Bogdan574 wrote:
1) Because "Fagen says so". The Ancient Egyptians can't speak for themselves unfortunately, but if a modern man deciphers their methods carefully he can be adequately said to "speak for them". No, Valens and Rhetorius etc. did not mention Taurus being the first sign, but that doesn't mean that astrologers who lived long before them didn't.
Right, not good enough to just say "Fagen says so". I could talk about gravity and say "newton says so" but much more compelling to provide his argument/reasoning/evidence/formulae. Then someone else could come back and cite Einstein. Otherwise we'll have "because my authority says so, and they must be right".
Thank you for accepting that none of the sources you claimed to have screened all this against suggested this. This was my whole point for posting. To demonstrate that the ancient authorities you're using to prop up your points aren't actually saying what you are suggesting they are.
2) In the "Age of Sign X" The Sun is in Sign X at March 21st, the beginning of the Spring Equinox and thus the New Year. Now, the New Year is in Pisces. Back in Ancient Egypt, the New Year was in Taurus. The sign that is in the New Year is the first sign, so to speak of that Age.
I know what precession is and what the astrological ages are. It tells us nothing whatsoever about whether or not the ancient egyptians used the equinox as the inception point for the zodiac. No matter how much the theory/idea appeals to you, it tells us nothing about whether or not it appealed to others.
The evidence of that theory is in Fagen's astrological origins.
Which is what? That Fagan says so? I'm afraid we need more than that.
In addition, you've yet to actually quote Fagan where he says this, which is a point I made previously. I am not sure whether or not he does make this point to begin with, but even if he did, we need more than just that he thinks so. People, as you so rightly said, are not gods. This includes Fagan.
Further evidence is in the fact that astrology wasn't based on the seasons until Ptolemy decided to fix the Spring Equinox onto Aries. Until then, astrologers didn't do that and observed the night sky instead. What else would they have done?
Which tells us absolutely nothing about what the ancient egyptians thought about the starting point of the zodiac, and everything about what
you think about it.
It's simple. Just quote the egyptian source.
Suppose you are right in that astrologers observe the Sun's declination.
Is there something else they may observe other than this?
It is still absurd for instance to say the Sun is in Aries in March 21 when it really is in Pisces. Besides how would they have observed the other planets anyway if not seeing them in the actual positions they occupied in the sky.
It isn't absurd. It's called tropical astrology. It's no more or less astronomically real than sidereal astrology, even if you don't understand that. Sidereal astrologers hold one philosophical premise in denoting meaning from the apparent position of a given star (say, Spica) and then mathematical abstractions of the rest of the sky based on this star or several stars' positions.
Tropical astrology holds another philosophical premise that the declination of the Sun and in particular 0 degrees of declination is the beginning and then the same thing happens and astrologers make mathematical abstractions of the rest of the ecliptic based on this.
Both are 'real' and both are 'abstract'. There is a difference in philosophy in the two of course.
It is not, therefore absurd. The problem is in not actually understanding what the word "Aries" might mean, or what tropical astrologers do. As a helpful aid, it's worth noting that neither sidereal astrologers nor tropical astrologers mean "constellation" by the term zodiac sign.
You asked for a distinction between "traditional tropical astrologers" and "traditional sidereal astrologers". You first introduced the word. Allow me to clarify again... with me defining "traditional" for you as before and up to the Commen Era (and the writings of Valens, Rhetorius, and so forth).
You said "ancient", and compared Sidereal to Tropical, but in doing so compared sidereal source of nearly millennia ago, to tropical sources of today. The two are not comparable, because, as I said already, modern western astrology has changed its focus in regards sign meanings. Therefore comparing traditional sidereal with modern tropical is no comparison at all with regards the idea of tropical signs borrowing signification from sidereal ones.
- Originally, there was only sidereal astrology, observing the planets in the actual positions they held regarding the constellations.
This is too complex to get into here and has been discussed before. Suffice it to say that it is probably true enough to conclude that astrologers measured positions sidereally.
Then, Ptolemy decided to make astrology about the equinoxes and the seasons, not the constellations.
Wrong, it hadn't been about constellations at that time, at least not as we recognise them. It was already about abstract mathematical divisions of the ecliptic into 12 exactly equal sections and using constellations which ran through those sections as demarcation points to aid in measurement. The only constellation of importance here is Aries and discovering its starting point, because after that there are constellations which are useful in helping us determine the position of planets in signs, but they are not the signs themselves. As you know, seeing as you read Valens.
Sidereal astrology comes back when a handful of modern astrologers realize that measuring planets with the equinoxes and seasons doesn't align to the actual constellationals, and thus seek to rectify astrology as it originally was.
I don't know if that's true, but if so, then we ought to recognise that they haven't done it well if they keep abstract equal 30? divisions.
Instead, I understand that sidereal astrologers recognise that the inception of the zodiac ought to be based on a starry position, such that the measurement of planets through the sky over long periods of time remains constant in relation to the starry backdrop. Whilst the constellations are very important in this, it is not about "rectifying astrology as it originally was" as there is no "original".
It was Fagen and some other sidereal astrologers who suggested the idea. And his ideas so far at least seem to stand up to scrutiny. I could however test this idea further.
I thought you said you had?
This is my point. You haven't.
So far (just by comparing original sign meanings to modern ones) Fagen seems to be right.
Apart from when he isn't. Note my Sagittarius to Scorpio point.
To see how the signs as originally described differed from the signs as described by most tropical astrologers.
Which is not what you said you were doing - which was to look at it all with fresh eyes to see just what the ancients said.
Clearly you're doing a lot more than that by mentioning tropical astrology several times. It's not the most important part of your posts, but in doing so you reveal that actually you are not doing what you claim. This, coupled with the complete lack of references and apparent total reliance on Fagan and solunar website is the source of contradictions to you.
No, you misunderstand me. What I'm trying to say is that Sagittarius ought not to become Scorpio-like AND Scorpio ought not to become Libra-like. Unfortunately, they have to a certain degree against people's better judgement because of the confusions that arose from tropical astrology.
No, you have misunderstood the point I have been making. I am saying if your previous assertion on Scorpio is true, that modern tropical astrologers have altered their meaning of Scorpio based on the fact that it is not overlapped with Sidereal Libra (summation of your point), then it stands to reason that it must also be true that this happens with all the signs, namely that Sagittarius, which now overlaps with Scorpio, will, in modern tropical astrology, be seen to have traits of Scorpio.
My point: It doesn't. My conclusion: The premise is flawed.
I'm not jumping on the bandwagon of one author. Fagen is not the only sidereal astrologer there is. There is Kenneth Bowser, Rupert Gleadow, Garth Allen, Jim Eshelman etc. It's not just one guy.
Popularity has never been a good barometer of truth.
It's not a zero sum game. In all the descriptions of my signs I describe all the rulers and exaltations etc. used by the ancients. Just because I say a tentative "maybe" for some new ones doesn't negate the fact that I have indeed listed all of the traditional.
No but it does mean that your assertions that you are ONLY going by ancient authors and those which agree with those authors is incorrect, and it also shows that you are not trying to discover how the ancients used the zodiac and discover some "lost zodiac" you are instead trying to put forth an idea of a new way to use the sidereal zodiac, and are trying to juxtapose your own ideas with more established idea from ancient sources, in such a way as to not differentiate between them, so that a connotation that your own ideas have some ancient validity will be created.
It's not black and white between "I used only Valens and Rhetorius" and "I only used modern sources". That is your fallacy.
No, that is not my position, my position is that your assertion that you only kept that which was in ancient sources, having screened the modern ones, is clearly false.
You never once actually talked to me about how my descriptions of any of the signs actually stack up against the descriptions given by the ancients.
Actually my asking you to provide references was an attempt to do just that. Let you see that actually what you are posting is not to be found in those ancient sources. Twice now I have quoted some which are particularly noticeable.
Dude, it's in my sources.
But it is references that I am looking for. Not "it's in Valens" somewhere. And if it's not there, try Rhetorius, and if it's not there, try Maternus.
You say you screened it all, provide a reference. The problem is that it doesn't actually exist in these sources.
Valens and Firmicius for instance are my sources. You can click on them any time and read the entire texts for yourself.
You could reference these sources to validate your points. I clearly cannot reference them to disprove your viewpoint. I cannot point a reference to what they didn't say.
Their. Work. Is. In. My. Sources.
Subtle change, but a more honest one. Now Valens etc are not your sources. Your sources are something else (Fagan, Solunar, other modern sidereal astrologers) and those sources reference the ancient authors.
I am not, as you are claiming, using my entire Lost Zodiac thread just to bash tropical astrology.
Actually I have not claimed that anywhere. My claims are very clear, I am using this as an example to show that you are doing more than you are pretending to do and that clearly comparing your approach to tropical modern astrology, in an effort to highlight some flaws in tropical modern astrology (presumably) is a part of that.
But you have pretended you are not doing this by suggesting that you start from a blank slate and that you are not going to refer to tropical astrology at all in your posts, then proceed to do exactly the opposite of what you claimed to do.
You just find these sparse sentences offensive, and that is why you make such a big deal out of them.
I don't get offended half so easily as you might think. I also highlighted your theory on exaltations and several other things. My point is to demonstrate that this is not about discovering a lost zodiac, and presumably never has been.
If I was ignoring them then I why would I take the time to mention them at all, for every single sign. Once again, you're making a false dichotomy. My little suggestions don't negate the fact that I used the ancient astrologer's ideas for every sign in there too. In fact, those ancient astrologers' ideas take precedent. I list them all as essential things and as fact. I don't use "maybe" or "perhaps" with each of them.
No, you then build upon what they say with theory of your own interspersed seamlessly in between saying that you only included that which can be found also in ancient sources such that it seems your own theories, if we weren't to know better, are also just as speculative in those ancient sources. They are not.
If you had stuck to the ancient sources and took some time to understand and explore the ancients' use of exaltation etc. then you would recognise why your scheme is not at all something consistent with their view. A point you keep trying to make as being the case.
Therese has some interesting views on the exaltations and the ways in which the modern planets may fit into them. Personally, I couldn't find any problem in her logic whatsoever, and tried, so perhaps you could look through her thoughts on the matter.
Look at my sources (that I listed at the end by the way) of Valens, Rhetorius, Firmicius etc. and say that my descriptions of the planets and signs aren't consistent with them. Challenge me on any particular sign or planet.
Again you mean? I thought I already had. I quoted the parts I found contentious and asked you to find a reference for them.
I presume you dont' want me to do it again, and that you can just go back to those posts?