REPLY Part 1

For some reason Skyscript is rejecting my entire reply, so I'm attempting to post it in either two or three segments.

Hi John,

This conversation has not only been enlightening, but enjoyable for me. Long reply here!

You wrote:

Thanks for taking time on these issues. I think we are finally getting to see eye to eye so that we understand differences in technical matters and overall perspective. There are still some sticking points to clarify. Let's see if I can handle them without including further complications. In order to get to the point, we have to see eye to eye on the vernal point! I believe we can do that now. It's a breakthrough and well worth waiting for!!

Yes, there can be no valid sidereal zodiac without the vernal point, although some Indian astrologers attempt support for a zodiac related only to stars or some vague historical event. Today’s primary sidereal zodiacs (mainly Lahiri or Fagan) are linked to a V.P. date when the tropical and sidereal zodiacs were supposed to coincide. Some of us who have researched the zodiac are considering that we MAY be within a few minutes of THE sidereal zodiac.

TH: the map you mentioned was based on the equator rather than the ecliptic.

JLL: I see it based on both. It uses the celestial equator as a base line for formatting the overall perspective, and displays the ecliptic as a sinusoidal curve broken into two flat illustrations on two pages.

Yes, but the Erlewine Ecliptic map can be said to be more straightforward, and it visually matches your zodiacal Rimsite of constellations. (If you want to see this map, I can send it as a jpeg--four parts).

Yes, I only use ecliptic latitudes such as 84 05 11 (85) E 1950 for zeta Taurus, "the one at the tip of the southern horn" (Hipparcho-Ptolemy Star List). It's a simple as that. I take it you have seen the Rimsite on Nemeta.

Yes, I had printed your illustrations for reference. So you are using 360 notation rather than degrees in signs, which I suppose might be best for measurement based a shifting vernal point.

I don’t have the Hipparcho-Ptolemy star list with notations such as “The one at the tip of the southern horn.??? Can I find this somewhere? (No doubt Diana Rosenberg has used that list as a reference for her book.)

Are you asking, if one has the ecliptic positions of the stars in numeric notation which locates them in the images, why use the lines?

Yes, that is what I’m asking.

At that time, I had been using tropical signs and constellations simultaneously, but I needed a consistent format for juxtaposition, or overlay. I reduced the five-foot diameter model to A4 page size. Once I had a prototype of the Rimsite, I cut it out and placed around the horoscope setting the VP for the birth year. Then I could look at, say, mars in 25 Libra for E 1948 and see mars at Spica in the left hand of the constellation of the Virgin. As a tropical astrologer, I read mars in the starless format of the horoscope; as a celestician I read mars in the constellation. I toggled back and forth between the two sets of data, eventually learning how to distinguish the information in the horoscope from the information in the celestial code. I did not carry over sun-sign typology into celestics. There are no celestics personality-types.

Ah, I see. I’ll return to this topic in discussing the sidereal zodiac below. (I think it is incorrect to read personality from the stars.)

Drawing from Hieratic Publishing Ephemerides in book form, Erlewine, Astrodienst, Stellarium.org. Everyone can agree on ecliptical longitudes, right?

Well, we can agree on planets in horoscopes that conjoin stars in the constellations, despite the different approaches to measurement (shifting V.P. vs fixed sidereal). For example we should all agree that Donald Trump’s ascendant is exactly 54 minutes from Regulus in the Lion or that Trump’s Mars is only two minutes from Adhadera (zeta Leo). I keep a printed list of the 768 stars from Astrophysical Directions on my desk, but in her book Diana Rosenberg has data of about 200-300 more stellar bodies.

(to be continued)

REPLY Part 2 of 3

The constellational format of the Rimsite IS a full-round map of numbers and degrees, but only the degrees of ecliptical longitude. Every star on the Rimsite has an exact number by degree, 1 through 360.

Yes, but using tropical measurements how are you going to see these degrees without special software since they are constantly changing? With a fixed zodiac all the stars can be listed in hard copy in degrees and minutes.

Again, we are crossing wires somehow. The projection from the ecliptic pole on the Rimsite is like a PROTRACTOR, period. From the pole, the lines run down to 360 marks. I plot the stars on these marks. How else could it be done using the perspective of ecliptic longitudes in a flat circular format?

I agree. No problem with this concept. I call this projection from the ecliptic pole. Yes, the lines go from the ecliptic to the ecliptic pole.

JLL: Mercury R in 20 Sag sextile Jupiter in 21 Libra /opposite Uranus R in 16 Gemini trine Jupiter on a 5-degree orb. That should tell you all you need to know about how my Mercury functions.]

Oh, I had figured out that you had to have a Jupiter influence on your Mercury plus some Uranus because of the very unique approach in your work! Someone listed my chart on Astrodatabank. If you don’t share your chart publicly, and are willing to share it with me, please PM me.

TH: Whether we choose to base measurements on an Epoch from the Vernal point (tropical) or from a fixed sidereal date isn’t so much a question of zodiacs as whether we want the stars to continue changing positions in longitude or have them fixed through the centuries in precise degrees (sidereal).

JLL: Eureka! I finally see the problem in communication...A sidereal zodiac in your concept depends on the ayanamsa, a set point that does not change with precession. Right? I have read many arguments about it, going back to Cyril Fagan and before. You set the ayanamsa and calculate all ecliptic longitudes from that point so that you do not have changing degrees due to precession. Wow. It was always merely this concept that was tripping us up.

Well, it's not just my concept. Any sidereal zodiac depends on a set point that doesn't change with precession.

The sidereal format has one set-point, right, taking the VP at a certain moment in a certain position, Zero Aries or whatever. This I guess is your Lahriri zodiac. Well, that's one way to cut the mustard. The constellational zodiac I use does not rely on one set-point for all dates, but it does have well-defined boundaries for the constellations. However, you would reply, if my zodiac follows precession in real time, then those boundaries change and gain longitude over centuries. Yes, they do. But what is the problem there?

I’m smiling. The problem is simply inconvenience and (as I see it) lack of focus on any specific part of the zodiac. We can look at it this way: We assume that Antares in the Scorpion manifests a certain influence. We might see this influence in any horoscope we may be looking at that has an angle or planet in (for the sake of argument, Lahiri) 16 degrees of Scorpio. We learn from Hellenistic texts that there was apparently a text that listed distinct meanings for every MINUTE of the zodiac. In India there is a tradition that every six astrological minutes carry distinct meanings.

If this is true, where do these meanings come from?! If not the sky of stars, then from where? With a sidereal zodiac there is no need to separate the sky of stars from the signs because the distinct degrees of signs can REFLECT the stars! I know from my own research that (currently) tropical Scorpio has two distinct types of expression because part of Scorpio lies in the stars of the Virgin, and the other part lies against the stars of the Scales. Two very different types of tropical Scorpions!

(to be continued) Something in the next paragraph is causing Skyscript to reject the post. I'll have to figure out what that is and delete it.

Reply: Part 3 of 3
Skyscript wouldn't accept an org website name, so .org has been eliminated.

JLL wrote:

The boundaries for E2000 gain longitude going back in time, but I don't trouble with that because the StarBase software custom-designed for celestics gives (1) current locale at date by sign, (2) current ecl long, and another figure (3) automatically corrected for precession. It works like you see in the Stellarium program.

Yes, we need custom software when using a V.P. based system of measurement for the stars.

The StabBase readout ls like what you see in Stellarium. For instance, look at August 965 CE when there was a uranus-neptune conjunction at Spica. The data reads:
Ecl. long (j2000.0) 203 08 03
Ecl. long (On Date) 188 43 03.

So, its locale in 965 was at ECL 189 or 9 Libra at that time, equivalent to 24 Libra today. Working a celestics chart, I use the longitudes adapted E 2000 for exact star positions. I have worked on biographies and events going back centuries with this same technique. No, the constellational zodiac does not have an absolute set-point.

The constellations ARE set in the sky. They don't change their location. Only the mathematics of their location changes as viewed from a moving V.P.

So far we have not understood what we are mutually discussing due to this distinction being unclear. I am hugely relieved.

Finally!

I have no issue with anyone using a set-point sidereal format in order to have a consistent scale for reading longitudes. I can see the advantage. But, in all respect, speaking of clumsy, I cannot see how dividing the real-sky, observable constellations into a pizza-slice model of twelve equal sectors is anything but a clumsy and improbable arrangement of the celestial display.

Well, change your own Mercury-Jupiter-Uranus configuration to 360 degree notation and what do you get?! How readable is that? But also with a fixed sign zodiac, we can perhaps see the influence of stars within the signs and even individual degrees (as I suggested above).

The Lahiri sidereal zodiac has 12 equal sectors and the VP/ayahamsa is set in the cord between the Fishes. Correct? It uses a fixed date in the past to situate the VP in the constellations and determine "Zero Aries." Correct?

The position opposite from Spica at 0 Libra is taken as the beginning of the Lahiri zodiac, but I use the Krishnamurti zodiac myself which places Spica at 5 minutes into Libra. It’s the DATE of the V.P. which is important, not the position of stars. From Erlewine's star list, the earliest star in the Lahiri and Krishnamurti zodiacs is xi Cep, Kurdah (28 minutes into K Aries). Next is nu Psc at 1 Ari 45.

I don't do that. I observe the exact extent, shape, and proportions of the constellations and add graphics accurately drawn on the stellar positions.

I wonder is there is software out there that would place drawings of the constellations within the context of zodiac signs? Does your software do this? No, I suppose not as you wouldn’t be using zodiac signs at all.

For instance, Nunki, Sigma Sagittarius, at 13 in the sign Capricorn = ECL 284 for E2000. It marks the vane of the arrow at the drawing hand of the Archer -- that's the constellation, not Sagittarius.

But why the complexity of "13 in the sign of Capricorn = EC: 294 for E2000"!! (This is your Jupiter.) Why not simply Nunki = 18 Sgr 37? In all charts, in any century, for any event or any circumstance. Simple and skeletal. (It sounded like you didn't use minutes for stars but only degrees??)

Whew! With all that said and done I have to thank you again for your exceptional persistence and respect. Finally, a conversation with a siderealist! This exchange has been the icebreaker.

And I thank you for your respect and for taking the time for this exchange. I always welcome zodiac questions and discussion. These days the only opportunity some of us have for intelligent discussion is on the Internet, and for that I thank Deb Holding and Skyscript.

Hi Therese,

Looks like we are getting to the goal post. I call upon your patience for one final run through our conversation so far. Your input marked by §. (Don't know how to use the quote function and can't be bothered to learn.)

§Today’s primary sidereal zodiacs (mainly Lahiri or Fagan) are linked to a V.P. date when the tropical and sidereal zodiacs were supposed to coincide.§

I do not accept that the constellations as actually observed ever coincided with a 12-sector, 30-degree format. So that is where I part ways with all sidereal systems. No problem. Live and let live.

§So you are using 360 notation rather than degrees in signs, which I suppose might be best for measurement based a shifting vernal point.§

I use both the tropical sign framework and the astronomical ecliptic scale E 2000 for locational purposes only. For example, Virgo 22 = ECL 172 (171 36 53) : Denebola in the tail of the LION Repeat, for locational purposes only. Also, I do not get into degrees and minutes. I round off degrees.
You can find the Hipparcho-Ptolemy star list in Vol. 1 of Researches into the Primitive Constellations of the Greeks, Phoenicians and Babylonians by Robert Brown (1899).

§ But using tropical measurements how are you going to see these degrees without special software since they are constantly changing? With a fixed zodiac all the stars can be listed in hard copy in degrees and minutes.§

StarBase, the software designed for Celestics, automatically converts to longitudes for E 2000 or any Epoch to which it is set. It adjusts for precession from the current moment, both forward and back in time. In those cases when I am working with a nativity of, say, 1955, 1970 or later, precession is largely irrelevant. If the nativity is dated 1853, the software shows: degree in tropical system at that date, the same in decimal notation, and then the corrected degree for E 2000 also in decimal. I round off the decimal to the higher value because I only use degree-units, not minutes and seconds.

Sounds complicated? Perhaps it looks that way, but -- repeat wash and rinse!-- I only look at the tropical sign placement at the time of the nativity and then at the third entry, the exact locale for E 2000. For instance, van Gogh: born in 1853 with sun @ 9 degrees 43 minutes of Aries converts to ECL 11.76 or 12 for E 2000. The final value is the only thing that interests me because I am not reading van Gogh's horoscope according to standard astrological practices and techiques. I just want to see where the sun was in the constellations. In this case, in the cord joining the Fishes.

§Any sidereal zodiac depends on a set point that doesn't change with precession.§

Agreed. Then I am not using a sidereal system or any variation of!

§ We assume that Antares in the Scorpion manifests a certain influence. We might see this influence in any horoscope we may be looking at that has an angle or planet in (for the sake of argument, Lahiri) 16 degrees of Scorpio. We learn from Hellenistic texts that there was apparently a text that listed distinct meanings for every MINUTE of the zodiac. In India there is a tradition that every six astrological minutes carry distinct meanings.§

I assume no celestial influences. I use the constellations as a data bank of researching historical and biographic evidence -- like a forensic expert at a crime scene. With the Lahiri sidereal model using a locked point, Antares is in 16 degrees of Scorpio. Fine, but what do you mean by "Scorpio"? Not the tropical sign, I presume. A "sidereal-based sign" using the same name? But then of course there are the Hindu names from the Vedic model which do not match the tropical signs. Is that what you use?

In the constellational or real-sky model, Antares stands at E2000 in 10 Sagittarius = ECL 250. These are merely locational points. I disregard the tropical sign Sagittarius to investigate biographies and historical events with the tools and techniques of celestics. Sagittarius is a personality type. The sun in the Scorpion constellation does not designate a personality type. Clear enough?

I think I am seeing the difference we have been discussing without being able to define it clearly. Correct me if I am wrong: I now understand that using the ayahamsa to lock the sidereal star-patterns into a 12-sector format establishes a correspondence between the actual star-patterns and the sections of that format. So you have Antares in the observable Scorpion constellation at 16 degrees of Scorpio in the starless 12-section format. Thus you appear to have two factors in play: the observable star pattern and a 30-degree sidereal sign-sector called Scorpio or the Vedic name.

§If this is true, where do these meanings come from?! If not the sky of stars, then from where? With a sidereal zodiac there is no need to separate the sky of stars from the signs because the distinct degrees of signs can REFLECT the stars! I know from my own research that (currently) tropical Scorpio has two distinct types of expression because part of Scorpio lies in the stars of the Virgin, and the other part lies against the stars of the Scales. Two very different types of tropical Scorpions!§

Yes, that is clear and it gives me an idea of how you work. I am certain that the system works well for you and others. If you find that the distinct degrees of the sidereally formated signs reflect the stars, fine. That is how it works for you. We are not arguing about the interpretive value of different system. We may be having the first conversation on the planet about the difference between sidereal and constellational models. This is a big achievement.

You ask, where do these meanings come from? Good question. I would venture to say that siderealists are traditionalists whereas celestics is a revisionist system -- like historical revision. It is so different that I do not call it astrology but forensic astronomy. It uses astronomical data to investigate and evaluate biographic evidence and historical events. Doing so, it draws upon the massive inventory of mythological themes and images from all cultures in the past. But it does not rely on any traditional systems of interpretation or analytic norms from Greece or India.

§ Well, change your own Mercury-Jupiter-Uranus configuration to 360 degree notation and what do you get?! How readable is that? But also with a fixed sign zodiac, we can perhaps see the influence of stars within the signs and even individual degrees (as I suggested above).§

It is perfectly readible. Nothing changes except that it avoids the spatial distortion of the spherical trigonometry of the houses. I have no intercepted signs in the house format used for celestics. So, coming around anti-clockwise from Uranus in 16 Gemini to Jupiter in 21 Libra (a trine) to Mercury in 20 Sagittarius (sextile to Jupiter, opposite to Uranus), there is no distortion in the tropical notations or the ecliptic equlvalents: 76 - 201 - 260. And those locales read out clearly in in the constellatinos with graphics.

Projected into Star Base, this pattern reads out this way: Uranus in the horns of the BULL-- Jupiter at Spica in the left hand of the VIRGIN -- Mercury in the legs of the SNAKETAMER. The caps indicate the graphic names for the constellations distinguished from the signs. I do not consider aspects in celestics.

§I wonder is there is software out there that would place drawings of the constellations within the context of zodiac signs? Does your software do this? No, I suppose not as you wouldn’t be using zodiac signs at all.§

Again, we are not quite seeing eye to eye on what we are discussing. Yes, StarBase shows exactly where the planets are in the constellations, regardless of their tropical locations. I do not use "zodiac signs" for interpretation -- if you mean the tropical sun-sign divisions. That is the tropical zodiac. Unfortunately, because it consists of divisions on the ecliptic plane, it is also called the ecliptic zodiac. But the tropical zodiac is starless. I only use, say, Venus in 4 Cancer, for a location in the sky: Venus at the feet of the TWNS. It would be helpful always to distinguish the starless tropical format from the real-sky ecliptic display of constellations. There are two zodiacs, starless and star-based. But the star-based zodiac of celestics is not the same at the ones used in sidereal systems.

How are we doing so far? Final clarificartion:

§ Why the complexity of "13 in the sign of Capricorn = EC: 294 for E2000"!!Why not simply Nunki = 18 Sgr 37? In all charts, in any century, for any event or any circumstance. Simple and skeletal. (It sounded like you didn't use minutes for stars but only degrees??) §

I get it. You've asked this question a couple of times. It goes to an essential difference in the fundamental concepts of our different systems. Sure, placing Nunki (282 23 08 for E 2000) at 18 Sgr 37 in your system is fast and easy, a permanent designation for all times. (That, by the way, is exactly where the moon is right now as I am writing these words -- at Nunki, marking the vane and drawing hand of the ARCHER.) Why the complication?

It only looks complicated to a non-user of the system. If I indicate to students who are learning celestics and follow the Skywatching Course in Nemeta, "Saturn has reached 331 at the head of the MANITU and stands directly in the line of the Yamantaka Gaze," they have a precise and immediate cueing to that event in real time. They can then either visualize the transit of Saturn into that constellation (MANITU being the revision of Aquarius, the Waterbearer) and/or go out and observe it. Celestics is intensely interactive with real sky events in real time. It merges imagination with observation.

Moreover, when they register how E 331 or 1 tropical Pisces locates Saturn in the graphics of the constellations, at the head of the MANITU, that cue acts like a prompt to a repository of rich and diverse mythological themes and motifs, figures and events drawn from comparative studies of myth and legend, as well as historical moments, And, last but not least, it cues to specific biographic cases. Apart from the age-old content drawn from comparative mythology, none of that material is traditional. It does not rely in any way on Greek or Hindu parameters of interpretation.

... So, this has been exhausting but worthwhile. Where to go from here is anyone's guess. I regard it as an outstanding breakthrough to have this conversation. But I won't presume on your time. I am currently living in the pastoral mountains of northern Spain. All my time goes to running Nemeta. I have no other professional or material responsibilities. So my agenda is open for any interactions you might consider depending on your time and availability.

Meanwhile, perhaps I can send you one of my books on comparative mythology, published by Thames & Hudson in the Art and Imagination series. A small gift of appreciation from the creator of Celestics.

regards, JLL

JLL wrote:

TH: Today’s primary sidereal zodiacs (mainly Lahiri or Fagan) are linked to a V.P. date when the tropical and sidereal zodiacs were supposed to coincide.

JLL: I do not accept that the constellations as actually observed ever coincided with a 12-sector, 30-degree format. So that is where I part ways with all sidereal systems. No problem. Live and let live.

I’m not saying that the constellations ever coincided with a 12 sector format. I’m merely saying that there are 12 sign sidereal measurements, and there are the stars in the sky astronomically located in precise degrees of that sidereal zodiac. At present we really have very little data on the influence of those stars. I think a lot of material recorded about the supposed influence of stars is most likely not valid.

You can find the Hipparcho-Ptolemy star list in Vol. 1 of Researches into the Primitive Constellations of the Greeks, Phoenicians and Babylonians by Robert Brown (1899).

Two questions:
(1) Does this book list Ptolemy’s designations such as “star in the left horn???? I do have Ptolemy’s star list but without the location of stars in the images of the constellations.

(2) I see that this book is in two volumes. Is the star list only in one volume? And what system of longitudes is used? Ptolemy's? Tropical for a specific date?

TH: But using tropical measurements how are you going to see these degrees without special software since they are constantly changing? With a fixed zodiac all the stars can be listed in hard copy in degrees and minutes.

JLL: StarBase, the software designed for Celestics, automatically converts to longitudes for E 2000 or any Epoch to which it is set. It adjusts for precession from the current moment, both forward and back in time. In those cases when I am working with a nativity of, say, 1955, 1970 or later, precession is largely irrelevant.

Yes, if you aren’t using minutes of longitude.

Your chart data: You have made it public here on Skyscript. But you can edit your post and delete this data. Just choose ‘edit’ for your post, then save the post again without the data.

I assume no celestial influences. I use the constellations as a data bank of researching historical and biographic evidence -- like a forensic expert at a crime scene. With the Lahiri sidereal model using a locked point, Antares is in 16 degrees of Scorpio. Fine, but what do you mean by "Scorpio"? Not the tropical sign, I presume.

As related to the constellations a zodiac sign is merely a convenient way to note the degrees of stars in a 30 degree format rather than 360 degrees. (For myself I find it more convenient to use 30 degree notations.)

The sun in the Scorpion constellation does not designate a personality type. Clear enough?

Yes. You are looking at the position of the Sun in the Scorpion. (I don’t use signs or stars for personality types. Personality is in the planets.)

I think I am seeing the difference we have been discussing without being able to define it clearly. Correct me if I am wrong: I now understand that using the ayanamsa to lock the sidereal star-patterns into a 12-sector format establishes a correspondence between the actual star-patterns and the sections of that format. So you have Antares in the observable Scorpion constellation at 16 degrees of Scorpio in the starless 12-section format. Thus you appear to have two factors in play: the observable star pattern and a 30-degree sidereal sign-sector called Scorpio or the Vedic name.

Yes, that’s it exactly. The Indian ‘Vedic’ names of the 12 signs are exactly the same as the western names.

TH: I know from my own research that (currently) tropical Scorpio has two distinct types of expression because part of Scorpio lies in the stars of the Virgin, and the other part lies against the stars of the Scales. Two very different types of tropical Scorpions!

JLL:Yes, that is clear and it gives me an idea of how you work. I am certain that the system works well for you and others. If you find that the distinct degrees of the sidereally formatted signs reflect the stars, fine. That is how it works for you. We are not arguing about the interpretive value of different system. We may be having the first conversation on the planet about the difference between sidereal and constellational models. This is a big achievement.

Yes, indeed! (Up to now I haven't been considering any relationship of stars to signs. I just meant to point out the mathematical correlation.) Way back in Hellenistic times there was some star influence noted in the interpretation of signs. The zodiac used was sidereal then.

...celestics is a revisionist system -- like historical revision. It is so different that I do not call it astrology but forensic astronomy. It uses astronomical data to investigate and evaluate biographic evidence and historical events. Doing so, it draws upon the massive inventory of mythological themes and images from all cultures in the past. But it does not rely on any traditional systems of interpretation or analytic norms from Greece or India.

Yes, I understand, that multi cultural mythology themes are a fascinating (and perhaps the only valid way?) of investigating the constellations. The zodiac of 12 signs, east or west, is an entirely different construct.

TH: Well, change your own Mercury-Jupiter-Uranus configuration to 360 degree notation and what do you get?! How readable is that? But also with a fixed sign zodiac, we can perhaps see the influence of stars within the signs and even individual degrees (as I suggested above).

JLL: It is perfectly readible. Nothing changes except that it avoids the spatial distortion of the spherical trigonometry of the houses.

But there is no spherical trigonometry involved in houses simply measured from the zodiac (ecliptic), equal or whole sign houses. I don’t use any of the so-called quadrant houses in my work, but stay with the zodiac.

I have no intercepted signs in the house format used for celestics. So, coming around anti-clockwise from Uranus in 16 Gemini to Jupiter in 21 Libra (a trine) to Mercury in 20 Sagittarius (sextile to Jupiter, opposite to Uranus), there is no distortion in the tropical notations or the ecliptic equlvalents: 76 - 201 - 260. And those locales read out clearly in in the constellations with graphics.

This is fine, but for myself I prefer the notations using the 12 sign format. This is how my brain likes to see degree notations!

JLL: Projected into Star Base, this pattern reads out this way: Uranus in the horns of the BULL-- Jupiter at Spica in the left hand of the VIRGIN -- Mercury in the legs of the SNAKETAMER. The caps indicate the graphic names for the constellations distinguished from the signs. I do not consider aspects in celestics.

TH: I wonder is there is software out there that would place drawings of the constellations within the context of zodiac signs? Does your software do this? No, I suppose not as you wouldn’t be using zodiac signs at all.

JLL:; It would be helpful always to distinguish the starless tropical format from the real-sky ecliptic display of constellations. There are two zodiacs, starless and star-based. But the star-based zodiac of celestics is not the same at the ones used in sidereal systems.

The stars and constellations are similar in astronomical placement in the sky. It’s the method of MEASUREMENT that is different.

How are we doing so far? Final clarification:

TH: Why the complexity of "13 in the sign of Capricorn = EC: 294 for E2000"!!Why not simply Nunki = 18 Sgr 37? In all charts, in any century, for any event or any circumstance. Simple and skeletal. (It sounded like you didn't use minutes for stars but only degrees??)

JLL: I get it. You've asked this question a couple of times. It goes to an essential difference in the fundamental concepts of our different systems. Sure, placing Nunki (282 23 08 for E 2000) at 18 Sgr 37 in your system is fast and easy, a permanent designation for all times. (That, by the way, is exactly where the moon is right now as I am writing these words -- at Nunki, marking the vane and drawing hand of the ARCHER.) Why the complication?

It only looks complicated to a non-user of the system. If I indicate to students who are learning celestics and follow the Skywatching Course in Nemeta, "Saturn has reached 331 at the head of the MANITU and stands directly in the line of the Yamantaka Gaze," they have a precise and immediate cueing to that event in real time. They can then either visualize the transit of Saturn into that constellation (MANITU being the revision of Aquarius, the Waterbearer) and/or go out and observe it. Celestics is intensely interactive with real sky events in real time. It merges imagination with observation.

Moreover, when they register how E 331 or 1 tropical Pisces locates Saturn in the graphics of the constellations, at the head of the MANITU, that cue acts like a prompt to a repository of rich and diverse mythological themes and motifs, figures and events drawn from comparative studies of myth and legend, as well as historical moments, And, last but not least, it cues to specific biographic cases. Apart from the age-old content drawn from comparative mythology, none of that material is traditional. It does not rely in any way on Greek or Hindu parameters of interpretation.

My only comment is that knowing the precise location of a star in a zodiac sign doesn't in any way preclude the fascinating constellational description you are giving here, as long as we are noting the constellation as apart from any sign interpretation.

Sure, placing Nunki (282 23 08 for E 2000) at 18 Sgr 37 in your system is fast and easy, a permanent designation for all times. (That, by the way, is exactly where the moon is right now as I am writing these words -- at Nunki, marking the vane and drawing hand of the ARCHER.)

And because I have a printed list of stars in the zodiac I use I don't need any software to tell me that the Moon conjunct Nunki is partile trine my natal Jupiter (asc lord) and Saturn, as you are replying to my post! Yes, astrology works!

So, this has been exhausting but worthwhile. Where to go from here is anyone's guess. I regard it as an outstanding breakthrough to have this conversation. But I won't presume on your time. I am currently living in the pastoral mountains of northern Spain. All my time goes to running Nemeta. I have no other professional or material responsibilities. So my agenda is open for any interactions you might consider depending on your time and availability.

I’m definitely interested in any discoveries you come up with related to stars and constellations. (Although because of my life situation at the moment I have limited time for study and contemplation.)

I’ve just been reviewing a wonderful sky program I’ve had for many years (Sky Map Lite–Chris Marriott). I can set the program for the ecliptic with lines that go to the ecliptic pole (NEP), can do searches for any celestial body that will take me there at any point in time. The program can move through time at any speed. The program has line drawings for constellations, but not the 'art' images that Stellarium has. Anyway I’m now very excited to experiment with stars and constellations as time allows. This is what I’m taking away from our conversation.

Meanwhile, perhaps I can send you one of my books on comparative mythology, published by Thames & Hudson in the Art and Imagination series. A small gift of appreciation from the creator of Celestics.

I would like that very much! I’ve always been fascinated with comparative mythology, but haven’t had time for study except in small doses such as what is in Staal’s book. (And now my memory is quite poor.) But you are living in Spain, and if you are talking about a hard copy book, shipping from Europe to America is very expensive. Unless you have a U.S. shipping address or a company can ship the book at low rates?

I've been interrupted a number of times when writing this reply, so please let me know if I've missed something or have been unclear in my reply.

John, could you kindly list the names you give to the constellations on your Rimsite to distinguish them from signs of the zodiac?

And in your work at present do you stay only with those Rimsite constellations rather than consider constellations and stars at higher latitude?

Quoting text in replies is very easy. You simply block the text you want to quote and click on 'Quote' at the top of the screen where you are typing (or dropping in text from a word processor which is what I do). The quote choice is always at the top of the screen between u and Code. Sometimes you have to move the ending quote notation to the end of the last quoted sentence. For some reason Skyscript often wants to put the ending [/quote] notation on the next line.

Hi Therese,

Responding to your March 17 message. The forum seems to act erratically, not showing posts at times, but then it may be my error. In any case... A review and response of your points:

Agreed, there are not 12 equal sectors that coincide with the constellations, but due to the lock-in point, you get precise degrees in the sidereal format.

The star list with graphic designations is in Robert Brown's Primitive Constellations, Vol. 1 Ch. III, pp 20 - 119. My edition is Williams and Norgate, London, Edinburgh, Oxford, 1899. I don't know what system of longitudes is used. The list gives Greek lettering for the stars, no longitudes or epoch indicated.

It looks like we agree that tropical sectors, Aries, Taurus, Gemini in the starless format indicate personality-types. That is the basis of popular astrology; but the sun or planets in the constellations do not indicate personality traits.

Indian "Vedic" names are the same as western names. Got it.

Stellar and planetary influences have been asserted for centuries going back to Babylon and Sumeria, China, Mexico, elsewhere... I maintain that, realistically speaking, there are only three bodies that directly and demonstrably influence human behavior: the sun which is a star, the earth, and the moon. They have direct and observable influences all through nature. However, I don't consider them to exemplify planetary influence as conceived along traditional lines. Likewise for planets. Mars does not influence anyone to do anything.

Be assured, I don't argue with anyone who runs interpretations by the language of influence: The prominent jupiter makes you an open-minded and generous person, etc. I do not refute and trash other interpretive techniques. I am looking elsewhere for different results and using a different method. Regarding the language of astrology, I take my view from Dane Rudhyar who said that it is a system of semantics. I know no better definition. From this comment I derive the term "semantic equivalence" and use it without reliance on the assumption of causation. Generosity is a semantic equivalence for the material planet jupiter, aggression for mars, but neither planet causes those attributes.

I agree with Liz Greene, that no one can explain why astrology works. How can semantic equivalence be valid? I don't know. Yet it is.

I don't use houses of any kind in Celestics.

I think at this point we can agree on differences of measurement, but that issue does not touch the essential points of this conversation. My only concern with measurement is to establish the ecliptic longitude of a star for E2000 and situate it appropriately in the graphics of the constellation. For example, epsilon Virginis, Vindemiatrix: 189 56 18 = 10 Virgo, marking the sacred chalice (Grail) in the right hand of the Virgin. E 305 / 5 Aquarius, marking the horns of the Goatfish.

Yes, I do integrate extra-ecliptic constellations in the celestics. For instance, the constellation of Aquila, the Eagle, hovers over the Great Void (see below) and looks down on the Goatfish with which it shares some ecliptic alignments. Auriag above the Bull and linked to it by the shared star, El Nath, Cetus below the Fishes and Ram, and more. However, I teach students to learn the five great tableaux of mythic narratives illustrated by the ecliptic figures, before attempting to incorporate extra-excliptic material.

Yes, I do distinguish the constellation "as apart from any sign interpretation."

I get the picture on your current studies and time commitment. So far you've devoted a lot of time to this conversation -- which may be the only one I ever have with a siderealist. No problem sending you a book. I can order it from Amazon.com in the USA. You can send me your mailing address confidentially via the contact button at Nemeta.

§ Responding to your second message of March 17:

Mythological names of the constellation in Celestics:

astronomical Celestics, mythography
Greco-Latin terms "story-book" names

Aries RAM
Taurus BULL
Gemini TWINS
Cancer CRAB
Leo LION
Virgo VIRGIN
Libra SCALES, or BALANCE
Scorpio SCORPION
Ophiuchus SNAKETAMER
Sagittarius ARCHER
Capricorn GOATFISH
Aquarius MANITU
Pisces FISHES, or WHALES

Additional to this array of recognized star-patterns, the Rimsite includes the 13-degree zone between Archer and Goatfish which is relatively devoid of stars. That is called the Great Void. It also includes two ambiguous marginal or transitional areas of 5 degrees, between Twins and Crab (Celestial Anchor), and between Virgin and Scales (the Cache, or Treasure Chest). There are 16 figures in all. 16 observable locales on the ecliptic plane.

Celestics also uses 16 factors in the equivalent of the horoscope, called the manifold: 1 the sun, a star, 2 the home planet, earth, 3, the moon, satellite of the earth, 4 and 5, the lunar nodes, 6 and 7 the lunar apsides, 8 mercury, 9 venus, 10 mars, 11 jupiter 12 saturn, 13 uranus, 14 neptune, 15 pluto and 16 chiron. It's called the manifold because it obviously comprises a selection or manifold of different items, not merely planets. Celestics is unique in the inclusion of the earth and lunar apsides. As far as I know.

Considering that any one of the 16 factors in the manifold can occur in any one of the 16 locales there are 16 X 16 = 256 variations of the celestial code, or 16 discrete code-lines in the OS (operating system) of forensic astronomy. For any individual nativity, the celestian only has to read 16 lines out of the total 256 to interpret the manifold. These code-lines can be abbreviated by a quasi-HTML notation: Mars>Goatfish, Moon>Lion, lunar Perigee>Cache. To read the manifold of a nativity, the celestian decodes those 16 lines selected from the 256.

Well, that's already a lot to say and perhaps a look ahead at this method given that you have continuing interest and we find the time to pursue our conversation. Whatever the case, it's been a rewarding venture so far.

regards, JLL

I recently got interested by the sky (stars) of death. Death time seems to be as important as birth time as per Steiner, Willi Sucher, Elizabeth Vreede and Jonathan Hilton... in regards to the constellations.

See recent article by Jonathan Hilton
'A tribute to Dr Elizabeth Vreede'
https://www.astrosophy.com/currentarticles

Any thoughts on this?

I know Vreede's work since 1978 when I met Willi Sucher in LA. It's valuable and unique in some respects although, after having been deeply involved with Anthroposophists both in the USA and UK, I don't play along with Steiner's worldview and in particular his Christocentric perspective on world history.

A talk I gave in Islington in 1999 draws upon Vreede's close study of long-term systemic events involving the converge of the solsticial and equinoctial points with planetary nodes and apsides.

You can see it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjZx2-ZDADE

I have also had some interactions over years with anthropops dedicated to historical/astronomical investigation of the Parzival legend. This research relies strongly on tracking the rotation of the trigon of jupiter-saturn conjunctions through the centuries starting from the so-called "star of the Magi" in 6 BCE when they conjuncted in the Fishes (Pisces). Again, I found that my own research led to conclusions that differed from the orthodox anthropop program. For instance, they place the signature moment of "attaining the Grail" in the 9th Century while I find it in the 10th. There is a lot more to this adventure and I have written extensively on the Parzival narrative on Nemeta.

When I studied with Willi Sucher, he brought up the issue of death charts and introduced me to some data on famous biographies, including the cases Steiner covered in his seven-volume work, Karmic Relationships. Sucher was convinced of the value in investigating death charts of famous people. Honestly, I could not see eye to eye with him on that topic. It was one aspect of the many-faceted education I enjoyed with him that I dropped completely. So I am not qualified to comment on it, one way or the other.

Thank you JLL,
I am in touch with someone who also studied with Sucher and I find it fascinating the way they look at the constellations.
They tell more than the 'modern' look of the psycho-pop.
I will keep studying it. Thanks for the YouTube link.

JLL wrote:

It looks like we agree that tropical sectors, Aries, Taurus, Gemini in the starless format indicate personality-types. That is the basis of popular astrology; but the sun or planets in the constellations do not indicate personality traits.

I think a fair number of psychological traits believed to belong to tropical sectors are imagination, a kind of stream of consciousness, and are really linked to the planets. But that’s another entire topic.

Stellar and planetary influences have been asserted for centuries going back to Babylon and Sumeria, China, Mexico, elsewhere... I maintain that, realistically speaking, there are only three bodies that directly and demonstrably influence human behavior: the sun which is a star, the earth, and the moon. They have direct and observable influences all through nature. However, I don't consider them to exemplify planetary influence as conceived along traditional lines. Likewise for planets. Mars does not influence anyone to do anything.

I will let this go as several discussion topics are suggested here, and I don’t have the time or energy!

...I take my view from Dane Rudhyar who said that it is a system of semantics. I know no better definition. From this comment I derive the term "semantic equivalence" and use it without reliance on the assumption of causation. Generosity is a semantic equivalence for the material planet jupiter, aggression for mars, but neither planet causes those attributes.

Again, I have to let this go. I knew Dane Rudhyar when he lived in Berkeley, California, and used to attend his talks. I can still picture him exactly as he looked when speaking. Tall and digified. But his astrology has gone into my past.

I think at this point we can agree on differences of measurement, but that issue does not touch the essential points of this conversation. My only concern with measurement is to establish the ecliptic longitude of a star for E2000 and situate it appropriately in the graphics of the constellation. For example, epsilon Virginis, Vindemiatrix: 189 56 18 = 10 Virgo, marking the sacred chalice (Grail) in the right hand of the Virgin. E 305 / 5 Aquarius, marking the horns of the Goatfish.

I would have these stars in precisely the same location in the Virgin and Goatfish, but with different longitudes, of course. I've pulled out all my constellation/astronomy books to become familiar again with the constellations. I also ordered Robert Brown's book as it has gone into facsimile publication.

Yes, I do integrate extra-ecliptic constellations in the celestics. For instance, the constellation of Aquila, the Eagle, hovers over the Great Void (see below) and looks down on the Goatfish with which it shares some ecliptic alignments. Auriga above the Bull and linked to it by the shared star, El Nath, Cetus below the Fishes and Ram, and more. However, I teach students to learn the five great tableaux of mythic narratives illustrated by the ecliptic figures, before attempting to incorporate extra-excliptic material.

I would agree with that approach.

I get the picture on your current studies and time commitment. So far you've devoted a lot of time to this conversation -- which may be the only one I ever have with a siderealist.

This type of conversation is the primary value of Skyscript. As I said, I’m now very interested in pursuing the study of the constellations. But with a fixed zodiac I look for star and constellational influence within the 12 signs.

Mythological names of the constellation in Celestics:

astronomical Celestics, mythography
Greco-Latin terms "story-book" names

Aries RAM
Taurus BULL
Gemini TWINS
Cancer CRAB
Leo LION...
Virgo VIRGIN
Libra SCALES, or BALANCE
Scorpio SCORPION
Ophiuchus SNAKETAMER
Sagittarius ARCHER
Capricorn GOATFISH
Aquarius MANITU
Pisces FISHES, or WHALES

With the exception of Manitu (Aquarius), then, these names were sometimes applied to the 12 zodiacal signs in Hellenistic times. And Snaketamer’ was Serpent Holder.

Additional to this array of recognized star-patterns, the Rimsite includes the 13-degree zone between Archer and Goatfish which is relatively devoid of stars. That is called the Great Void. It also includes two ambiguous marginal or transitional areas of 5 degrees, between Twins and Crab (Celestial Anchor), and between Virgin and Scales (the Cache, or Treasure Chest). There are 16 figures in all. 16 observable locales on the ecliptic plane.

Celestics also uses 16 factors in the equivalent of the horoscope, called the manifold: 1 the sun, a star, 2 the home planet, earth, 3, the moon, satellite of the earth, 4 and 5, the lunar nodes, 6 and 7 the lunar apsides, 8 mercury, 9 venus, 10 mars, 11 jupiter 12 saturn, 13 uranus, 14 neptune, 15 pluto and 16 chiron. It's called the manifold because it obviously comprises a selection or manifold of different items, not merely planets. Celestics is unique in the inclusion of the earth and lunar apsides. As far as I know.

O.K., I had to look up ‘apsides’. For the benefit of Skyscript readers:

Also called: apse
either of two points lying at the extremities of an eccentric orbit of a planet, satellite, etc, such as the aphelion and perihelion of a planet or the apogee and perigee of the moon. The line of apsides connects two such points and is the principal axis of the orbit

What do you use for the home planet?

Considering that any one of the 16 factors in the manifold can occur in any one of the 16 locales there are 16 X 16 = 256 variations of the celestial code, or 16 discrete code-lines in the OS (operating system) of forensic astronomy. For any individual nativity, the celestian only has to read 16 lines out of the total 256 to interpret the manifold. These code-lines can be abbreviated by a quasi-HTML notation: Mars>Goatfish, Moon>Lion, lunar Perigee>Cache. To read the manifold of a nativity, the celestian decodes those 16 lines selected from the 256.

I have edited my response here because I now understand what you call the 'manifold' and why your system uses visual lines linking planets to constellations.

Well, that's already a lot to say and perhaps a look ahead at this method given that you have continuing interest and we find the time to pursue our conversation. Whatever the case, it's been a rewarding venture so far.

We can hope that others might be silently following!