Hello James,

I thought someone would jump on "correct." But I used that term in good faith because of my age and experience. My initial astrological training was excellent: London's Faculty of Astrological Studies, followed by various seminars and classes, all in tropical astrology. I worked in the tropical zodiac for ten years, and it was a challenge changing to sidereal, courtesy of a few Cyril Fagan devotees whose logic I couldn't ignore.

From there I was exposed to India's astrology, and added that to my study and experience. I've tested thousands of charts, so rather than complaining about my use of "correct," why not show some examples of why the tropical zodiac works better for you? I was open minded enough to experiment with the western sidereal system, and then various facets of Indian astrology. Can you take a few years of your life to do the same?

Most recently I've found Hellenistic and medieval principles very helpful, but in the sidereal zodiac. As I've said elsewhere before, the tropical zodiac has given me a valuable understanding of sidereal signs. But has anyone managed to demonstrate that domicile lords and exaltations work correctly in the tropical zodiac? In my experience it can't be done.

Therese,

The way I see it, James' remark is addressing a much more fundamental question. Really more in the way of the Tao Te Ching saying:

Lao-Tzu wrote: Fri Aug 24, 435 BC 6:39 pm

Tao that can be expressed is not Everlasting Tao.
The name that can be named is not the Everlasting Name.

In light of this philosophy, it is quite dubious to declare that one has arrived at some ultimate truth such as having found the "correct" zodiac.

Hi Therese,

Thanks for your reply above, it clarifies where your coming from and I understand that.

I do agree with you about the "one true zodiac". What else could there be? there is one sky we are all looking at in the universe from which we derive our zodiac constellations right?
I think all of us on here would agree that say, when you look up and see the constellation of Virgo for example, we would agree that its Virgo we are looking at and not something else? To my mind, the constellation of Virgo IS the constellation of Virgo!

The problem of what zodiac is the true zodiac I believe began with this approx date of 200 A.D according to Nick Fiorenza.

The tropical zodiak aligned with the fixed sidereal zodiak around 200 A.D. but has since drifted 25?; i.e. this was when zero degrees tropical Aries aligned with 0? sidereal Aries.

http://www.lunarplanner.com/siderealastrology.html

In my opinion there has been a massive brain washing mentality pushed out by western astrologers ever since this time to "believe" and " accept" via coercive persuasion and confirmation bias the tropical Placidus system of zodiac placement.

I await the fiery debate...

RodJM wrote:

The problem of what zodiac is the true zodiac I believe began with this approx date of 200 A.D according to Nick Fiorenza.

Rod, that's the first time I've heard of a 200 AD zero date and Nick Fiorenza. The most common zero dates are 221 (Fagan/Bradley), 285 (Lahiri) and 291 (Krishnamurti). Until astrologers get around to testing those ayanamsas, we won't have "one true zodiac."

The site you referenced has some nice graphics. Thanks for the link.

By the way I said I believed there was an ideal astrology, but didn't use the phrase "one true zodiac." (Though one may exist.) But through many centuries the zodiac may shift a bit. Or at least sign meanings may shift a little as the stars in the constellations change their positions (proper motion). But that takes a LONG time--many thousands of years.

Michael, I'm ready for your next "twisted pretzel" from my web site as you promised. The topic for pretzels is now up and running:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8258

Therese Hamilton wrote: ..."rather than complaining"

therese, making an observation isn't the same as complaining..

when i see a dead-end up ahead, i don't usually bother going that way.. i saw it and went anyway... continue.

Rod JM wrote:

I do agree with you about the "one true zodiac". What else could there be? there is one sky we are all looking at in the universe from which we derive our zodiac constellations right?

Hi Rod,

There are many different ways of looking at things and I am not just referring to zodiacs. Reality may be more complex and diverse than many of us appreciate.

Ever read the Geoffrey Cornelius book 'The Moment of Astrology'? Whether you ultimately agree with Cornelius or not it is surely one of the most thought provoking books on astrology ever written. It will challenge some of your most basic assumptions about what we are doing in astrology.

http://www.amazon.com/Moment-Astrology- ... 1902405110

Another book I would highly recommend you take a look at is ''Under One Sky''.

In that book 12 well known astrologers (all using completely different approaches) delineated one natal chart blind!

http://www.forrestastrology.com/store/b ... sky-detail

http://www.amazon.com/Under-One-Sky-Raf ... er+one+sky

Mark

Mark wrote:

Ever read the Geoffrey Cornelius book 'The Moment of Astrology'? I think its the most important philosophical work on astrology for literally centuries...

Hmmm....I generally follow up on book recommendations. So I went to Amazon to check out this book. I was very surprised that Amazon informed me that I had purchased the book in 2005! Strange that I didn't recognize the cover. Well, I must have the book somewhere in my bookcase. After a search I found it, untouched since 2005.

My conclusion is that I leafed through the book and decided it wasn't for me. I admit to being a scientist when it comes to astrology. For anyone who wonders about the book, here is part of the latest review on Amazon USA. Note how the author's name reflects his approval of the divination approach to astrology. He's from my home state, too!!

Superbly validating -- frees astrology from scientism, March 24, 2014
By D. Riverblue Cloudwaliker "Riverblue" (California)

This is an extremely important book, one which explores territory which, as Cornelius points out many times, has not been explored before! How strange it is to think that as long as astrology has been with us, and since Ptolemy in any case, we have not seen a major work which places the practice of astrology where it belongs -- in the realm of divination, rather than in science.

To each his own. The only planet that has shown research results for contemporary astrologers is Neptune. Cornelius' book is almost 400 difficult-to-read pages, but perhaps that's the way of philosophy.

Another book I would highly recommend you take a look at is ''Under One Sky''.
In that book 12 well known astrologers (all using completely different approaches) delineated one natal chart blind!

As I recall, there wasn't a single really good solid reading in the entire book! A lot of words, however.

Therese

Hi Therese,

This is a new edition of his book which is expanded. However, his basic thesis is the same.

To be honest I rather think of you as someone at the total opposite end of the astrological spectrum from Geoffrey Cornelius. So I would probably fall off my chair if I heard you saying you agreed with him! You obviously believe astrology can be made to conform to scientific principles and empirical testing. All we need is the ideal research study and all our disagreements will be resolved.

I personally, think that view is totally flawed because its based on a misunderstanding of how astrology actually works.

To set out my position I offer this paper from Kirk Little entitled Defining the Moment: Geoffrey Cornelius and the Development of the Divinatory Perspective which summarises the position of Cornelius and those also share his perspective. It also poses a direct challenge for people like yourself who hold to the kind of view Kirk Little typifies as the 'the scientific rescue fantasy'.

http://www.astrozero.co.uk/articles/Def ... Moment.pdf

Mark

Mark wrote:

To be honest I rather think of you as someone as the total opposite end of astrology from Geoffrey Cornelius. So I would probably fall off my chair if I heard you saying you agreed with him! You obviously believe astrology can be made to conform to scientific principles and empirical testing.

Perhaps both approaches have their place depending on whether one is a practitoner working with clients in the psychological sense (divination) or providing a foundation for an astrological system in the "laboratory" (science).

See, I can be agreeable!

Therese

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Perhaps both approaches have their place depending on whether one is a practitoner working with clients in the psychological sense (divination) or providing a foundation for an astrological system in the "laboratory" (science).

See, I can be agreeable!

ok.

Personally, I dont think the laboratory will get us very far. Its not as if this approach hasn't been tried. It was all the rage in astrology 30-40 years ago. However, it has consistently failed miserably to deliver any replicatable results. Garry Phillipson's book Astrology in the Year Zero makes that clear. But good luck in proving me wrong!

Here is a recorded online radio interview with Geoffrey Cornelius. The interview doesn't really start until 06.50 mins in.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 9130#89130

Mark

Mark wrote:

Personally, I dont think the laboratory will get us very far...

I believe that no matter what a person's approach to astrology is, it does matter if a "real" zodiac is being used. Perhaps that's how the divinatory approach came to be: there were too many misfits in the tropical zodiac, so a kind of intuition or sixth sense had to be developed. And that can be part of astrology too, an evolution of sorts.

But I still believe that we need a symbolically accurate zodiac. Although India is deeply immersed in the spiritual, astrology there has remained primarily factual. Is this because astrologers are finding their symbolism accurate when practically applied in work with clients? (That is sign and house rulership, exaltations, domicile rulerships and so forth.) This is actually a very important question.

Therese Hamilton

Perhaps that's how the divinatory approach came to be: there were too many misfits in the tropical zodiac, so a kind of intuition or sixth sense had to be developed. And that can be part of astrology too, an evolution of sorts.

I would take my hat off to you Therese (if I had one!)

Somehow you manage to turn around a powerful critique of your basic approach to astrology into an argument that this somehow backs up the sidereal zodiac! You are rather missing the point but never mind. I hardly expected you to be open to this critique. It would require you to rethink your whole approach to astrology......

I think the tropical zodiac works very well as far I am concerned. So my attraction to an astrology of signs over causes is nothing to do with any perceived crisis in tropical astrology 'working'. The deeper question is surely why does our astrology work? I just dont choose to fall into what I see as the trap of universalizing my astrological experience as the only valid model to operate from.

The attitude of seeing astrology as signs not causes can be found in Babylonian astrology, you can find it in the Platonic tradition of astrology or in figures like William Lilly.

Mark