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/astrologers/claudius-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.
''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/astrologers/claudius-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: