Skyscript Astrology Forum

Therese Hamilton wrote: That was Sari's suggestion, Paul. All we can deduce from Valens' description of the signs is that he linked some traits to the ruling planets. I believe today it's best to study modern charts with detailed biographies if we want to investigate sign traits.

Sorry I might have missed it, but I've not seen anyone called Sari post on this thread.
Can you remind me where these posts were on this thread?

Mark posted Sari's quote from a previous thread in one of his messages. It's back there somewhere on one of the recent pages. If you start scanning previous pages from this one, you'll find the quote. My computer connection is too slow to do the scanning myself.

Konrad wrote:

....since the beginning of this thread I have decided to use Sidereal for the time being to see where it takes me which is why I'm so keen to see others delineate charts using the Sidereal and why I'm getting a little p'd off with having to read why it doesn't work or why Tropical is better whenever someone does post some delineations.

Anyway, whatever, I will leave it at that until the moment comes where we can focus on chart delineation again.

Yes I can actually see the source of your frustration. I thought the comparison of charts in both zodiacs was interesting myself. Not from the point of view of trying to compete or prove the superiority of one approach over the other but rather demonstrating the process of delineation in both zodiacs. For the record I do think both zodiacs can 'work' but not necessarily for the same people!

This topic has thrown up various issues. The discussion on the origin of the zodiac and the role (or not) or seasonal factors in this. The issue of whether sign meanings have changed in astrology.

There is also a new forum issue about the role of siderealism in the traditional forum itself. Especially, relating to a practical delineation thread like this was originally supposed to be.

In the years I have participated on Skyscript we have never had anything like enough traditional siderealists to sustain a thread looking at delineation. I am not clear that situation has fundamentally changed even now. Still maybe this thread represents a shift in that situation. In which case it is maybe more realistic to run a siderealist only thread. As a tropicalist myself its naturally difficult to delineate a chart with full gusto sidereally since as I dont personally identify with that approach.

So maybe I and other tropicalists here need to learn to respect the right of our siderealist colleagues to delineate their charts in peace. In turn I think we all need to avoid making sweeping statements about the validity of a zodiac we dont personally utilise. Without that I think any delineation thread is unlikely to have a quiet life for long. It is more even more contentious when historical issues are raised about one zodiac versus another. This probably has its place in a thread specifically devoted to just that. However, in my opinion a delineation thread should be just that from the outset with minimal theoretical introduction. In short just charts and delineation without any meta agenda.

Usually, a delineation thread invites all members to chip in with their insights. However, with the vast majority of our members here tropical that is difficult. For example, for years there has been a very popular delineation feature known as 'Mystery chart' where different astrologers contribute their views on a chart. Have we got to the point where a chart should be displayed in both zodiacs now? Or should we accept certain threads must be allowed to operate from an assumed sidereal or tropical approach? I would be interested in the views of Deb and the traditional forum moderator Tom Callanan on this.

Finally, and most certainly not least this thread has raised a most interesting philosophical issue. More than one person has commented that astrological delineation relies on the consciousness of the astrologer. If we sincerely believe both zodiacs 'work' then what are the implications for our view of astrology itself? I do think this gets into territory raised by Geoffrey Cornelius in his excellent book ?The Moment of Astrology?. One analogy that has come to mind looking over this thread is what the physicists call the Copenhagen interpretation.

To quote Wikipedia:
The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics. It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities which fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. According to the interpretation, the act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature of the mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse. The essential concepts of the interpretation were devised by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in the years 1924?27.

In other words our perception as a participant is shaping how we describe and understand reality. Rather like those perception tests we can look at the picture and see an old woman or young woman but we cannot perceive both simultaneously. As astrologers we need to move away from literalist thinking. I think this is a useful concept to keep in mind for any area of disagreement in our astrology.

Mark

Mark wrote:

To quote Wikipedia:
The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics. It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities which fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. According to the interpretation, the act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature of the mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse. The essential concepts of the interpretation were devised by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in the years 1924?27.

In other words our perception as a participant is shaping how we describe and understand reality. Rather like those perception tests we can look at the picture and see an old woman or young woman but we cannot perceive both simultaneously. As astrologers we need to move away from literalist thinking. I think this is a useful concept to keep in mind for any area of disagreement in our astrology.

Mark

Yes Mark, this is something I have slowly awakened to - the idea that the observer almost manipulates its own reality whether consciously or not and the very act of observing something, affects it outcome - though I did not have the label to describe it as you have. It is something that I am still trying to reconcile with my experiences of astrology but I seem to remember a few astrologers here saying they would always seem to get a similar type of client in their work with similar configurations and debilities in their charts or people asking the same sorts of things in their consultations. Kinda flies in the face of my previous thoughts that fate is as solid as a rock but I was relinquishing those anyway.

Paul wrote:

Sorry I might have missed it, but I've not seen anyone called Sari post on this thread. Can you remind me where these posts were on this thread?

Sari never posted here. Instead I quoted her argument from a post she made here several years ago in a long forgottten thread.

Sari was a Finnish siderealist and had the user name Papretis on Skyscript. She eventually decided to give up astrology entirely as she felt it conflicted with the teachings of her faith (Eastern Orthodox).

I always enjoyed Sari's contribution here. I wish her well whatever she is doing these days. I have been reluctant to post up the thread partly as its very scrappy and really all over the place. You thought this one was bad?

Plus from a selfish point of view I was rather slow on the uptake in grasping Sari's idea correctly. Like you I got my signs muddled!

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=45

Mark

Have we got to the point where a chart should be displayed in both zodiacs now?

I've stayed out any direct comment on sidereal astrology and comparing it to tropical for the simple reason that I have no interest in the sidereal zodiac at all. In fact in all the time I've been at Skyscript, since the beginning, I don't even recall a discussion of it in any of the forums. It's probably been mentioned a few times as has Cyril Fagan's name, but there has been a notable lack of overall interest.

Mark I know that you're only musing, but I don't see any reason at all to begin displaying both zodiacs as a matter of routine. The discussion of traditional techniques using a sidereal zodiac is not out of place on the traditional forum, but it does not follow that we need to do double duty. I mean if we should display both zodiacs, it only follows that we should delineate in both. If someone wants to cast a sidereal chart and, using traditional techniques say , "Hey look at this!" I don't have a problem with that being posted here. But the onus is on the sidereal astrologer.

In general I would prefer that, should anyone desire to do so, that they should discuss sidereal astrology in the General Nativities section. People can post any chart they want to and as long as they identify the zodiac and house system the discussion can proceed along those lines with anyone who is interested. But for those who wish to use only tropical astrology, that is their prerogative as well.

I've promised myself to re-institute the mystery chart in the traditional section soon and I'll only post the tropical chart.

So maybe I and other tropicalists here need to learn to respect the right of our siderealist colleagues to delineate their charts in peace.

There are two points here and in neither one am I referring to anyone here. First, to reiterate what I said above, in the Traditional Forum I have no problem with using traditional techniques and a sidereal zodiac. However it does not follow that any member be required to respond or participate in such a discussion. There are very few astrologers who practice this way and I would be surprised if there would be much interest in it. I could be wrong about that, but it is up to the poster to attract interest. It's not up to others to participate out a sense of fairness.

Should this happen the same rules are going to apply as were discussed in this thread. The purpose is discussion and learning, not establishing superiority. Secondly disagreement is not the same as disrespect. One of the reasons I've avoided learning anything about sidereal is the insistence of the sidereal astrologers I've met that I'm doing everything wrong. As a method of driving people away this cannot be bettered. Astrology has a rich history and we are fortunate to be living at a time when so much of it has been made available to us. But there is only so much time and only so much that can be studied in that time.

The Traditional Forum was established as kind of a safe haven for traditionalists to discuss their favorite subject without interference from modern critics trying to establish their superiority. I don't want sidereal astrology to be a back door for that sort of thing.

Tom wrote:

Mark I know that you're only musing, but I don't see any reason at all to begin displaying both zodiacs as a matter of routine.

Hi Tom,

That wasn't exactly my point. Of course it would be thoroughly impractical to do this as a matter of course. I was only discussing the mystery chart feature.

I mean in mystery charts we have people using all kinds of house systems, lots, and delineation approaches. They come from hellenistic, Persian/Arab, Latin European and Early modern astrology. So why not another zodiac for traditionalists that work that way? The task is to accurately identify a person's characteristics or key life events. One can presumably tackle that traditionally from either a tropical or sidereal approach.

More generally, what about classical Indian astrology? That is pre-1700 too.

I should say this is not a burning issue for me personally. I just wondered if the current approach needs a review in light of more siderealist members participating here? Having said that you may have a point on numbers. Apart from Martin Gansten, Therese Hamilton and Konrad I am not aware of any other traditionalists working exclusively with the sidereal zodiac on Skyscript. Maybe they are out there but I haven't seen them. Its an open question I am raising to invite the views of forum members.

Mark

I'm not in favour of attempting to present chart forms in different formats, because I don't think it is practical. However I have no problem with any contributor incorporating graphics to show the chart in their own style. Published books and magazines don't try to cater to all approaches in their chart graphics so it seems a lot to ask of an informal forum which is moderated by a small team of volunteers. Astrodata uses its own 'wiki-style' (tropical zodiac; Placidus cusps) which works for whole-sign advocates too if they look at the sign cusps and ignore the internal lines. For a specifically sidereal discussion the chart should be in the sidereal zodiac of course.

If members want to have an area where only sidereal (or Vedic, or Chinese, or whatever) systems of astrology are explored free from analogy to other systems and approaches it would be quite easy for me to set up a new area of the forum that can be dedicated to discussion and practical examples of those systems. I don't suppose that they would throb with activity to begin with but I am happy to try it out if anyone here would like that.

That wasn't exactly my point.

I understand that which is why I said I knew you were just musing or thinking out loud. But in general I agree with Deb. If enough people are interested in sidereal, and it isn't much of a problem, then put up a Forum for it. Who knows? Skyscript might attract some new blood and we'll all benefit from that.

Tom wrote:

Skyscript might attract some new blood and we'll all benefit from that.

Indeed that would be good. In the last year we have lost quite a few knowledgeable traditional forum regulars for varying reasons.

Mark

Mark wrote:

If we are discussing western traditional astrology the suggestion that tropical astrologers have 'tried to remove the emphasis on the stars contained within the signs, yes' is a nice sounding reposte but grotesquely inaccurate.

Traditional western tropical astrology has always retained a clear sidereal perspective.

Martin wrote:

I think you are grasping at straws here. Using the individual fixed stars is one thing, describing the signs according to the stars present in them is another. The latter is only possible in a conceptually sidereal zodiac.

Hello Martin,

I really dont feel the need to grasp at any straws Martin. As I see it all I am attempting to do here is introduce a necessary historical balance to your original comment. Your latest reply contains a perfect definition of sidereal astrology. In that intellectual court tropical astrology will always be found inadequate in siderealist eyes because it is based on a fundamentally different paradigm of what 'signs' are. As a tropicalist I have no embarrasment in acknowledging the tropical zodiac is based on the solar seasonal cycle not fixed stars. Nevertheless your original comment does misrepresent traditional tropical astrology somewhat in suggesting it has deliberately removed stars and constellations entirely from consideration. Numerous traditional authors give consideration to both individual fixed stars and the paranatellonta. Of course tropical astrology is variable and some astrologers work more closely with the stars and constellations than others. However, as this is the traditional forum we should be judging the issue by reference to practice described in these traditional texts not modernist tropical astrology. None of this is to deny that the primary focus of tropical astrology is not sidereal. Nevertheless, there remains an important sidereal dimension in the astrological practice of many traditional tropicalists. Its just not 'sidereal' in the way you and other 'sidereal astrologers' choose to define it. To be specific the sidereal dimension of tropical astrology is based on fixed stars and unequal sized constellations not equal sized sidereal signs.

Mark

I believe Martin's considerations relate to the fact that many of the earlier conditions relate directly to fixed stars positioned within the 30 degree divisions of signs. Such as the beginning of Aries: "Aries is by nature, watery, with thunder and hail," etc. If you look at a map of the sky with sidereal boundaries drawn in, you see that the entire first part of Aries contains a big part of the constellation of Pisces including the primary "knot," Alrisha, and the long cord of the northern fish and the fish itself.

Obviously a "watery" Aries doesn't correlate with its designation of fiery. Tropical astrologers today use the fixed stars in their work, but these are constantly changing degrees with precession, and don't have their initial influences in the signs. So they are no longer used to describe the signs themselves. Also the sign of Aries (in ancient times) contained the major part of Cetus, the sea monster. So Hellenistic Aries can indeed be called "watery" if we look at the totality of the sky.