Display posts from previous
Sort by

13 by Durahan
Martin Gansten wrote:
Durahan wrote:The fact that we do not measure the planet's latitudes from the ecliptic ("ecliptic system"), but from the celestial equator ("equatorial system"), is one physical indication of that (it is more "abstract", more hidden).
It may be as well to keep the terminology clear: latitude is in fact what distance north or south of the ecliptic is called. Distance north or south of the equator is declination. The two are different.
I appreciate you making it clear.

I was trying to say that because it is better to fine tune our "latitude system" not through the ecliptic (like we do the longitude) -- because it is not that visually perceptive (and arguably misleading), but through the celestial equator (declination) is an indication of a more "abstract" and "universal" nature of the declination.

So the reason we usually choose the ecliptic system's longitude (instead of the equatorial's right ascension) and the equatorial system's declination (instead of the ecliptic's latitude) emphasis this universal symbolic order.

The "vertical path" (latitude or declination)* is always more related to the "spiritual" (transcendence) dimension while the "horizontal path" (longitude or right ascension) to the "material"/"physical" (immanency).

*But whether we choose one or the other (latitude or declination), the subtle nature of this path is clear (the declination, being more abstract, just makes it more clear). My last post was an exploration of this subtleness (but only related to the sun).


In spite of everything, I guess we could also make the argument that the ecliptic system (longitude/latitude) is the more "universal/objective" (spiritual) one (even though it is more appealing to the senses -- specially the latitude, as has already been said).
But my argument is not based on that premise anyway, it was just introductory to enhance my point.
"So be it."

16 by waybread
Astrology was practiced without signs by the Babylonians until about 500 BCE. Before then, they looked at constellations, asterisms, and fixed stars. Using their base-60 arithmetic system, they invented signs to make it easier to predict eclipses.

One thing I find a bit problematic about signs, is that the Vedic sidereal and western tropical zodiacs are now about 24 degrees different from one another. A planet in tropical Leo, for example, might well be in sidereal Cancer.

I think aspects are the most important part of a horoscope: the tighter the orb of a hard aspect, the more significant it will be in the person's life.

Signs function more like adjectives and adverbs in a sentence, saying how or in what manner a planet operates.

17 by Michael Sternbach
waybread wrote:Astrology was practiced without signs by the Babylonians until about 500 BCE. Before then, they looked at constellations, asterisms, and fixed stars. Using their base-60 arithmetic system, they invented signs to make it easier to predict eclipses.
This is indeed the orthodox academic view, however, in 2017, Professor Martin Sweatman showed in his book Prehistory Decoded that depictions of zodiacal constellations can be seen on a pillar at Gobekli Tepe, a megalithic site that dates back to the tenth millennium BC.

Yes, Sweatman's reasoning remains controversial to this day; personally, I find it convincing.

A useful interview in which Sweatman summarises his research can be seen here:

https://youtu.be/et1D9ErQf5w
One thing I find a bit problematic about signs, is that the Vedic sidereal and western tropical zodiacs are now about 24 degrees different from one another. A planet in tropical Leo, for example, might well be in sidereal Cancer.

I think aspects are the most important part of a horoscope: the tighter the orb of a hard aspect, the more significant it will be in the person's life.

Signs function more like adjectives and adverbs in a sentence, saying how or in what manner a planet operates.
To the latter definition I agree, however, I find it a bit problematic how, in modern astrology, there is a tendency to truncate the art; one practitioner wishes to do away with the signs, another one rejects the houses, or perhaps half of the Ptolemaic aspects (while adding a couple of non-traditional ones), not to mention any and all of the minor elements once considered important by pretty much every astrologer.

The way I look at it, astrology is founded on an intricate system of mutually interwoven factors, perfectly coherent and logical as such. Discarding any part of it feels a bit like taking one of the gears out of a Swiss watch and expecting that the thing still works the way it's supposed to.

It's generally a lack of comprehension of aforesaid foundation which leads many a modern practitioner of our art to rejecting one or another of its parts. As a matter of fact, this trend can already be seen in Kepler, despite his undeniable accomplishments in both astrology and astronomy.

Just to clarify, I don't have any problem with modifying and expanding the art, as long as its traditional framework remains intact.
_________________

Visit my blog:
https://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com/

Cosmobiology, harmonics, modern new approach

18 by Hjortonomus
I have studied astrology about 50 years and according to my experience, I do not use any zodiac at all.

There seem to be some evidendce in the following:
* cosmobiology
* midpoints
* harmonics
* Gauquelin sectors
* (perhaps) fixed stars
* nodes, both lunar and planetary

These all seem to work as together, combination of complex interactions. However, it all depends on the context. RRegarding predictions, the same rule applies - there must be plenty of same-tendency signs in interaction, otherwise single transits etc count nothing. But also with them, context make it all. Specific predicions are not possible.

Ah, of course, planets - currently try to get idea if Pluto is OK to be consider. Never used asteroids or hypothetical planets, but I am very skepical of them in advance :)

D. Cochran and others (Addey, Hamblin etc) have done good job in this new form of astrology/cosmobiology, though I do not underwrite everything of course. Cochran uses term "vibrational astrology" - looking forward to study it more.

House systems, zodiacs and traditional systems are too vague.

24 by Calli
I have the opinion that whatever tool you use, is ok and will always work.

In the vein of you look at the universe and the universe looks back at you.

Many people divine water with sticks and just as many with bare hands. I used to do both for fun.

The Irish used to look at water, crystal balls, fire…palms, ears…..they all work. i rather like fire or the flame myself but have yet to succeed at it. I live in an apartment, so i dont get much practice. Besides I cottoned onto astrology because for me it was a mathematical base. It said ‘fact’. You cant argue with fact. So it felt safe. At that time, i needed ‘safe’ to stabilise.

The deciding point is, do you trust your own perception to base projection upon for use?

Thats when you suddenly start looking for confirmation. And thats when like the crabs in a barrel, you get hooked back to base.
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Nativities & General Astrology”