Skyscript Astrology Forum

PFN wrote: Anyway, given the way things are, either Ptolemy is wrong, or the system is incorrect, or usage of non shifted signs on the southern hemisphere is. OR, there is something at play here that we can not quite grasp yet.

For me, there is something we cannot grasp, and nobody is really wrong

margherita

Eddy wrote:Seasonal change is related to height so we should rather look at the height of the Sun. We have two coordinate systems at our disposal, equatorial (with right ascension and declination) and the horizontal/azimuthal coordinate system. The latter is how we directly experience the seasons and day and night. Sun is low in the East and highest in the South (at the Northern hemisphere) and goes down again. This causes the differences in temperature during the day and the differences in the year is that the highest position of the Sun in Summer (for London for example) is 62? and the lowest in winter at 15?. Another effect of this is the length of the day. Here we rather look at the equatorial positions when the Sun moves parallel with the equator with long days in Summer and short days in Winter.

I don?t follow this Eddy. As I understand it, it took a long time for ancient astronomers to gather an exact knowledge of the ecliptic, but everything they did before hand was influenced (to some extent) by the need to obtain this. And once they had it, everything else flowed into easier development and understanding, because the ecliptic embeds the required knowledge of the equator (it is defined by its intersecting points). The ecliptic needed to be developed before anyone could have the reliable means to plot planetary positions in advance. The equator was of no use in this respect because the planetary cycles don?t follow the circle of the equator, they follow the circle of the Sun. And the seasonal information ? which was an absolutely essential thing in the ancient world ? was gathered out of knowledge of the Sun?s circle (the helical risings and settings are some of the pointers that lead towards it). This is why Gavin White?s discussion of the Babylonian constellations shows so much seasonal and solar symbolism at the heart of the myths and representations.

to my view any seasonal meaning can't be derived from celestial longitude whether taking latitude into account or not. The Sun for instance is always of latitude 0?, yet as the Sun proceeds through the zodiac the seasons and (except on the equator) the length of days change.

The point about the ecliptic is that it is fixed upon the Sun?s alternating height as it progresses throughout the solar year, and so it shows the seasonal meaning implicitly. Once discovered, the only additional factor required is the knowledge of time. That?s why the zodiac allows for a mathematical division of the area behind the Sun?s path, whereas the visible constellations don?t. Also, just so you realise, because many people don?t, the principles that attract you so much to Kepler?s work (mathematical geometry, musical harmonies, etc) are philosophical principles that the symbolic use of the tropical zodiac relies upon. Both champion the practical and symbolic understanding of the mathematical division of the circle. Kepler didn?t develop this, he refined it (partly necessary because the world view was changing). I personally feel that the seasonal symbolism is impregnated into the circle, and the constellations, and it integrates so effectively with all the other symbolic philosophies that everything comes together in this meaningful mathematical circle. However, I can understand why others could have a hard time with that.

To me, it?s not a ?make or break? point for astrology because the planetary relationships are more important and the zodiac is only one of the means available to approach an understanding of them. In fact, I secretly applaud your methods of investigation because I think it is good for someone to be exploring this with an independent view of how things might work globally without any acknowledgement of seasonal effect ? and especially without consideration of the astrological dignities. For example ? the Mars-Saturn sextile: what does this mathematical relationship mean purely in its own terms, without any of the symbolic loadings of dignities and debilities? That is one area where I see astrological symbolism potentially standing in the way of an enhanced understanding of pure celestial effect.

Regards
Deb

PS ? I am about to publish the last section of Gavin White?s Babylonian Zodiac. I think it would be great to start a discussion specifically about some of the points he covers, as the forum hasn?t given him any direct feedback on his research (which is a little interesting in itself).

This is not exact. Reversing signs for southern hemisphere is Cardano and Campanella method, which are not modern astrologers.

Thanks Margherita. I dont know how I got Gauricus involved in this!

Did they both propose reversing signs though? I thought one of them suggested reversing dignities instead? In modern times this latter suggestion has been made by the Irish astrologer Maurice McCann in his book The Sun and the Aspects.

It can be obtained from Midheaven Astrology in London online:

http://www.midheavenbooks.com/

At only ?6.95(!) Its a real bargain as the book discusses various other issues of interest to traditional astrologers.

They based their idea on Ptolemy thought. Because for Ptolemy- I wrote many times, so forgive me for repetition- signs are just portions of ecliptics, which in turn is the annual path of the Sun, so Sun is very important here. Nothing to share with sidereal zodiac

You go on to state:

Anyway, given the way things are, either Ptolemy is wrong, or the system is incorrect, or usage of non shifted signs on the southern hemisphere is. OR, there is something at play here that we can not quite grasp yet.

That seems to cover all the options! So do you follow this 'Ptolemaic' logic in your own astrology? Do you reverse signs or dignities in charts from the southern hemisphere?

This was basically an academic discussion for astrologers like Cardano, Campanella or Morinus. However, its a very practical issue today not just for astrologers in the southern hemisphere but for anyone who travels there or considers nativities or mundane charts from this part of the world. Fence sitting is clearly not a viable proposition today!

MarkC wrote: Did they both propose reversing signs though? I thought one of them suggested reversing dignities instead?

It's the same. I can call the Libra the zodiacal sign following the Spring Equinox or say that Aries is the house of Venus and Saturn.

Moreover it's Morin method which is "reversed" because we should add 12 to the standard method and then reversing the cusps of the houses.
This is what a standard software does.

That seems to cover all the options!

Yes, because I understand the astronomical logic in reversing signs but in practice Southern astrologers have good results without reversing.

So do you follow this 'Ptolemaic' logic in your own astrology? Do you reverse signs or dignities in charts from the southern hemisphere?

I'm happy to live in the northern part of the world
I have very little experience with Southern charts, but in CieloeTerra, following Ptolemy logic, they teach to reverse.

This was basically an academic discussion for astrologers like Cardano, Campanella or Morinus

I don't agree.
In 1511 for Agostino Chigi wonderful villa with its unique zodiacal ceiling, Raphael painted all the sort of fruits and flowers from the New World- in different times of their growth.
It was possible because Agostino had tomatoes and potatoes and American flowers in his gardens on Tiber banks and Raphael could see them in different seasons of the year.

America was discovered in 1492, hardly 20 years before Raphael was painting his Lodge. And Campanella and Morin lived in 1600.
They surely met people from the Antipodes and Morin gives some example charts too together with the method is in use now.

margherita

It's the same. I can call the Libra the zodiacal sign following the Spring Equinox or say that Aries is the house of Venus and Saturn.

I dont agree. It has different consequences as I pointed out in my post above. If you reverse the signs you effectively create two zodiacs in the two hemispheres. Thus the Moon in Scorpio becomes the Moon in Taurus in the opposing hemisphere. Astrologers are not therefore able to even agree what sign a planet is in! However, the meaning of the signs and planets is unchanged in the separate hemispheres. Reversing dignities avoids a 'bicameral astrology' but of course the traditional linkage between the planets and their dignities is completely lost. We have the same problem of charts on the equator in either approach.

Do you know how CieloeTerra deal with the problem of equatorial charts?

I don't agree.
In 1511 for Agostino Chigi wonderful villa with its unique zodiacal ceiling, Raphael painted all the sort of fruits and flowers from the New World- in different times of their growth.
It was possible because Agostino had tomatoes and potatoes and American flowers in his gardens on Tiber banks and Raphael could see them in different seasons of the year.

America was discovered in 1492, hardly 20 years before Raphael was painting his Lodge. And Campanella and Morin lived in 1600.
They surely met people from the Antipodes and Morin gives some example charts too together with the method is in use now.

In a strictly pedantic sense you are right. However, not all the 'New World' was in the southern hemisphere and much of southern hemisphere was still unsettled in 1600. I concede though Spanish and Portguse settlement came much earlier. Pizarro did not found Lima until 1533 but the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire was not completed until 1572. While countries like Brazil were claimed by Portugal in 1500 it was not really settled much until the late 1520's. Many astrologers even in 1600 probably chose to avoid this problem. Still, I accept it would be more difficult for those from Spain or Portugal to ignore with their possessions like Chile, Peru, Argentina and Brazil in the southern hemisphere.

English speaking settlements in the southern hemisphere came much later with British settlement of Australia starting as late as 1788. The first Dutch settlers did not arrive in South Africa until 1652 while British settlement only began in earnest in South Africa after the end of the Napoleonic wars in the 19th century. In New Zealand significant British settlement only began after 1840 when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between the British Crown and the Maori chiefs.

In the modern world though I dont really know how you can avoid confronting this issue today. In the English speaking world there are lots of celebrities from countries like Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Equally, as an Italian surely you come across the charts of people from Argentina? I thought millions of Italians emigrated there?

MarkC wrote:Do you know how CieloeTerra deal with the problem of equatorial charts?

Unfortunately not. I know there are some researches in progress, I will ask...

English speaking settlements in the southern hemisphere came much later with British settlement of Australia starting as late as 1788.

Why this should be important? Morin was already in touch with people born in the Southern hemisphere and like him many Italian astrologers...
You would be surprised to know how many contacts were between New World and the Old Europe since the discovery of America.
Technologies and information went very fast even in the past- even without considering Great Britain or her ex-colonies

I dont really know how you can avoid confronting this issue today. In the English speaking world there are lots of celebrities from countries like Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Equally, as an Italian surely you come across the charts of people from Argentina? I thought lots of Italians emigrated there?

I swear I almost never cast a chart from Southern hemisphere.
Some soccer champions who are very famous here like Pel?, Maradona, Ronaldo or actors like Russel Crowe.
Europe is far even from Anglosaxon world, imagine from Australia....I swear I never heard talking about Tiger Woods, before see astrologers discuss his case.

margherita

Why this should be important? Morin was already in touch with people born in the Southern hemisphere and like him many Italian astrologers... You would be surprised to know how many contacts were between New World and the Old Europe since the discovery of America.
Technologies and information went very fast even in the past- even without considering Great Britain or her ex-colonies

Your falling into the trap of linking the 'New World' with the southern hemisphere! Remember, all of North America, Central America, the Caribbean, and settlements such as Colombia and Venezuala were in the northern hemisphere.

However, the Portugese, and Spanish settlements of places like Brazil, Peru, Chile, Argentina obviously must have had an impact on the intellectual climate in Europe. I am not denying that.

In the modern world you simply have to look at this. We are talking about most of South America, southern Africa, Indonesia, Pacific islands, and Australia and New Zealand.

Incidentally. here is a link sumarising countries in the southern hemisphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Hemisphere

Apparently, the population of the southern hemisphere is around 10-12% of the global total. This means the southern hemisphere population is approximately 680 million-820 million. It therefore, probably exceeds the population of Europe.

The epicentre of the Tsunami of December 2004 was very close to the Equator. 3'0 North I believe. What would you have done if the Tsunami had occured a few degrees south of this? You surely wouldn't ignore such a chart just because it was south of the equator?

Your falling into the trap of linking the New World with the southern hemisphere! Remember, all of North America, Central America, the Caribbean, and settlements such as Colombia and Venezuala were in the northern hemisphere.

I know where is California, obviously.
I just meant that luckily I don't have many opportunities to cast Southern charts- because we don't know so many famous people coming from Australia or other regions in the Southern hemisphere.
Maybe some South American soccer champions...

margherita

Hi Deb,

I'm not sure if I understand where you don't follow that part you quoted. In several articles and books on the history of Babylonian astrology I've read that first there was the perception of Sun, Moon, planets and stars moving along 'paths' of Ea, Anu and Enlil, lowest, middle and highest respectively. These paths are equator oriented, only later the ecliptic was going to be used as reference. This occurred somewhere between 700 and 600 BC. If the exaltations where meant to be related to the lowest, middle and highest places then the original meaning would be equatorial. I still agree with your reply of the last post with the origin of the symbolism related to the constellations where the Sun happened to be during the seasons but as I understand it the notition of positioning of planets must have gone like "Moon was in the path of Enlil close to this or that star, let's say Castor/Pollux in the (constellation) Gemini".

Deb wrote:The point about the ecliptic is that it is fixed upon the Sun?s alternating height as it progresses throughout the solar year, and so it shows the seasonal meaning implicitly

That last word "implicitly" is essential. The cause of the seasons is by the height of the Sun. Related to the height is always a certain point on the ecliptic, but to me that's secondary. With Sun in 0?Cancer we know that Summer begins (on Northern hemisphere latitudes in the temperate zone), but inherent to this position is the fact that the Sun is 23,5? north of the celestial equator, hence the days are longest and the height is highest and hence the period is going to be warm.

However, with the Moon and planets there is another thing. Since they have latitude the highest position above the equator and thus the longest period above the horizon doesn't always coincide with 0? Cancer. Pluto gives the worst results, if I may quote myself:

When a planet has a big inclination (towards the ecliptic) like Pluto (17?) the differences can be huge. Around 1914 Pluto was just entering Cancer but had a declination of just +18?. only to reach maximum of less than +24? some 30 years later, while Pluto was in 10 Leo.

,from this thread, where maximum declinations were discussed. But also the Moon plays such games with us. With an inclination of 5? to the ecliptic the highest place of the Moon will be either somewhere in Gemini or in Cancer. The extremes will occur when the North Node of the Moon is close to the solstices as is these years.

Here's an example:
I used http://www.ephemeris.com/goto.php for the calculations.

This is when the Moon enters Cancer:

Date/Time: 2011.06.30 16:13:00 UTC (GMT - Delta T), JD = 2455743.175694
Sidereal Time: 10:46:32, Delta T = 70.4 seconds
Geocentric positions

Phase of Moon: 0.977 (0.000=New; 0.250=First 1/4; 0.500=Full; 0.750=Last 1/4)

Planet Longitude Latitude Right Asc. Declination
Sun 08 Cnc 32'37" - 0?00'00" 06:37:12 23?09'43"
Moon 00 Cnc 00'08" - 0?36'01" 06:00:01 22?50'14"
Moon's Node 23 Sgr 28'14"R 0?00'00" 17:31:33 -23?16'35"

But when you look at this, you see that the Moon is at her highest when around 18? Gemini.

Date/Time: 2011.06.29 17:30:00 UTC (GMT - Delta T), JD = 2455742.229167
Sidereal Time: 11:59:48, Delta T = 70.4 seconds
Geocentric positions

Phase of Moon: 0.945 (0.000=New; 0.250=First 1/4; 0.500=Full; 0.750=Last 1/4)

Planet Longitude Latitude Right Asc. Declination
Sun 07 Cnc 38'26" - 0?00'00" 06:33:16 23?13'01"
Moon 17 Gem 42'00" 0?31'52" 05:06:19 23?23'50"
Moon's Node 23 Sgr 28'15" 0?00'00" 17:31:33 -23?16'35"

This all comes close to the question of how astrology works. If it is by height then the concept of a 'point' on the ecliptic where the planets are highed becomes rather blurred. For the Moon it osculates between 18? Gemini and 12? Cancer. Now we know that the heat of the planets can impossibly affect the temperatures like the Sun does, this will be difficult to accept.

Another possibility is letting the Sun being the leading principle and treat the planets as having always 0? latitude. Could be but this still leaves us with the problem of the different climates not only between North and South hemisphere but also equatorial and polar etc.

In that case I would state that if a seasonal meaning of the zodiac is essential, this should give a different meaning for every place on Earth according to the local circumstances. I'm not sure about this and won't reject it at first hand, I still would find it better than using the same meanings everywhere.

For example ? the Mars-Saturn sextile: what does this mathematical relationship mean purely in its own terms, without any of the symbolic loadings of dignities and debilities? That is one area where I see astrological symbolism potentially standing in the way of an enhanced understanding of pure celestial effect.

One problem with just using the planets and aspects is that it's more difficult to give it a meaning. What I've usually done in natal charts and what I'm trying now with weather is not to try to fill in the meaning but trying to discover the meaning of the natal planets through transits. It's still difficult though but this 'loose' approach gives a broad 'discretionary power' (using a legal term here). The sextile may not be entirely good but sometimes unpleasant. This might seem pure guesswork but same could be said of the use of signs. A square aspect in certain signs could be worse through the positions of the planets according to rulerships. However looking the position in the terms could make it less worse again. When for example an astrologer sees this difficult aspect confirmed in some difficult experiences in life of the owner of the chart, I think the astrologer will be less inclined to mention the mitigating terms. If the experiences wouldn't be that bad then I think the astrologer will attribute this to the mitigating effect of the terms. Another approach but still a kind of discretionary space and according to other th?s would be seen as the guesswork. When I read Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos book I, I get the impression that he wasn't really enthusiast about the terms (and other divisions of the signs). About the sextile, Kepler related the trine to the fifth
(in music) and the sextile to the fifth plus an octave but also to the (major?) third. Fifths (and thirds) are pleasant sounds in music and hence the mild effect of the sextile. If I think about the weather of these weeks the cold is there but the weather is quite stable, perhaps this is due to the sextile, in contrast with December's semi-square.

Gjiada wrote:

MarkC wrote: Did they both propose reversing signs though? I thought one of them suggested reversing dignities instead?

It's the same. I can call the Libra the zodiacal sign following the Spring Equinox or say that Aries is the house of Venus and Saturn.

I agree with Margherita. It's the same, unless special meaning is to be given to the pictoral signs; like noble lions as kings, aggressive rams willing to fight with their horns, social twins etc. Although some astrologers give importance to the pictures, I think that there are many other astrologers that don't use the signs this way and that they are just names.

_______________

Now I see that just like yesterday two hours have passed writing this post, I'll have to excuse myself because I have to spend more time on studying. Perhaps I'll have more time in the weekends or I'll write shorter posts during the week. But probably then I'm afraid of omitting essential things, and thinking over these costs me lots of time. I'm sorry, because this is a very interesting discussion, but I feel that I have to spend less time on the forum.

So in short how I personally see the problem:
- The symbolical astrology and natural astrology meaning of the signs in the zodiac (both the sidereal and tropical) have their origin in the seasons;
- While I don't exclude any seasonal effect, I think that those meanings should thus be different at different locations;
- Using the equinoxes as 'nodes' which can receive aspects by planets would solve a lot of these technical problems. However I realise that the pure geometrical approach would turn the whole in a skeleton, a body stripped of its flesh. And believe me, constantly thinking with pure geometry in the head sometimes can drive me a bit crazy.

I too need some 'fillings', that's why I feel sympathy for the second option, and probably mixing it with the third option.
Baking cakes with similar shapes
local products, trying the lucks,
millet in Italy, with herbs from Toscany,
or with oats in Scotland, and a nice shot of blend.

I agree with Margherita. It's the same, unless special meaning is to be given to the pictoral signs; like noble lions as kings, aggressive rams willing to fight with their horns, social twins etc. Although some astrologers give importance to the pictures, I think that there are many other astrologers that don't use the signs this way and that they are just names.

I hate to be stubborn here ( who me?) but I still disagree with you both because I believe you are neglecting some of the practical implications here.

Margherita stated:

I can call the Libra the zodiacal sign following the Spring Equinox or say that Aries is the house of Venus and Saturn

You seem to be assuming all the dignities are reversed in both approaches? Not everyone advocating a reversal of dignities supports this. For example, Maurice McCann only supports this for the domicile rulerships not the exaltations or minor dignities.

So in McCann's proposed system rulership/detriment dignities are reversed but not exaltations etc. So in a chart for Sydney, Australia which has Sun in Aquarius and Moon in Taurus McCann suggests the Sun would be in its sign of rulership while the Moon would still be exalted in Taurus.

A key issue is what we decide to do with the exaltations and minor dignities. In a simple reversal of signs there is no disconnection between traditional symbolism of the signs or planets. When you reverse dignities you have the challenge of the Moon being in its sign of rulership in Capricorn or the Sun being in its sign of rulership in Aquarius. This contradicts the traditional meaning of the signs and planets in a way that reversing the signs does not. While this might seem inconsequential to some it does challenge the way most astrologers practically work today.

Moreover, while reversing all dignities makes sense in a reversed chart it is less clear cut in a chart where just the dignities are changed. As noted above one can make a strong case ( ala Ptolemy), for the link between the domicile rulerships and the seasonal cycles in the southern hemisphere. However, it is much less axiomatic that this seasonal difference should justify a change of exaltation and rulers and minor dignities. So I really do think there are some key differences that you are both missing between reversed signs and dignities.

Irrespective of all this though you have what I see as the total confusion of equatoriial charts to resolve. Lets say I am born in Nairobi, Kenya which has a latitude of 1 25 South or Quito in Ecuador, which has a latitude of 00?15'South. Does this mean the effects of the relevant zodiac sign or dignity is weaker in these places because of the less distinct seasons due to solar declination? Surely this is major theoretical and practical problem for anyone advocating a reversal of signs or dignities? For example, if you have Venus in Taurus from either of these locations in a chart with reversed signs should this be regarded as weaker in influence than a chart outside the equator? The problem of equatorial charts is the killer argument against such suggestions as I see it.

I think that what we need is a philosofical answer rather than a thecnical one. And so far, I feel both frontiers failed to deliver.

As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I do not consider that there is an essential (ie, fundamental) connection between signs and the seasons, except of a cultural historical nature where ancient peoples assigned the seasons to the qualities of the various signs. After studying the various works on the subject of constellations and signs (one of which works is cited in this thread) I also (personally) remain completely unconvinced that the signs arose out of the constellational imaginings of certain ancient cultures.

If we consider the humoral (elemental) affinities of the signs of the equinoxes and solstices, and then compare these to the humoral qualities of each season they supposedly initiate, we find no resemblance:
+in all of the historical Western (4 element) humoral models, the following allocations are to be found:
-Spring: moist + warm (Air)
-Summer: dry + warm (Fire)
-Autumn: dry + cool (Earth)
-Winter: moist + cool (Water)
Now, what are the humoral qualities associated with the relevant signs?
-Aries ("Spring" equinox): Fire = dry + warm
-Cancer ("Summer" solstice): Water = moist + cold
-Libra ("Autumnal" equinox): Air = moist + warm
-Capricorn ("Winter" solstice): Earth = dry + cold
There is virtually no elemental correlations of these signs and the "seasons" they are allegedly connected with.
-As a note of interest, when we look at sign/element/season allocations in the Southern hemisphere, we actually do find 2 connections:
-Winter, ushered in with the Cancer solstice (sign and humoral quality of season match)
-Spring, ushered in with Libra equinox (sign and humoral quality of season match)
...so, did the signs actually originate (in pre-history) in the Southern hemisphere?? Well, I doubt this and I believe these 2 Southern hemisphere sign/element/season affinities are merely co-incidental.

I do not believe we may simply dismiss the elemental allocations: we find them to be integral in all the traditionally established systems of astrology (and "quasi-astrology"): Western, Vedic, Chinese (the latter actually composed of a number of varying systems/ models of macrocosmic analysis)

As I mentioned above, I personally (at least as of this time) consider the signs to be meaningful divisions of the varying qualities of the pleroma of space, and as such are "generals"; and therefore not themselves being subject to the particular effects (such as weather/seasons) occuring "in their wake".

+PS: it could just be that this whole matter of macrocosmic analysis-"astrology"-whether Western, Vedic, or the various Chinese models, Mahabote, etc, etc,-is a Whole System model, like, for example, Ayurvedic Medicine, Chinese Medicine/Acupuncture, Unani-Tibb, Homeopathy, traditional Western herbalism, and so on. Since the efficacy -in terms of practical results-of Whole System models does not depend upon the objective/reductionist/scientific "truth" of the components of the model, but depends rather upon the internal consistency of the latter, it would make no difference in obtaining reliable, consistent practical results how well or how poorly the "givens" of, say, traditional Western astrology, correspond to objective scientific "reality" in regard to various objective astrophysical phenomena (as understood by astronomers) or to the facts and ramifications of spherical geometry (as understood by mathematicians) If Western "astrology" actually is a Whole System model, this might account for the demonstrated FACT that its various applications "work" perfectly well whether done in London, Capetown, Thule or Tierra del Fuego.

At the same time, I also personally believe that there IS an objective "material" element involved, perhaps involving the manner in which subtle cosmic qualities transduce to become "influences" on the field of the earth and its creatures. The alchemist Roger Bacon started to think along these lines, followed by John Dee, ultimating in the work of Kepler, and attempts in this direction have continued even to the present time, although not necessarily in conscious connection with the discipline we refer to as "astrology". Ideas/theories/facts regarding resonance, particle entaglement, zero point, the "intelligent aether", might be somewhat useful sources of fertile ideas for US, and I encourage our Skyscript member Eddy (and others looking for a "physical" basis of macrocosmic influences) to continue their thinking, experiments and experiences along thses lines. Please keep us informed of your insights!