South Africa.)

Quote:
Did not expect an argument from the Bible. I would like a scholarly or theologian citation that the Lamb meant the Triumph of Aries rather than Jesus, because the latter is certainly what the patristic Fathers intended.

It is around 25 degrees, this is unacceptable.
Well, I suppose the best defense is a good offense.

How many proof texts would you like, Petosiris? Obviously the Church Fathers and later theologians weren't going to peg their religious beliefs about their saviour-- not to mention their ecclesiastical power-- to astrology. But tell you what: if you have more time than I do, go through the book of Revelation armed with a guide to backyard astronomy (like a Peterson's field guide) and see how many of the author's visions you can peg to actual constellations, on and off the ecliptic. Start with Virgo: she's easy. So are the constellations Perseus and Cetus. In the meantime, I'll back up my references for this material behind my stack of articles.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by waybread; 03-31-2018 at 10:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 03-31-2018, 10:33 PM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

''Valens, Anthologies book 1:2. Read the signs and degrees weather forecasts here as a calendar, in which the degrees of different signs would refer to our calendar dates.

Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos,book 2:11. Ditto. He discusses "leading," "middle," and "following portions of signs as roughly 10-day periods-- similar to our long-range weather forecasts today. "Northern" and "southern parts" is a geographical distinction.''


Only this part is relevant to the problem (I can't say whether the writer of Revelation was a siderealist or tropicalist, or even an astrologer). The thing is, I already explained that Valens and Ptolemy differ on their delineations by having different degrees of the equinox, evidently Valens (and his source - Teucer of Babylon?) using a sidereal zodiac. So there is no problem with meteorology changing over time, but there is a problem with displacing of the constellations.

Btw, I am sure it is not calendrical, unless you think the Sun in the first degrees of Taurus causes earthquakes every year in the same location. It is a mixture of meteorological (which could be argued to be part of universal/mundane astrology, and I would agree) and universal phenomena for the Mediterranean, but the ancient astrologers were aware of desert regions a few kilometres away from exceptions like the Nile Delta and regions of water. Your best argument is to make the ancient astrologers idiots that thought their regional meteorology prevailed over any other astronomical rationale for astrological symbolism.

They just had a side job of meteorology, which has nothing wrong with it as long as one does not build a false system (I do not necessarily mean the tropical reference system, but the tropical rationale that is proven wrong) around it as Ptolemy did. Maybe it was the best thing and for the progress of science back then (I doubt it), but it is not now. Ptolemy is the originator of the tropical zodiac in astrology (there are records only of astronomers using it before him). Period.

''Whatever the case, Ptolemy's argument does not initially seem to have gained many supporters, and the sidereal zodiac continued to be used as the primary reference system from what we can tell according to most of the surviving horoscopes through the fourth century, until around 350 CE when there was a shift and Ptolemy's tropical values and tables became more widely adopted.'' - Brennan, Chris (2017). Hellenistic astrology: the study of fate and fortune. Amor Fati Publications, Denver, Colorado, p. 220

Chris Brennan is not an academic, but a respected tropical astrologer who is very knowledgeable and runs course in Hellenistic astrology. I highly respect and welcome Chris Brennan for not shying from using the words sidereal zodiac. Maybe you will listen to an astrologer.

I already cited academics - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...9&postcount=42, https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...&postcount=100 - I explained my reasonable argument for my change of opinion here (Valens and the hundred surviving charts do not have everything displaced from the tropical zodiac by 8 or 10 degrees, but only by a few, sadly there is not a fully adequate research done in this area)- https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...&postcount=101 , you can also look up Jones, Alexander (1999) Astronomical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus, American Philosophical Society, pg. 343

Both post were addressed to you. You have not responded.

As I said I only want you to admit the evidence for argument ''ad antiquitatem''. Nothing else.

Last edited by petosiris; 03-31-2018 at 11:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 03-31-2018, 10:44 PM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 861
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

''Millions of people think the tropical zodiac works fine. So maybe the issue isn't our zodiac, but something more profound.''

Millions use a different astrology from the astrology of the ancients. That is a very profound thing, I agree. You are evidently not interested in traditional astrology, so whether you use the sidereal or the tropical zodiac is of little importance to me.

1. Length of Life
2. Occupation, Rank and Fame
3. Violent, accidental or internal death and its cause
4. Marriages, number of wives, the years of marriage, the success of partners
5. Children and their number, also their success
6. Health and occupation of parents
7. Years of sickness with the corresponding illness
8. Livelihood, wealth, property, the years of inheritance or buying property
9. Friendship and Siblings, the number and gender of siblings and their success
10. Operative and inoperative times
11. The native's religion and background
12. Travel and the years of travelling
13. Personality

As I have noted here - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...&postcount=102

Length of Life, Appearance, Parents, Brothers, Action, Affairs, Children, Friendship, Travel.

You are evidently not interested in Vettius Valens. You doubt the prediction of most of the aforementioned points. So you are not going to benefit from the ancient astrologers. What is then making you uncomfortable to just admit that they were siderealists?

Last edited by petosiris; 03-31-2018 at 11:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 04-01-2018, 12:46 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 13,020
Re: Seven Arguments for why the Sidereal Zodiac is the best form of sign division.

Just a tag line on my previous post. The Astrodienst free charts pages offers a wide range of sidereal chart options. They don't all give the same result.

Fagan-Bradley is about 25 degrees different from the tropical zodiac. This seems to be Astrodienst's standard. So far as I can tell they give the others as variances from this normed degree difference. Some zodiacs are modern, some are Hindu, and some are attempts to re-create older systems. Most of the variance in these systems is within 5 degrees of Fagan-Bradley.

Can't think of where I got 27 degrees as the other common figure for deviation between the ancient sidereal and modern tropical equinox position, but if I find the source, I will post it.

Hindu Lahiri is actually closer to 24 degrees different (53' off Fagan-Bradley.)

I think Robert Hand makes a reasonable argument for the tropical zodiac in Horoscope Symbols, p. 27. Agree with him or don't, but his rationale was:

1. Closer to the solar seasons, with starting points at 0 degrees of the cardinal signs.

2. Equinoxes and solstices are "clear cut astronomical fact[s]." We can look and see the dates of the longest days and nights or equal lengths of daylight and night. If we stand on the equator we would see the sun directly overhead at 0 Aries. Tropical 0 degrees Aries is the intersection of the planes of thee ecliptic and the equator. At 0 Cancer in the northern hemisphere, the (geocentric) sun reaches its northernmost position. At 0 Capricorn in the northern hemisphere, the (geocentric) sun reaches its southernmost position.

From my own perspective, sidereal astrology would make a lot more sense if astrologers worked more extensively with fixed stars. A few do (like Bernadette Brady) but not many astrologers make full use of our fixed star repertory. (Something that Ptolemy did enumerate, and the Muslims subsequently furthered.) Rather, most astrologers whether modern or traditional, seem to focus primarily on planets in signs, houses, and inter-relationships.

As Ptolemy noted, fixing the start of the zodiac at 0 Aries is arbitrary, but convenient. In which case, it's hard to make an argument for 0 Aries as starting the zodiac in either sidereal or tropical.

With modern astrology's focus on the sun as the most important point in the chart (and Hellenistic astrology's focus on the ascendant) there is something to be said for the primacy of the sun in horoscopic astrology.

To me, this solar emphasis seems so clearly ancient Egyptian, where the sun god Re (Ra) was the primary focus-- not just of religion, but of the rituals of daily life and their beliefs about the after-life. Greenbaum and Ross https://www.academia.edu/7370462/The..._the_Horoscope make such a strong case for the ancient Egyptian roots of the horoscope point.

If you want an argument ad antiquitatum, let's look at the ancient Egyptians. (Speaking of an astrologer styling himself Petosiris.)

My particular interest in the history of ancient astrology is the thematic origin or houses. (Not the argument related to angularity, but the different rulerships.) One would need to be an Egyptologist to really do this research, but so far as I can make out, but the majority of houses have clear relationships to Egyptian mythology about their deities and the afterlife. The planetary joys offer another line of evidence to an Egyptian origin.

I can get into my research on this if you're interested.

In sum, the Egyptian contribution to Hellenistic astrology was significant, and this society was very solar-oriented.

They used fixed star rotations extensively as a big celestial calendar which governed both religious and civic life. They recognized when the equinox slipped from Taurus back into Aries, and made various adjustments; but basically throughout the ancient world, a strictly sidereal calendar (like a strictly lunar calendar) was a big problem for pegging all kinds of events because of the constant slippage as the equinox moved backwards due to axial precession.

Incidentally, Astrodienst also offers a terrific fixed stars chart option for anyone interested in retrieving a constellation-based astrology.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.