I'm going to describe how I was led to design the Tropical Age method I'm now using in my Tropical Charts, and how the development unfolded. Given the importance many of us ascribe to the "Ages" as an Astrological concept, it's a vital topic. I welcome discussion and criticism, as long as it's mostly about this particular method. I say that, because I've noticed that when I've described it in other posts and Threads, there's a tendency to switch over to other Age methods while ignoring this one. There are two that interrelate--the Sidereal Ages and the Yugas, but I'll be keeping the focus on these Tropical Ages.
One valid criticism is that they are Western oriented, and appear to apply mainly to the Western historical line, that runs from Ancient Sumeria through Ancient Egypt, the Greco-Romans, and now, the Christian/Modern-scientific culture of the Western world. But given the enormous influence of this culture, which has spread worldwide, affecting the entire planet, I don't personally believe that disqualifies them from being termed "The Tropical Ages of Earth".
******************************************
Anyway, so at the time "the Song" came out, I was just learning to draw Tropical Charts, and I knew a fair amount about the nature of the Signs. Especially Pisces, because I have so many placements there. I immediately related to the Aquarian Age, on an intuitive basis. But Pisces made no sense to me whatsoever as the Age that was ending, so I started to question the methodology. A group of Sidereal Astrologers, followers of the Fagan-Bradley school, voiced his complaint rather loudly--one of them was interviewed on a radio show--that Tropicalists have no business claiming a Tropical Aquarian Age, because there wasn't one; that only Siderealism has Astrological Ages. I saw the logic in that, because the Age Indicator being used, was the same Astronomical point as the one used to locate the first point of Tropical Aries. That means the entire Tropical Zodiac rotates through the Sidereal, and didn't have any way of telling us about Tropical Ages at all. Now, Cyril Fagan wasn't a promoter of the Aquarian Age, even though he could have used it to his advantage. And these Siderealists weren't promoting it either--they were just criticizing Tropicalists for being inconsistent: They were rejecting Siderealism for drawing Charts, and then claiming it for this extremely attractive, and purportedly powerful new Age. They were also ignoring the Sidereal settings, and choosing their own Sidereal-Sign locations as they saw fit, based entirely on when they believed the Aquarian Age would start, based on mundane events.
Fagan's problem with the Age method they were using was very honest and straightforward. He saw the Age of Pisces (according to the Tropicalists) as an Age of Aries. He saw the Age of Aries, preceding it, as an Age of Taurus. Which meant to him, that the Tropicalists' version of the Aquarian Age would be equivalent to an Age of Pisces.
Irritates me, when others pick this up and I don't before its sold or borrowed on Prime readers.
-->
-->