mark,

i like how you articulated all that.. thanks for saying that... to go into what konrad said - seeing a difference between spiritual and religious - to me it is all the same fwiw...

konrad and martin - thanks also for commenting on this.. i concede both of you have actually studied from a sidereal point of view which means you have it up on me and are in a better position to comment on the 2 systems up to a point... now, the other part of only using 7 bodies would change it, but i thought i would like to encourage you both here!! maybe martin will comment more when he is finished traveling... happy trails!

Konrad wrote:
I should hope so as I count myself among them!

Yes, I thought that, but then when you posted about sidereal and modern I thought I was mistaken - but now rereading it I see you're distinguishing modern from sidereal (i.e modern sidereal, traditional sidereal) etc. My mistake.

Realistically, correct predictions are made using both zodiacs, but I see that as more of a consequence of the nature of some aspects of astrology (such as having 7 planets doing all of the talking, so there is bound to be cross-over between the two zodiacs when timing events), and the astrologer being correct more so due to non-astrological reasons than a successful application of astrological technique.

In regard to houses, I'd say this issue falls under the last point. I would hesitate to say that any system, measurement or house, is 'wrong' due to the amount of variables that go into making a prediction, but that certain options should produce more accurate results over a longer period of time than others. I think the important thing is to try and understand what each system is doing and why they were used.

I definitely agree with this last point in particular. For me, I recognise that all the systems of houses are really analysing or dividing up the mundane sphere in various ways - all of which are astronomically valid and kind of have a philosophical construct behind them or rationale for their usage - campanus is more immediately dividing up the space around an observer, Regiomontanus dividing up the earth's rotation through the perspective of the observer etc.

In that way they're all real and valid. I personally see sidereal and tropical in much the same light. There are some things which are clearly meant to be tropical in nature and I guess it's up to sidereal astrologers to account for that (antiscia and related ideas like obeying signs etc). Similarly tropical astrologers must account for precession for things like fixed stars and deal with what happens when a fixed star clearly associated with a constellation or sidereal sign precesses into a new one.

But with this particular discussion I'm not really interested in coming to any decisions about what is better or more accurate - that would never happen of course - but rather try to discuss ways in which as a community, irrespective of our differences or beliefs, that we find a way to articulate and discuss our differences without needing to make false claims for the other zodiac.

I'm curious what you make of Ken's statements in that respect.

Paul wrote:But with this particular discussion I'm not really interested in coming to any decisions about what is better or more accurate - that would never happen of course - but rather try to discuss ways in which as a community, irrespective of our differences or beliefs, that we find a way to articulate and discuss our differences without needing to make false claims for the other zodiac.

I'm curious what you make of Ken's statements in that respect.

I think you covered any rebuttals I would have had pretty well, particularly for the unequal seasons argument, though I will admit that these, and the more general tropical/sidereal debate, are not issues that really creep into my thinking at all at the moment, so I don't think I am the best person to give a thoughtful perspective on them.