Skyscript Astrology Forum

Thanks for the Ptolemy and Almagest reference, Deb. But I'm bothered by the statement:

So we are not working with observed appearances, we are dealing with astronomical averages, and we take the time of rising for a locality in general, without worrying about whether or not the disc of the Sun is actually visible at the specific location of birth.

This is a serious contradiction to the astrological 'spirit' expressed in the remark about the ancients observing the moment of sunrise and in the observation that there is a definite and palpable feel to the sunrise moment! Now we've switched over to 'Oh well, smooth it all out with in average'. This is one problem with modern 'traditional' astrology. We want and need a uniformity and simplicity in order to be able to present a chart for a time and location that we or others were nowhere near in order to have a common discussion about it. We want and need convenience. In this case we want and need a unified and evenly defined diurnal and nocturnal for our commonly shared astrological system ? and belief system.

Many of us (maybe even most of us now?) are in agreement with the idea of astrology as a divinatory act. The title of the Cornelius book catches the spirit very well: The Moment of Astrology. That illustrates the importance of focused yet also expanded consciousness in a moment in order to discover what a chart is offering. Another applicable word might be 'presence'. But just how present are we to a chart if we're doing such things as smoothing out the moments of sunrise events that we don't even experience in person? We want the romantic and nostalgic vision of ancients stepping into the special moment of sunrise, but then we want to shift that moment if necessary in order to easily fit it into a smoothly running and rational astrological machine, a machine that operates solely in our minds where we can call it ours and argue for its perceived integrity. I personally fight with this constantly ? I don't feel so alone when I catch glimpses of others in the same predicament.

Hello,

From Martin Gansten,

Deb wrote:
On the other hand I have sat and watched the sunset, doing nothing else but sitting and observing the sunset, and there is ? very definitely ? a single moment when the energy changes; when the last remnant of the Sun's disc dissapears.

This ties in with Kirk's earlier question about zodiacal degrees, because, although the Sun never has latitude, it is (as Deb says) a disc rather than a point, and the moment of its leading edge rising/trailing edge setting is different from the rising/setting of its centre, which is where we measure its zodiacal position. Also, if we want to keep things observational, we have to include the effects of atmospheric refraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction).

And also altitude of place - the sun rises earlier (and sets later) by approximately one minute for every 1.5 km increase above sea level.

If visual rising/setting is to be preferred, perhaps we should check for altitude and atmospheric conditions of birth place for natives born near sunset/sunrise! The day/night determination is very important for traditonal astrologers who use triplicity rulers of houses (following Alezdegoz) in their chart delineation.

Hi Kirk

I wanted to make a quick reply to your comment. Sorry it is brief as I have family over for the bank holiday.
Sometimes we need to let things stew a little before they make complete sense, but really, I don't see any kind of ?cop out? in this because it does make complete sense to me that we should use the local horizon and not the local visible horizon. The day begins when the Sun rises over the horizon, not when it comes into view from the place you are standing.

Although you questioned my earlier comment, I don?t think it is at all controversial to say that sunrise and sunset were times of worship and reverence for the ancient civilizations. In fact it is probably necessary to realise just how much they viewed time as being a sacred and mystical concept, because this theory is as much about time as space. We know the two are bound, but I think that our generation remains in awe of space, whilst taking time for granted. That's the big mistake IMO.

Time rules OK? (Wish I had more of it .. )
Deb

Hello there Deb,

The day begins when the Sun rises over the horizon, not when it comes into view from the place you are standing.

But oh my gosh ... If there is a large mountain close by to the east of you that mountain IS the horizon. I can only hear the desire for convenience and simplicity of astrological methodology in your statement. Sorry. Your statement doesn't even make logical sense to me. Sorry again.

Although you questioned my earlier comment, I don?t think it is at all controversial to say that sunrise and sunset were times of worship and reverence for the ancient civilizations.

I agree. Please keep in mind that I wrote:

There was plenty of such worshiping in the ancient world, but the sense of worship doesn't seem present in the ancient astrological works. They were people of a different philosophical bent, already influenced by the approach and interests that would later develop into science as we know it.

It looks to me like the ancient astrologers were already a separate breed. The sunrise worshipers were perhaps a more religious crowd and the astrologers were what we might call a more philosophical crowd which eventually split and led to modern science.

In fact it is probably necessary to realise just how much they viewed time as being a sacred and mystical concept, because this theory is as much about time as space. We know the two are bound, but I think that our generation remains in awe of space, whilst taking time for granted. That's the big mistake IMO.

But if you're smoothing it all out with an average sunrise aren't you continuing that awe of space? You are favoring a consistent and uniform horizon ? therefore a consistent and uniform space ? over the various times of sunrise that an irregular horizon would cause. The impression from my reading and studies is that the sacred and mystical more strongly shine forth in the particular and individual ? manifestations of moments ? rather than in the uniform and average.


Now kick everyone out of the house so that we can have your undivided attention.

Now kick everyone out of the house so that we can have your undivided attention.

Would love to - but I have to cook a 3 course meal for 8, and the parents have announced an intention to stay over 2 days longer than previously agreed. Argh, I have brain stress whilst I try to mentally reorganise the forthcoming week. Sunrise issues will have to wait,... right now I just thank the Lord for computers

So, it looks like the sunrise of the common person in his or her environment is not necessarily the sunrise of the mathematician-philosopher-astrologer. The immediate experience of daily life for the common person doesn't correspond cleanly to the mental experience and procedures of the astrologer. In the ancient world there was already the division between those with a forward gaze who went directly about their lives and those who dropped their noses into their books, measuring and calculating lives. The movers-through-life are in the moment, the astrologers read, write and speak about the moment.

It's no wonder astrological prediction only works occasionally. The method is too disengaged from life to be able to predict in life with more than spotty success.

Hi Kirk

I don?t think I have anything more to add to this one. Unfortunately, the more I think about it, the less I understand your point. The day-time begins as the Sun hits the horizon ? the same horizon as that which is displayed on the astrological chart. I don?t see how that is removed from reality or experience (although there are ? of course ? limitations to the extent of detail that an astrological chart can present).

Perhaps someone else can recognise your dilemma, as it?s not something I can personally relate to.

Regards
Deb

I think that when one thinks about the cycle of life it's easier to determinate the understanding of the moment of dawn/dusk. When one person dies, you just know it. Although the bodily functions and the heat may still subside, giving the impression of life, you just know life has left the body.

The same goes for a birth, the moment of birth is also subjectivity in itself, still it's gauged by us. The whole model of astrology relies on the belief of a turning point in things, that moment which brings the change/fact/event (house cusps and sign frontiers are representative of this idea) so this discussion is of the same nature of should the ligh/orb of a planet be considered when in a new sign in aspectual relation to one within orb in the last sign? I'd say yes, but the quality changes. Something changes!

The very aspectual relation of the planets in their representative model points to that turning point. So, about twilight, it's fact that it's light will be there no matter what, same with dawn. Still, there's to be considered there is a point when that Sun "dies" as much as there is one point when the Sun is "born". What we try with our charts is to gauge that moment, even though, by means of our techniques we will only be able to get closer and closer to that point, not ever right on, since we are not ideal, and this supposed moment is ideal. Still, even math is not ideal, so we can live up with that, and there is still validity to our methods, abstract or practical.

Kirk wrote:It's no wonder astrological prediction only works occasionally. The method is too disengaged from life to be able to predict in life with more than spotty success.

So, your sugestion here comes, in my opinion, from difficulty in reconciling two opposite perspectives. The moment of twilight for someone may differ, for whatever reason, for person to person, place to place. You may even feel that shift in a different moment, you may even notice it in a different way than others. But to predict from a universal standpoint, you have, necessarily, to disengage a little from your own perception. But not so much that you leave reality (to disengage a little from this "reality" should be worked, we need that even to talk each other). And that's why everyone has the same marking time on a clock, instead of one different clock for each person's personal velocity. The old ones praised the perception in the sense that an aspectual relation is based on the sense of seeing, more than other senses. Still, what I see is slightly different from what you see, and that difference has to be filled with abstraction. We are not ideal, astrology is not ideal, no science is ideal. To predict ideally, we would have to be ideal, the physicall world would have to be perfect, the astrological model would have to be perfect. And we know that it just touchs this perfection, and that's what leaves us in wonder. Still, is it not the accidents that give us events, that changes the quality of time from second to second?

If you just take into account every individual position in your astrological work, you're shifting from a middle point to an extreme, and just the opposite if you do not take take a personal position into account as well. The relation is time (moment, impersonal) x space (location, personal). The secret here is to work within a middle-ground, still, what kind of middle ground is this, is up to you. But there are enough hints when one is just trying to find his middle ground or when is just losing balance.

I think I get Kirk's point. If I'm correct the question is: "Why use schematized geometrical positions of Sunrise/set etc. if the natural phenomenon is the most significant to us.".

The point of the 'mountain' horizon is therefore a valid one but it depends on the definition of horizon. I calculated it once but I don't have the list over here. It was the size of the Earth when we get further away from Earth. From the Moon the Earth's size is just 2?. From the Space Shuttle view about 170?. This means that 190? of the ecliptic would be visible. Even close to Earth the difference might be a couple of arc minutes or almost a degree, giving a Descendant at 29?50'Virgo and an Ascendant at 0?10' Aries.

Immediately related to this is how the ecliptic should be defined. I do think the ecliptic is defined in a geocentric way. This is a geometrical point of view. Geocentric view is different from the view on the surface of the Earth. I don't consider it problematic though. I just think it's an other aspect of nature, yet of a different nature . To me personally if this view should be embraced as a or even 'the' astrological view, any connection of the tropical signs with seasonal phenomena probably might be abandoned.

I'm a little late in replying.

Eddy wrote:

I think I get Kirk's point. If I'm correct the question is: "Why use schematized geometrical positions of Sunrise/set etc. if the natural phenomenon is the most significant to us.".

Yes! There's a mishmash created from the mental construct of the Greek astrological model and the immediate experience from direct visual observation of the sky. We modern-day folks like to busy our minds with the Greek model and to also long for and romanticize the model of experiencing natural phenomena directly. The fact is, when you busy yourself with the Greek model and its matters of sect, essential dignity, aspects, etc., you have left the natural world of physical phenomena and entered a mental world. It is sometimes said that astrologers tend to be a very educated group. They are, because being educated usually refers specifically to achievements through mental activity, and they are inclined toward mental activity and interests. Mercury is the planet of astrology, after all. Yet something can also get those astrologers of the head to yearn for some good old-fashioned visual natural phenomena and the direct experience of life it offers. That's when the mishmash and contradictions occur. I don't see how it's possible to effectively blend an immediate moment of experience with numerous past moments ? the now dead moments of past thought and reflection which have been collected to create the mental system of Western astrology. But, silly me, it doesn't keep me from trying.


PFN sums it up well, favoring releasing somewhat one's own direct experience of the world:

So, your sugestion here comes, in my opinion, from difficulty in reconciling two opposite perspectives. The moment of twilight for someone may differ, for whatever reason, for person to person, place to place. You may even feel that shift in a different moment, you may even notice it in a different way than others. But to predict from a universal standpoint, you have, necessarily, to disengage a little from your own perception.

But how much should we disengage? What should we hold on to?

The secret here is to work within a middle-ground, still, what kind of middle ground is this, is up to you. But there are enough hints when one is just trying to find his middle ground or when is just losing balance.

So where is that happy middle-ground of milk and honey? Discovering the hints sounds just as slippery and elusive as finding the middle-ground.