Good morning,

Ms Margherita, it is difficult for me to follow your last post.

Looking at the beginning of Tetrabiblos, Book II, it seems to me that Klaudios Ptolomaios proceeds in his typical, top-down, Aristotelian way from the general to the particular. He restates that mundane astrology pre-conditions natal astrology. He deals with climates, then moves to divisions by elemental triangles, referring to Book I.

Had Ptolemy wished to choose an arbitrary centre, he could easily have chosen ex. gr. Alexandria, Egypt, or a major temple of his favourite Goddess or God. Instead, he carefully listed geographical sites that define points on two lines, one of latitude, one of longitude, as described above.

How can this be considered 'arbitrary'? The surprising co-incidence for me is the assertion that in our times the geophysical centre of the world's land masses is at a point only 2 degrees south and 10 degrees west of that designated by Ptolemy. Should this calculation be correct, it would perhaps adjust but not invalidate Ptolemy's mundane astrological system.

Best regards,

lihin

lihin wrote:Good evening,

Alas, Ms Margherita, i have difficulty following you.

lihin

Lihin, simply if Ptolemy thought to a centre of the world, parallels and meridians should cross nations, not following their borders. The point you mention is just a border between different nations, rather than a geographical point

margherita

Good evening,

Although i think i understand your text, Ms Margherita, it seems that just the opposite could be validly asserted. Had Ptolemy's lines of latitude and longitude lines been situated chiefly in one country or nation, one would now accuse him of partisanship or arbitrariness.

It looks to me that both Ptolemy's lines and centre are more peripheral than central to any given country at that time or even today, ex. gr. Turkey. My impression is that Klaudios Ptolomaios sought to recognise an objective, unbiased centre based on geographic and astronomic-astrological criteria. He was not only the foremost astronomer-astrologer but also the foremost geographer of his day and for many centuries to come.

In his entire Tetrabiblos, Ptolemy sought to separate the science of astrology from mythologies, local habits, superstitions, forms of constellations, etc. Why should he have made an exception to his method in determining the centre of the world? He is accused of prejudice and even of nationalism by some who find his delineations of some European areas derogatory. But were (and are) they, although generalisations, really flawed? His comparable delineations of ex. gr. Persia(ns) have not met with the same heated disapproval.

Best regards,

lihin

James-M wrote:

while Gobekli Tepe - supposedly the original garden of eden...

Not really. Its nothing to do with biblical stories. Its simply the oldest man made structure of any significance that has been discovered. Current theory considers it may have been a temple used by a high culture of hunter gatherers.

Its currently estimated to be around 11,500 years old and is therefore the earliest religious structure found on earth. It dates back 7,000 years before the Pyramid of Giza was built and 6,000 years before Stonehenge was first constructed. It also predates the earliest towns overturning the theory that religious centres followed after urbanization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

http://anthropology.net/2010/02/22/gobe ... s-of-giza/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a ... -tepe.html

Its been speculated that the numerous animals represented at Gobekli Tepe were actually constellations:

http://www.timothystephany.com/gobekli.html

Mark

Good morning,

Whilst such places have their interest, significances and validities, various sites of temples and the like are NOT the object of the question of this thread UNLESS they coincide with a centre of the world based on geographical, geophysical criteria.

Have some readers perhaps the opinion that there is and can be no such centre based, like the example cited at the beginning of the thread, for example on land masses? Of course it is clear that this centre will move slightly in aeons due to continental drift.

If one includes the Aegean Sea in the Ptolemaic centre of the world and consider it a zone rather than a point as Klaudios Ptolemaios evidently did in Tetrabiblos, Book II, Section 3, Paragraph 3 quoted above, then the 'modern' centre determined geophysically lies in the central zone as defined by Ptolemy.

My working hypothesis is therefore:

Ptolemy's geographic and astronomical-astrological bases for mundane astrology have not - yet - been invalidated, for example by the discovery of new continents.

Objections? Better hypothesis?

Best regards,

lihin

Lihin wrote:

Whilst such places have their interest, significances and validities, various sites of temples and the like are NOT the object of the question of this thread UNLESS they coincide with a centre of the world based on geographical, geophysical criteria.

Lihin If the thread spirals too far from an original topic it is my role as moderator to bring things back on topic not yours.

Lihin wrote:

Have some readers perhaps the opinion that there is and can be no such centre based, like the example cited at the beginning of the thread, for example on land masses? Of course it is clear that this centre will move slightly in aeons due to continental drift.

Although I have played along with the idea of a fixed location as our sole astrological focus I am fundamentally not that enthusiastic about the notion of any fixed geodetic centre of the world. That applies to methods like that proposed by Simmonite (Greenwich) or your current proposal.

Why?

Abitrary

Firstly, because any choice of location seems arbitrary to me. Ok we have a geographical centre of the land mass on earth. So what? The earth is a perfect sphere with no natural centre. Why should land mass be a key determinant? It seems a very materialist criteria to me. Where is the human factor here?

Change, Localised Time and Historical Cycles

Just reflect for a moment. What is an astrologer seeking to do with a system of astrological geodetics?

We seek to assign astrological signs to locations on earth correct? Nations and countries are human based and change over time. This is the problem with any fixed system of geodetics. In fact In the system you propose parts of the world will remain under the same astrological influence for millions of years. If I had to choose I would rather use a system like that of Sepharial/Grimm which at least assigns the prime meridian to one selected by our current world culture and human attitudes.

So my primary objection is the inflexibility of such a system.

Also astrology is ultimately not just about space but also time. Where is the time factor in this approach? You have conceded yourself nothing will change in your system until ?continental drift? literally moves continents over millions of years.

The problem is that things like people and even nations do not operate on a geological time frame! All life arises , decays and passes away. The astrological approach to history is cyclical and focuses on Empires and nations rising and then mutating or disappearing altogether. A system of fixed geodetics like one proposed by you leaves no room for this astrological insight.

Look at Italy? It was the site of the Roman Empire which was the most awesome military power in the ancient world in Europe, the Near East and North Africa. Yet in WWII modern Italians were seen as not having a heart for fighting. Unhappy with Mussolini?s Fascism thousands of Italians surrendered to inferior British forces in North Africa.

Or what of say Scandanavia homeland to the war like pagan culture of the Vikings? The Vikings were feared across Christian Europe for their savagery and lack of mercy in their marauding expeditions. Today Scandanavians are generally regarded as liberal, tolerant , and peaceful. Scandanavia arguably leads the world in its progrsssive attitudes to gender equality. Scandanavians are hardly at the forefront of military expanisionism today are they?

With a system of fixed geodetics we have no satisfactory explanation for this kind of dramatic cultural change. Fixed geodetics is a therefore a crude and unsatisfactory astrological tool.

The same objection arises with Ptolemy's system of astrological climatology where national characteristics are assessed on climate/geographical factors. The climate of Italy and Scandanavia haven't changed much over the last 1500 years but the culture of their inhabitants has.

Much better is to have a chart for a particular nation or dynasty. Moreover, as human institutions morph over time so do charts. Ptolemy never ruled out this kind of approach himself. Indeed he advocated it for founding of cities. So the notion of national charts has a background in the Tetrabiblos!

I personally, also like methods such as Astro-Cartography and Local Space Astrology which use a geodetic approach that is located in space and time.

Lihin wrote:

If one includes the Aegean Sea in the Ptolemaic centre of the world and consider it a zone rather than a point as Klaudios Ptolemaios evidently did inTetrabiblos, Book II, Section 3, Paragraph 3 quoted above, then the 'modern' centre determined geophysically lies in the central zone as defined by Ptolemy.

My working hypothesis is therefore:

Ptolemy's geographic and astronomical-astrological bases for mundane astrology have not - yet - been invalidated, for example by the discovery of new continents.

Like Margherita, I am not convinced that Ptolemy?s system was ever intended to be as precise as you suggest. Because he focuses on nations rather than exclusively geodetic points his approach seems more rough and ready than you seem willing to concede. So I still question whether there was ever intended to a rigid ?Ptolemaic Centre of the World? as you are proposing here.

Of course Ptolemy lacked the detailed geographical information we have today. So I concede that if he had possessed the kind of information we possess today he might have gone along with your logic here. We can only speculate really. I haven't read Ptolemy Geography yet. That might help inform this discussion better.

Mark

Good evening,

When opening the thread i attempted to ask a specific question that was not rhetorically intended. Perhaps my question was not stated clearly enough.

Our Moderator has on some occasions reprimanded your truly for drifting off topic. Has he exclusive rights to voice such reprimands?

Are the various methods of mundane astrology our Moderator has mentioned including Ptolemy's mutually exclusive? Methinks not.

Best regards,

lihin

Been a while since I checked in on this site, and being geographically inclined I was shocked by this question, because the center of mass is no where near the surface of the earth, however after thinking on it a while, I think the question is indeed mis understood, I think you are looking for the center of either human civilization origins, or of current civilization awareness.

Origins I could indeed see being in Mid East at least for what is easily discernible archeologically speaking. but for current human civilization I'd say that place (thankfully) has become irrelevant, and that knowledge is both more universally available and more universally stored. Not just electronically, but world wide there are more efforts to keep hard copy knowledge both secure and available. libraries public and private, data storage public and private. etc. so there are still wild places left, but no longer must you travel to Alexandria to study, unless you want to.

It is time I suspect for the Question to change.

Just a few thoughts on the topic. May Harmony find you.

Granny

Lihin wrote:

When opening the thread i attempted to ask a specific question that was not rhetorically intended. Perhaps my question was not stated clearly enough.

I dont know precisely what you are referring to about your question being 'not rhetorically intended' . Your question has hardly been ignored here.

In fact you have already had a fair amount of feedback. Margherita engaged with you and I have given you my personal objections to your theory. Actually, its my objection to any system of fixed geodetics not just yours. You did ask for objections did you not? Is the source of your frustration due to people failing to understand you or instead simply due to them disagreeing with you?

On the whole astrologers are a pragmatic bunch and like to look at such questions in a realistic way. So it would help comprehension of your theory if you provided a breakdown of how your proposed system of geodetics would look in terms of parts of the planet. What signs would rule which countries( or parts of them)? This would give people here something to grapple with.

Lihin wrote:

Our Moderator has on some occasions reprimanded your truly for drifting off topic. Has he exclusive rights to voice such reprimands?

On the mundane forum yes.

I have already discussed this on PM with with you Lihin. As I explained there if you are unhappy with a moderator decision you can appeal to Deborah Houlding who is the site owner here. Ultimately, we are all her guests on Skyscript here. Posting complaints on the open forum is not the way to go. This is not really a democracy where we take a straw poll of members views.

I dont get any pleasure having to wear my moderator hat here. Frankly, I have much better things to do with my time. I have been fortunate that in nearly 3 years as moderator here there have been relatively few occasions where I have had to intervene on mundane forum threads.

However, like it or not the moderator role does exist for a purpose. Like being a referee in a football match its a totally thankless task. I carry out this role in my own free time as a volunteer.

Lihin wrote:

Are the various methods of mundane astrology our Moderator has mentioned including Ptolemy's mutually exclusive? Methinks not.

I suspect I am more open minded on acceptable mundane techniques than you are. While I have a strong interest in traditional astrology I am open to any astrological approach. However, I do think any system of fixed geodetics has certain inherent difficulties. Having said that I looked at the history of this subject going back to Babylonioan astrology. I still find it interesting even if I question its practical utility.

Lihin wrote:

Our Moderator

Lihin you know already I take issue with your personal refusal to use my user name here on Skyscript. I dont appreciate being constantly referred to as 'our moderator'. I am a person and have the right to have my individuality recognised here. I am still a member of Skyscript like you are. I have already raised this with you privately since I regard it as uncivil and rude. The fact you appear to resent my style of moderation is irrelevant. Its basic courtesy. Please use my user name when referring to me in future.

Thanks

Mark

Good evening,

The original study with the worksheets, alas, is still missing although i tried to find it. 'Land masses' was probably a misnomer based on imprecise usage of a geophysical expression. 'Land surfaces' would perhaps have been better. My apologies.

My understanding was that the centre of the land surfaces at the surface of the earth, excluding oceans and seas, was calculated to be at the point cited in the first post. Probably the calculation assumed no elevation differences but unless we find the original study we do not know.

Once again, no thank you, although i have no objections to various symbolic determinations of the 'centre of the world' used ex. gr. occasionally in metaphysic, this was definitely not the object of my query.

Even if we were to arrive at the conclusion that Klaudios Ptotomaios' concept expressed in the quotation above has not lost basic validity and that the current geographic centre is relatively close to his, we should nevertheless have to re-evaluate for example the size of the 'central region', a horizontal oval with reversed sign attributions. (One of the French translations of Tetrabiblos in my library has a detailed map.) There would also be several questions related to the movements and spreading of tribes and peoples having meanwhile occurred.

Best regards,

lihin

Good morning,

Had i entered 'geographical centre', i should have found the sought data. There is no substitute for precise use of vocabulary - an oft repeated lesson once again etched into my feeble brain.

Here is a link that, had i sought the correct word, might have appeared at the outset of this thread:

Geographical centre of Earth

The coordinates of the geographical centre of the world according to the study of 2003 CE are:

40?52?N 34?34?E

This is between Iskilip and Osmancik, Turkey, not far from the Black Sea.

Perhaps Ms Granny Skot will kindly comment the study and let us know if more accurate data has become available during the past decade.

Compared to Klaudious Ptolomaios' centre in his Tetrabiblos given in a prior post in this thread, we are about 4.5 degrees further north and 3 degrees further west but still within Ptolemy's 'central zone'.

Does everyone agree that the 'geographical centre' referenced in the link in this post is 'scientific', neither 'mythological' nor 'arbitrary'?

Best regards,

lihin

hi lihin,

what do you plan on doing with the info from an astrological point of view?

good to know while i was in turkey i passed thru the 'geographical centre' of the earth.. i seem to remember stopping for gas and taking pictures of farmers picking potatoes and onions near Osmancik, Turkey.. it is beautiful country side and the people are wonderful..

The Geographical Centre of Earth is the geometric centre of all land surfaces on Earth.

where would we be without water?

i still think it is arbitrary..