Skyscript Astrology Forum

varuna2 wrote: Why did you test National Socialists as a category, and what is the significance of National Socialists that would stand out as being possibly Scorpio type, out of all of the political movements in the world from any place or time?

You do realize that one had to be a National Socialist to retain a position of influence in that place and time, just as people in varied places must pledge their allegiance to the government of wherever they live, and by law usually, depending on the place and the position of influence in that place and time.

Therefore, it would be like creating a category of people in the government of China and expect to find astrological similarities with one sign, or to create a category of U.S. politicians and expect them all to be Scorpios or some such sign.

Who were those National Socialists in your list and did you include people such as Martin Heidegger?

Hi Varuna2,
in general I?ve taken my groups quite randomly from the AstroDatabank software http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page and used the classifications and categories of Lois Rodden and her co-operators without questioning or editing them.

What comes to Nazis in history, it?s not that simple. I?ve recently read a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German priest who rose to oppose Nazis in the 30?s and was therefore executed by them in a concentration camp in 1945. Most of the German people at that time were like most of us: not active in politics and trying to cope as well as they could in confusing times. There were a lot of people who were appalled about the National Socialist party, the SS men and their ideology, but couldn?t do anything. I suppose people whom Lois Rodden has listed as ?Nazis? in ADB were more actively supporting the ideology than most Germans at that time, especially when Rodden has listed only a few dozens of them.

I checked it out - yes, at the quick glance the people listed in ADB as members of the Nazi party were active and prominent in the movement. Heidegger is not listed among them.

Therese, I'll give it a look. Overall I feel very suspicious of modern astrology. I obviously reject the tropical zodiac, both its sign descriptions and its placings of the signs in the night sky because they are obviously wrong. The modern sign descriptions bear only some resemblance to the descriptions provided by Rhetorius and Valens for instance. And placing the beginning of Aries in a place no where near where Aries actually is in the night sky is clearly absurd.

And while I do think sidereal astrology is taking steps in the right direction, attempting to retcon the faulty tropical zodiac into the sidereal zodiac only creates more problems. So for me I'll just go to the original sources.

My own sign, Sagittarius, looks dramatically different between ancient and modern descriptions. Valens and Rhetorius describe Sagittarius as magnanimous and noble-hearted, yet also elitist and mysterious. This bears little resemblance to how Sagittarius is described in modern astrology. Linda Goodman describes Sagittarius as "the sign of the clown". WTF.

Similar with Scorpio. Valens and Rhetorius describe Scorpio as wily and rapacious; as war-like, devious, and destructive. But tropical astrologers try to elevate Scorpio into a mystic and somehow think this is the deepest thing ever. It's like turning Bruce Lee or Vlad the Impaler (most likely a sidereal Scorpio, born on November or December) into Edward Cullen.

Likewise with Taurus. Ancient astrologers describe Taurus as kindly, artistic, expressing great love for peace and beauty, generous. But tropical astrologers try to shove Aries into it and give Taurus qualities of aggression and stubbornness that aren't there.

And so forth and so forth.

--------------------------------------------

Papretis, can you please explain your ideas a bit to me? I still don't understand.

So, the bottom line would seem to be that looking for stelliums is not a very fruitful way to find out the traits of the signs, tropical or sidereal, possibly because planets seem to affect the signs, not the other way out. Supposedly planets don?t get colored by signs, but signs get colored by planets located in them. Therefore the modern approach of looking for planetary emphasis in signs works neither tropically nor sidereally. What we should look for is dignities. For example Indian friendships and enmities would seem to give very promising results.

It seems that the same thing applies with the nakshatras: they work very well with the Moon as lunar mansions, and exactly as the texts describe, but it?s not very fruitful to use them as ?signs? with other planets.

So in my chart, I have a 7 planet Stellium in Sagittarius. According to your logic that doesn't make me more Sagittarius-like, but really makes Sagittarius more Sun-like, Moon-like etc. How does this affect my personality? If it doesn't make me more Sagittarius traits than what do all those planets do?

Bogdan574 wrote:

And while I do think sidereal astrology is taking steps in the right direction, attempting to [fit] the faulty tropical zodiac into the sidereal zodiac only creates more problems.

We have to separate valid observations from tropical theory. Chiria, for example, isn't into theory at all. She merely observes her family, friends, and co-workers. So it isn't really productive to simply toss out everything about the tropical zodiac simply because you don't like it and see it as a corruption.

So for me I'll just go to the original sources.

Actually, this is what I've been doing as I've been attempting to build the sidereal signs from the ground up here on Skyscript and elsewhere. Have you read my summary article? http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm ("Ancient Triplicities: Key to the Sidereal Zodiac")

My own sign, Sagittarius, looks dramatically different between ancient and modern descriptions. Valens and Rhetorius describe Sagittarius as magnanimous and noble-hearted, yet also elitist and mysterious.

Yes, and aren't Valens and Rhetorius taking these traits from Jupiter?? (Although I'm not sure where "mysterious" comes from.)

Similar with Scorpio. Valens and Rhetorius describe Scorpio as wily and rapacious; as war-like, devious, and destructive.

And aren't those traits related directly to Mars by ancient astrologers??

Likewise with Taurus. Ancient astrologers describe Taurus as kindly, artistic, expressing great love for peace and beauty, generous.

Are not these traits of Venus??

Many traits given to signs in Hellenistic times up through the medieval period are simply relying on the nature of the planetary lords of the signs. So forget about your grudge against modern astrology, and start to look at people with planets in sidereal signs.

We can begin with Sagittarius. This thread has been going off on a different direction. Maybe it would it be more productive to start a new topic on Sagittarius? What is your opinion of what Chiria writes about Sagittarius? I can already see some similarities between the Babylonian Pabilsag and ancient concepts connected to Jupiter. Chiria on Sagittarius: http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aachiria-libra.htm

Yes, I think it would be best to have a separate topic for Sagittarius. This is one of the signs that has caused a great deal of confusion between Jupiter and Saturn in contemporary astrology. After I post this message I'll open a "Sagittarius" topic. I hope you'll be interested, Bogdan, since you have so many planets in that sign. And I already have a collection of charts with emphasis in Sagittarius.

Therese

Papretis wrote:

varuna2 wrote: Why did you test National Socialists as a category, and what is the significance of National Socialists that would stand out as being possibly Scorpio type, out of all of the political movements in the world from any place or time?

You do realize that one had to be a National Socialist to retain a position of influence in that place and time, just as people in varied places must pledge their allegiance to the government of wherever they live, and by law usually, depending on the place and the position of influence in that place and time.

Therefore, it would be like creating a category of people in the government of China and expect to find astrological similarities with one sign, or to create a category of U.S. politicians and expect them all to be Scorpios or some such sign.

Who were those National Socialists in your list and did you include people such as Martin Heidegger?

Hi Varuna2,
in general I?ve taken my groups quite randomly from the AstroDatabank software http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Main_Page and used the classifications and categories of Lois Rodden and her co-operators without questioning or editing them.

What comes to Nazis in history, it?s not that simple. I?ve recently read a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German priest who rose to oppose Nazis in the 30?s and was therefore executed by them in a concentration camp in 1945. Most of the German people at that time were like most of us: not active in politics and trying to cope as well as they could in confusing times. There were a lot of people who were appalled about the National Socialist party, the SS men and their ideology, but couldn?t do anything. I suppose people whom Lois Rodden has listed as ?Nazis? in ADB were more actively supporting the ideology than most Germans at that time, especially when Rodden has listed only a few dozens of them.

I checked it out - yes, at the quick glance the people listed in ADB as members of the Nazi party were active and prominent in the movement. Heidegger is not listed among them.

Hi Papretis,

I was considering writing a lengthy reply showing, for example the causes of WWII, and the concentration camps in the West, and the American embargo of the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor, and the American attacks on Germany when the U.S. was supposedly neutral, and history including Commodore Matthew C. Perry and his 1953 flag displayed on the battleship when the Japanese Emperor signed the treaty to be a slave of the West in 1945, and what the ambassador of Japan said when they quit the league of nations, and the stab in the back in november, and the Holodomor and gulag, and International Finance activities including financing the boshevik rulers of the slavs and others, and human greed, and the 200 million people murdered in the 20th century at the hands of government agents of many countries, but I decided not to take this thread too far off for too long.

I will not sidetrack this thread and continue with this, other than to mention that if you are interested in the National Socialists and events of those times, you may want to study the National Socialist point of view also. I have learned in my studies to always study opposing viewpoints to gain a better understanding of that thing (in any subject).

Since you have read that book written by someone with a strong interest in Bonhoeffer's actions and creating that heroic myth of the man and his cause, you may also be interested in the work of Raul Hilberg who is widely considered to be the top scholar in the world on this particular matter, as well as the work of Norman Finkelstein, or even the Hebrew scholar Noam Chomsky. You may be surprised to find what the top scholars state about these matters, based on their extensive research.

So it goes...

varuna2 wrote:[...] but I decided not to take this thread too far off for too long.

Good. Let's leave it there, and I won't have to start deleting posts or locking the thread.

My own sign, Sagittarius, looks dramatically different between ancient and modern descriptions. Valens and Rhetorius describe Sagittarius as magnanimous and noble-hearted, yet also elitist and mysterious.

Yes, and aren't Valens and Rhetorius taking these traits from Jupiter?? (Although I'm not sure where "mysterious" comes from.)

Similar with Scorpio. Valens and Rhetorius describe Scorpio as wily and rapacious; as war-like, devious, and destructive.

And aren't those traits related directly to Mars by ancient astrologers??

Likewise with Taurus. Ancient astrologers describe Taurus as kindly, artistic, expressing great love for peace and beauty, generous.

Are not these traits of Venus??

Yes, I agree with all of the three. But the problem comes when sidereal astrologers simply rename the tropical signs under different labels. It doesn't matter, for example, if you try to describe Taurus as talkative and that being a trait of Venus. It's tropical Gemini under a different label, and Venus is being used to justify fitting the square peg in the round whole. The same with Scorpio. Chiria can relabel "expansion" as "energy" all she wants. It's tropical Sagittarius with a new label. Just that it's now "explained" by Mars instead of Jupiter.

Sidereal Taurus is not like tropical Taurus, but neither is it like tropical Gemini either. Sidereal Scorpio is not tropical Scorpio, but neither is it tropical Sagittarius either.

With Valens and Rhetorius, this confusion does not exist because is no confusion like the tropical zodiac.

So it isn't really productive to simply toss out everything about the tropical zodiac simply because you don't like it and see it as a corruption.

It is. We agree that it is mostly dogma and stereotypes. It's more efficient and accurate to discard a theory that is mostly false than to endlessly parse through it in the hopes of finding some small nuggets of truth here and there.

A lot of the traits that are attributed to signs these days are simply made up and never existed. Take Sagittarius for example. The sign as described by Valens and Rhetorius bares little resemblance to Sagittarius described now. BUT, and this is a large but, it little resembles tropical Capricorn either.

Sagittarius is not described as being an incessant traveller and philosopher but neither is it described as a priggish businessman either. Taurus is not described as stubborn and aggressive but neither is it described as talkative and flightily. Scorpio is not described as mystical and profound but neither is it described as sporting and hyperactive. etc. etc.

Good. Let's leave it there, and I won't have to start deleting posts or locking the thread.

Why should the thread strictly remain on one topic? Let it grow. Sidereal astrologers are a minority already as it is. Strict regulations on how discussions are allowed to develop will only restrict us.

Bogdan574 wrote:Why should the thread strictly remain on one topic? Let it grow. Sidereal astrologers are a minority already as it is. Strict regulations on how discussions are allowed to develop will only restrict us.

The point of my comment was not that the thread should remain on one topic, though I can see how you read it that way, as I kept it very brief. In the context of the preceding posts, it was about not going off into a quasi-political discussion on seeing things from 'the National Socialist point of view'. I think most of us are agreed that this is not something we want or need to do in this forum.

Apart from this, please feel free to let the thread grow and branch off (apologies for the mixed metaphors). I personally appreciate and share your interest in ancient source texts. (It may seem like an odd thing for a moderator to say, but in a sense I regret that the need was felt to create a separate sidereal forum on Skyscript: it would be so much nicer if traditional techniques, practised in a fixed zodiac -- as they were long before, and long after, Ptolemy -- could be discussed in the ancient & traditional forum without some of the tropicalists feeling threatened or offended.)

i agree with your comments towards the end martin.. it seems to work in reverse as well.. once the categories are created there is always someone wanting to enforce them as opposed to having a wider conversation.

Bogdan 574 wrote:

But the problem comes when sidereal astrologers simply rename the tropical signs under different labels. It doesn't matter, for example, if you try to describe Taurus as talkative and that being a trait of Venus.

No, that's not the way the symbolism works. Being talkative doesn't belong to Venus. It's actually a Mercurial trait due to Taurus belonging to the same trigon as Virgo, Mercury's domicile and exaltation sign. Also the sidereal Taurus trigon is the most social and interactive of the four trigons. Its triplicity lords are Venus and the Moon. Venus likes equal interaction with others, and the Moon is always seeking reflection and connections outside itself.

Astrologers aren't "re-naming" sidereal signs. They are merely noting that observed (not fictitious or theoretical) traits better suit the rulership and exalted planets of sidereal signs. In my opinion, sign traits are also closely linked to triplicity lords, though generally these planets already belong to each triplicity via rulership or exaltation.

Sidereal Taurus is not like tropical Taurus, but neither is it like tropical Gemini either. Sidereal Scorpio is not tropical Scorpio, but neither is it tropical Sagittarius either.

Any area of the ecliptic/sky has an observable energy that can influence planets. It doesn't matter what name you call it. Bogdan, you keep playing the same tune over and over without considering that valid observations are indeed part of astrology.

A lot of the traits that are attributed to signs these days are simply made up and never existed. Take Sagittarius for example. The sign as described by Valens and Rhetorius bares little resemblance to Sagittarius described now. BUT, and this is a large but, it little resembles tropical Capricorn either.

So the next step is to study charts with signs prominent in some way. I'll be posting charts on the "Saturn, Jupiter and Sagittarius" topic soon. It becomes very obvious how little belongs to Sagittarius as a sign and how most traits are connected to the planets. In these modern research minded times, rhetoric and opinion mean little. What matters is studying actual horoscopes while trying to excerpt the symbolism that may be valid.

Bogdan, you are displaying one trait that (so far) can be observed in the sidereal odd [edited] signs. You keep repeating your own view (motivation from within). But you haven't referenced any of the articles or posts I've mentioned on the topic of sidereal signs except for Chiria, because you can use her comments to support your personal argument.

But you haven't given a single example of a person with Sagittarius traits (as you see them), not even yourself. Bogdan, the traits you mentioned about yourself on Solunars are connected to the planets, as I noted in an earlier post. We can re-visit these traits on the "Sagittarius" topic since you have made your chart public on Solunars.

Martin wrote:

...in a sense I regret that the need was felt to create a separate sidereal forum on Skyscript: it would be so much nicer if traditional techniques, practised in a fixed zodiac -- as they were long before, and long after, Ptolemy -- could be discussed in the ancient & traditional forum without some of the tropicalists feeling threatened or offended.)

Yes, in a way we are placed in a straight-jacket here on the Sidereal forum. We can't speak freely on the traditional forum where we might have had some exciting and enlightening discussions. But -- at least we have a place to post messages which I appreciate! I only wish there were more responses.

Astrologers aren't "re-naming" sidereal signs. They are merely noting that observed (not fictitious or theoretical) traits better suit the rulership and exalted planets of sidereal signs. In my opinion, sign traits are also closely linked to triplicity lords, though generally these planets already belong to each triplicity via rulership or exaltation.

...

Any area of the ecliptic/sky has an observable energy that can influence planets. It doesn't matter what name you call it. Bogdan, you keep playing the same tune over and over without considering that valid observations are indeed part of astrology.

Those "observable traits" and "observable energies" you keep mentioning are just stories from the tropical zodiac we are used to hearing, that we have so much ingrained in our minds, that we take them for fact.

I agree that valid observations are indeed a part of astrology but that the "valid observations" I have so far seen seem an awful lot like the usual stories we hear from the tropical zodiac, which makes me very suspicious.

You said it yourself. They're mostly dogmas and stereotypes, but you also think they have valid observations that should be parsed through and salvaged. But those valid observations seem an awful lot like the dogmas and stereotypes.

Our conversation is pretty much a broken record at this point. I claim "A lot of sidereal astrology is just tropical astrology renamed. And that tropical astrology is a bunch of dogmas and stereotypes that have little basis on what the original astrologers wrote."

You counter, "No, these traits aren't tropical astrology traits renamed. They're really valid observations."

And its just a back and forth where I say, "No they aren't" and you say, "Yes they are."

I saw your two articles. The first is about how the signs are varied energy waves. I agree to this general principle. I also saw your other article about the planetary trigons. I feel ambivalent towards this though. While they do make sense I think that constantly trying to compare them with tropical signs is a bad idea, because well... I said it a million times already why the tropical zodiac is messed up. The dogmas of tropical astrology will just distort and limit the sidereal signs etc.

It's far better to let the sidereal trigons "express" themselves in their own terms, so to speak. Rather than, for instance, constantly trying to make comparisons of how Cancer is like tropical Leo, it's better to just let Cancer "be herself". Because, as I said, sidereal signs are not like their tropical counterparts OR the tropical sign ahead of them.

When you constantly try to compare sidereal signs to tropical signs research will become very biased as you will constantly skewer your findings and theory to make it match the tropical zodiac.

Bogdan, you are displaying one trait that (so far) can be observed in the sidereal even signs. You keep repeating your own view (motivation from within). But you haven't referenced any of the articles or posts I've mentioned on the topic of sidereal signs except for Chiria, because you can use her comments to support your personal argument.

Anyway, shouldn't the traits coming from within be a trait of the odd signs under your theory? I have problems with even those configurations of masculine (odd) and feminine (even) signs. They're patriarchal inversions of what the masculine and feminine originally were. I could describe this with your own terminology.

Originally, it is the female that "comes from within". Her color is red, blood from life as well as childbirth and menstrual blood. The female is hot and active. This refers to both the ancient idea of women being origins of life as well as the "feminine" needed for creativity. These are virtues Nietzsche, who had a plethora of feminine signs (Sun, Mercury, Mars in Virgo. Moon, north node, ASC in Scorpio. Jupiter and Uranus in Pisces) exonerated: The body, emotions, the subconscious, passion, ordeal, childbirth, dancing, laughter etc.

By contrast the male is passive because he needs the outside world to create life. His color is white, associated with semen, and is associated with death.