Neptunehead wrote:Ernst Wilhelm, the greatest 21st Century Astrologer, has already put this argument to bed.

He has done the research, wrote the books, and programmed the best Vedic software in order to back it all up.

I don't see why people are still debating the issue.

Presumably because other people have their own views besides Ernst Wilhelm.

Also, because, presumably, not everyone has read Ernst Wilhelm's views. I know I haven't.

Could you perhaps clarify the points he makes and the research he's done and the conclusions he makes and even better point us to the information so that we can find it?

I tried searching his name on amazon but nothing astrological popped out.

Paul wrote:

Neptunehead wrote:Ernst Wilhelm, the greatest 21st Century Astrologer, has already put this argument to bed.

He has done the research, wrote the books, and programmed the best Vedic software in order to back it all up.

I don't see why people are still debating the issue.

Presumably because other people have their own views besides Ernst Wilhelm.

Also, because, presumably, not everyone has read Ernst Wilhelm's views. I know I haven't.

Could you perhaps clarify the points he makes and the research he's done and the conclusions he makes and even better point us to the information so that we can find it?

I tried searching his name on amazon but nothing astrological popped out.

The mp3 link below sums up Ayanamsa and Vedic Astrological Calculations.

http://www.vedic-astrology.net/FreeClas ... -Rasis.mp3

The link below sums up everything else.

http://www.vedic-astrology.net/index.asp

Neptunehead wrote:Ernst Wilhelm, the greatest 21st Century Astrologer, has already put this argument to bed.

He has done the research, wrote the books, and programmed the best Vedic software in order to back it all up.

I don't see why people are still debating the issue.

First of all, many would debate that Ernst Wilhelm is "the greatest 21st Century Astrologer," so that is a separate discussion point.

As for Ernst's research, nowhere has he published details of these studies. I do have Ernst's earlier books, which are quite good. But since the time those books were published (when Ernst was a Jyotish astrologer), there are only videos of his work. Research can't be properly presented in videos, so up until now Ernst's research is only within his own mind with a few limited remarks in videos.

Any discussion of Ernst Wilhelm and his work is a separate topic, so Neptunehead, if you want to pursue this topic, please start a new thread.

Paul, it will take some time and effort to reply to your posts. Many thanks for our thoughtful remarks.

Therese

Neptunehead wrote: The mp3 link below sums up Ayanamsa and Vedic Astrological Calculations.

To be clear we're not trying to figure out how to calculate ayanamsas.
You say he puts the argument to bed - without being specific, I presume you mean the argument that tropical signs now reflect the sidereal signs. That this argument is put to bed one way or another.

If you can provide a link and reference that actually demonstrates the argument I would be willing to read through it, but unfortunately it's beyond my ability to search through his entire website looking for what you may be referring to. I would have thought, if anywhere, his article on the zodiac would do it:
http://www.vedic-astrology.net/Articles ... Zodiac.pdf

But it doesn't.

I have no idea if Ernst Wilhelm's ideas have changed or there is some other body of work totally separate which contradicts his views in that article, or if you're confusing him for another author.

In fact, quite the opposite is the conclusion that the author gives, ultimately admitting

Thus the student of astrology should be aware of the corundum that astrology is today
...
The ancient texts can only be relied upon to encourage us to test the Zodiacs ourselves and make up our own minds.

Clearly the matter has not been put to bed.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
As for Ernst's research, nowhere has he published details of these studies. I do have Ernst's earlier books, which are quite good. But since the time those books were published (when Ernst was a Jyotish astrologer), there are only videos of his work.

Thanks for replying, Therese & Paul.

Ernst is a Jyotish astrologer but proves that the ancient Vedic techniques work best when keeping Rasis Tropical, but Nakshatras fixed to the Galactic centre . Listen to the MP3 link; it's all there.

Judging by the time stamp of both your reply's, neither bothered listening to the MP3 link beforehand.

I would ask Martin (moderator) to intervene if there are any more posts here on the topic of Ernst Wilhelm and his work and opinions. As I said, that topic needs a separate thread. Neptunehead, you are welcome to copy your posts to a new thread if you want to discuss Ernst's work and videos.

I agree with Paul's final conclusion, but this thread isn't the place to further discuss Ernst Wilhelm. I would personally like to see all posts on this subject moved to their own thread.

I don't understand, Therese? My postings & link relate precisely to the thread title.

All I ask is that you listen to the MP3 and post your thoughts.

Paul wrote:

I read through your article here which I didn't get time to do back in May.

The point of dissension, as I understand it, relates to what active/passive may mean.

From your article:

Aristotle?s Passive is external to the active, and is related more to the outer world. (Thus, the usual astrological understanding of "active" is what Aristotle might term passive!) Aristotle's passive has been said to relate to matter or the world of forms. The passive intellect would represent computer data files, but not the hard drive itself. This function can be related to the Moon which collects and reflects light from the Sun.

This is an interesting way of looking at it, with regards the locus of intellect being either internal or external. However the entire idea of the passive/active intellect is actually a very complicated, and, if I can add, controversial subject. It's not a clear-cut part of Aristotelian philosophy.

I think it's a little bit more than just internal/external - keeping in mind my caveat that this is a complex subject anyway, and I have not studied philosophy at higher education, or anything like it. I am not sure whether you have?

We are in the same boat here, so to speak. I've studied philosophy, but am certainly not an expert on Aristotle.

The way I like to think about the active/passive intellect is that the active intellect is not just some internal locus, rather it is emanating.

Yes, the active is emanating from within. In practical terms, a person strong in this attribute wouldn't be asking others outside himself for guidance, but would rely on his own understanding.

The passive intellect is therefore receiving from an external locus. I hope this makes sense? It is not just that the active intellect is internal, it is emanating from internal such that it applies itself to the external/passive in order to be perceived.

Yes, the passive would be receiving and looking outside itself for help or verification of its actions. Perhaps the problem is with the term 'active.' We think of 'active' as being active in an external way. But everyone performs actions and interacts with others throughout the day.

With this in mind, we may see that light, or the thing which generates and emits light, is the active intellect, and that which perceives or is given form from light is the passive intellect. With this in mind, we may see the active intellect as being that which generates or emanates from, say, within, and the passive intellect is that which is altered or takes on form because of it.

My conclusion then is the active intellect is that which emanates/moves and the passive that which receives/moved.

Perhaps the problem is with the terms 'moves' and 'moved.' I don't think 'moved' is quite the same concept as being receptive and asking for input from others. If we're considering the trait of receptivity, this would belong to the Moon and Venus and the feminine signs with feminine or nocturnal triplicity lords.

Paul wrote:

To back up this statement, let me take a quote.
Notes on Aristotle De Anima 3. 5, by John M. Rist
Classical Philology, Vol. 61

Of all the Aristotelian doctrines perhaps the most difficult is that concerning the Active and Passive Intellects which we find in the short fifth chapter of the third book of De Anima. Interpretations of this chapter have been almost as numerous as interpreters and it would be naive to expect at this stage to be definitive.
...
We may say then that there are within each individual soul an Active and Passive Intellect. The Active Intellect is the moving factor and the Passive the factor that is moved.
...
The effect of the former [Active] is to bring the latter [Passive] up from potency to act.

Yes, this is how I understand Aristotle's active and passive. I think to carry this concept further I would need a good definition of polarity, the tropical male and female (signs).

The passive intellect would represent computer data files, but not the hard drive itself. This function can be related to the Moon which collects and reflects light from the Sun.

I agree with the gist of what you're trying to say in this piece I think - though I believe you miss the implicit idea of motion or application for active intellect, and reception or being moved for the passive.

No, I think that 'motion' may not be the best way of understanding these terms. I think we both agree that Aristotle's 'active' generates its actions from within, but the idea of 'reception or being moved for the passive' is a bit confusing. Isn't it easier to comprehend a person who seeks the company of others and solicits their input for his own actions? In practice this would mean that entrepreneurs (for example) would have to have a strong dose of "I can do it myself" (active) rather than "I need your advice before I can act. Let's do this as a group." (passive)

I hope you can see from this that actually the modern tropical understanding, whilst surely confused in many ways from the Aristotelian meaning of Active/Passive in many ways, namely by being a simplified variant of it, the basic crux is actually preserved, in that tropical astrologers believe active/masculine to be in relation to a sense of movement outward (hence its link to that which is dry, consider dry sand dispersing), whilst on the other hand, passive/feminine is that which is applied to, moves or is inward or holding (linking with moist, consider moist sand clumping and holding.

So here you're giving what I asked for above: a tropical definition of masculine and feminine. The problem as I see it is with the understanding of the feminine as 'holding' which seems to indicate a contraction and keeping something close to oneself. This seems to point to introversion or Saturn. But in practice women (the feminine gender) tend to be sociable outgoing creatures compared to men.

(I'm continuing your post and my reply in another message so that too many concepts don't become confused. I'm having a hard time with quotes within quotes!)

(Continuing my reply to Paul)

Paul wrote:

In other words it is not just that the Active Intellect has an internal locus, but that it acts outwardly to make sense/shape of the potential passive.

Yes, the Active Intellect could be said to be a power center (linked to the eternal) from which emanates energy and focus.

Therefore we imply movement, with the active intellect acting outward or moving, and the passive intellect being acted upon, or impressed upon, or formed, or shaped or moved.

Wouldn?t the Passive then relate to the wish to link with others for direction and companionship?

Now, when we see it from this point of view, and not just merely as a check box of whether the Intellect can more or less be considered internal or external (keeping in mind the quality of the soul is such that it contains both in Aristotelian philosophy), then we realise that movement or direction is the important part.

No, I don?t see that movement or direction is the important part. What seems to be important is where the power focus is: within or outside oneself.

Therese wrote:
The passive intellect would represent computer data files, but not the hard drive itself. This function can be related to the Moon which collects and reflects light from the Sun.

Paul replied:
I agree with the gist of what you're trying to say in this piece I think - though I believe you miss the implicit idea of motion or application for active intellect, and reception or being moved for the passive.

No, as I said, I agree that the Active projects and the Passive receives. The hard drive is fixed (eternal in a sense) whereas data files are peripheral and changing. Without the hard drive, they have no way of being. (This analogy was from the Internet site I referenced. It?s not my concept.)

It results that you mix up this analogy here. Instead what you ought to say, I believe, is that the computer files, representing certain data, are Active, whilst the hard drive, the form in which that data is encapsulated, is feminine. So this gets understood backward here in your example. I am not sure if this is a slip of the pen so to speak.

This is a different (modern) understanding of ?active.? The main concept isn?t motion so much as a projection from within (active) or a networking (reception) with what is external to the self. Admittedly, this hasn?t been the focus of male/female in tropical astrology, at least as I understand it.

Now, let's go back to why we're even discussing Aristotle here (even if we assume, fairly reasonably, that Ptolemy has Aristotle more or less in mind, or is at least inspired directly or indirectly by Aristotle) when he mentions masculine and feminine signs.

The reason we're mentioning any of this is because you stated:
Thu May 08, 2014 5:00 am
Therese wrote:
I relate the qualities of stubbornness or persistence to Aries as the more internally focused sign for Mars. (Scorpio is externalized Mars energy.)

Thu May 08, 2014 7:19 pm
Therese wrote:
But the understanding of ?feminine? and ?masculine? is a modern tropical teaching.

Stubbornness and persistence are a focus of power within the self. But that doesn't imply that there is no movement outward into action.

Now as I was trying to show before, feminine and masculine are traditional concepts as per my quote from Ptolemy, Ptolemy lists Aries explicitly as a masculine sign. Therefore the notion that this is a modern teaching is surely inaccurate.

Here you are returning to a label (Active) without a definition. (Does Ptolemy ever define active? I would have to check this myself.)

Now what the conclusions are based on this could be modern, but, hopefully from my post here, you can see now that actually the problem is, as I understand it, not understanding what tropical astrologers mean by active/masculine and passive/feminine in regards the signs, which, as I hope to have shown, is the same as what is meant by the Aristotelian philosophy (or at least as I personally understand it).

No, I still see that there is a mix-up of concepts between Aristotle and the modern astrological definition. The emphasis is different.

...but, in fact, Aristotle is saying that both concepts are found internal in the soul, for a start, but actually the key defining criterion is whether one is moved or moves, whether one generates or receives/perceives what is generated. And this is exactly how Tropical astrologers understand the matter.

Can we use the term ?projects? rather than 'moves' for the masculine? I don?t believe that perceives applies here to the Passive. However, receives is accurate for the concept of feminine. Too much emphasis on motion as such places the wrong emphasis on polarity. (So I disagree that motion is a primary focus of polarity.)

So now going right back, clearly the idea that Aries is an internally focused sign is clearly not true provided we are generating this information from the fact that Aries is a masculine sign, which, as I've shown, really is a traditional concept after all, and not a modern tropical one.

Confusion is being generated here, I believe. If a person has as strong power center from which to focus his or her ideas, these ideas can be projected outwardly into creative projects and activity. Then (I feel that I?m again repeating myself here), the Passive solicits from outside itself. It makes connections, networks, is sociable. Neither of these concepts explicitly relates to motion as such, or maybe both of them do.

Indian astrology terms the odd-masculine signs 'hard,' and the even-feminine signs 'soft.' This implies a principle of stability and firmness (solar traits) versus qualities of flexibility and gentleness (lunar traits).

(Checking my site I see that I've changed some of my earlier ideas (such as the feminine moving outward...what I mean now is the feminine looks outside itself for support and interaction....but I haven't changed those older articles.)

Paul wrote:

Therese wrote:
This is an important distinction because it solves the apparent tropical-sidereal contradiction of signs which tend either to extroversion or introversion. For example a sign with a primary inward focus is called Active in Aristotle?s philosophy (the mainframe), but passive (feminine) in the western astrological system.

Paul replied:
I think there is actually an underlying assumption/problem implicit or at the foundation of this whole idea, which is mentioned earlier in your article.

Quoting from your article:
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aatriplicities2013.htm

There also seems to be a general belief among astrologers that whatever traits signs of the zodiac might have are similar in the tropical and sidereal zodiac. Thus, if tropical Aries is forthright, impatient and aggressive, then sidereal Aries must manifest the same traits. I must agree with Mr. Spock in this one: ?Captain, that is not logical.? If this were true, it seems we?d have to shift the physical nature of the sky depending on which astrologer (tropical or sidereal) happened to be reading our astrological chart.

Paul wrote:
But actually the argument is totally logical, what is not (necessarily) logical is the conclusion you make.

Let's take the argument again, both the sidereal and tropical astrologers say the same things about the same sign, but you believe that this can't be true unless we shift the entire nature of the sky depending on who is observing it. But actually there is a fundamentally easier conclusion - one of them is wrong.

If we?re talking about the nature of a sidereal and tropical sign of the same name, yes, that is the logical conclusion. The nature of the sign must be changed in one zodiac or the other. (Of course I?d agree that tropical observations as observations are generally correct whereas there have really been no similar observations in the sidereal zodiac.) But my theme song (very repetitious by now) is that these observed characteristics are really sidereal. As I've said often before, this understanding is credited initially to Cyril Fagan.

You say that both tropical and sidereal are correct, more or less, and this is because actually tropical astrologers don't understand what masculine/feminine mean in relation to active/passive signs, and, as a result, reverse what each means, which, as it happens, would mean that the tropical understanding of active correlates to the sidereal understanding of passive.

But this is not true, as I hope I demonstrated in the previous post.

(Rueful smile) I?m sorry, but due to the different emphasis we placed on terms, I don't think this was sufficiently demonstrated. Setting Aristotle aside, I tend to see that tropical astrologers simply have a different definition of active/passive than was understood in ancient times.

Therefore the other really simple logical conclusion is that one of them is simply wrong. We may not like that conclusion but it is a logical conclusion that we could, if we chose, form from the argument.

Doesn?t this suggest that the wrong signs must then be re-defined?

The other conclusion, notably not even considered here, is that rather than tropical astrologers getting it wrong, it's entirely possible that sidereal astrologers have it mixed up and are altering the sign meanings.

Sidereal astrologers do need to alter sign meanings if they are calling the signs by the same names as tropical astrologers and giving them the same traits. (Aries vs. Aries for example) If those who use the sidereal zodiac are copying tropical characteristics, then they are just plain wrong!

So, back to Spock, he's more likely to say "that is one alternative, the other is that one of the two parties is simply incorrect."

Going back then to the entire argument. I have really never seen any reason to consider that tropical astrologers are casually, and constantly over time, altering the meaning of the signs so as to keep them in line with sidereal placements.

This would be a new topic for anyone who wishes to discuss it. However, we don?t really have much to go on for sign meanings from the past. Most of these sign characteristics were observed only going into the 20th century. So I would say sign traits weren?t altered so much as discovered. Then we?re back to the zodiac issue again.

If we wish to make this argument by way of examining what each means by masculine and feminine, then I do not think we can do so in terms of the evidence we have available, insofar as modern tropical (and indeed also sidereal) astrologers mean by active/feminine similar things to what we can assume Ptolemy meant by it if we derive it from Aristotelian concepts of Active/Passive Intellect such as you (probably rightly) assume in your article.

We need something else to make a compelling case. So far I have not read one - despite this being an actually quite common assertion made by sidereal astrologers.

As for the meaning of polarity, how about studying the lives of those with heavy emphasis in a particular zodiac sign? In my observation (sidereal) sign polarities really do relate to solar and lunar symbolism.

Neptunehead wrote: Thanks for replying, Therese & Paul.

Ernst is a Jyotish astrologer but proves that the ancient Vedic techniques work best when keeping Rasis Tropical, but Nakshatras fixed to the Galactic centre . Listen to the MP3 link; it's all there.

Judging by the time stamp of both your reply's, neither bothered listening to the MP3 link beforehand.

Neptunehead

As I said in my reply, I am not interested in how the ayanamshas are calculated, or the other calculations relevant to jyotish astrologers.

I actually listened to about 20 minutes or more of the MP3 but it's 3 hours long. It wasn't obvious to me from the first 20 mins that the research was going to be presented to put this argument to bed. Perhaps it is. If so, is there a part in particular we could listen to. 3 hours is a very long time to listen speculatively to in case the argument is raised and put to bed.

The first 20 minutes was, basically, an exercise in demonstrating the inaccuracy of various astrologers, with the percentages given 60%, 40%, 30% etc. being, essentially, plucked out of thin air to convey a rough 'feel' that Ernst has about where these things stand. But the focus was on the history of the zodiac through jyotish texts and whether they were really calculating signs sidereally or tropically and focusing on the ayanamsha.

I then flicked through the MP3 and it seemed like he was demonstrating the various ayanamshas and whether they were accurately measured - which is essentially the same points he makes in the PDF I linked to. I am not sure if you read that PDF, but from skimming through the MP3 it seemed more focused on the traditional jyotish texts with the conclusion that one ought to use tropical signs and sidereal nakshatras. I have to say, that would be my own preference from my own understanding of these things too.

However, what is being discussed here is whether or not tropical signs reflect the underlying sidereal signs - in other words, tropical astrologers are secretly, without their realising, assigning traits to their signs that are based on the sidereal zodiac.

As it didn't seem like the issue we're actually discussing here was focused upon, I figured I would save myself 3 hours of listening, especially as the main points seemed to be made in the PDF I linked. If you haven't read it, I encourage you to read it and hopefully you will see the points more or less appear to overlap.

Therese Hamilton wrote:I would ask Martin (moderator) to intervene if there are any more posts here on the topic of Ernst Wilhelm and his work and opinions. As I said, that topic needs a separate thread. Neptunehead, you are welcome to copy your posts to a new thread if you want to discuss Ernst's work and videos.

I agree with Paul's final conclusion, but this thread isn't the place to further discuss Ernst Wilhelm. I would personally like to see all posts on this subject moved to their own thread.

Obviously Martin has the final say on this, but I would like to put my $0.02 in here. This discussion, as I understand it, is not on your research into this topic to the exlusion of everything else. I can imagine that if we had different threads all of which deal with the idea of tropical signs reflecting sidereal signs - one focusing on your research, one focusing on Ernst's research, maybe one on Cyril Fagan's etc etc that we'd have a situation that would leave me at least tearing my hair out.

Instead I see this thread as being about the principle broadly of discussing whether or not tropical signs reflect sidereal ones, with enough room within it to focus on whatever research or evidence is brought up to make that case. Right now we're focusing on your research, but if there is some other research which is central to the point, then I think we ought to include it here.

Obviously if Martin disagrees, he is free to create spin off threads, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that we do not have a sense of ownership when we create threads - it makes more sense to me to bring together any research or compelling evidence in regards tropical signs reflecting sidereal ones.

Now having said that, it doesn't appear to me that this is what Ernst Wilhelm's MP3 or website that Neptunehead has linked to is actually setting out to show that, and for that reason, may not be relevant in this thread.

Instead what Ernst seems to be arguing is that we ought to use a Tropical Zodiac and Sidereal Nakshatras, and whilst that idea is interesting, it really does not belong in a thread with this focus, but could make a fascinating thread on its own.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Perhaps the problem is with the terms 'moves' and 'moved.' I don't think 'moved' is quite the same concept as being receptive and asking for input from others.

No me neither, but then asking for input from others is not the case I was making. That may be the conclusion you make from passive signs, at least it would appear to be, but it is not the conclusion I am making nor my focus.

The whole reason I deliberately went out to find a relevant text that pertains to the matter of active and passive intellect in so far as movement is mentioned is that this is exactly how (I understand) Tropical astrologers to understand the matter. It's not merely a focus on whether that locus is internal or external. There is a sense, otherwise lost, of applying to (masculine) and being applied to (feminine) - application in the non-astrolgoical aspect sense. Or, rather, moving (masculine) and receiving (feminine), or moving (masculine) and moved (feminine).

Now I should add that not only did I look at the article you posted, but I also looked at your article here:
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/amalefe2.htm

Some of these points you've repeated here anyway but in order to get more of a grasp of where you are coming from I read both of these articles before responding. Now I see that in your reply here you admit that your views have changed. Well that's okay, but one of the other reasons for my focus on movement was because in your article which I linked to here you do say two interesting things:
Masculine: "Static principle (centered in self)"
Feminine: "Dynamic principle (moves outward)

But my whole point for quoting and discussing the Aristotelian philosophy is to show that far from tropical astrologers getting this wrong, what appears to be incorrect is your own understanding of it.

Clearly, as we both admit, we are not experts on Aristotelian philosophy, however the author that I quoted was explicitly used because he clearly is someone more educated on the matter than either of us, he explicitly refers to active as moving and passive as moved. Whether or not you agree with that is, to be blunt, beside the point because, as we both admit, we are not the experts on this matter, so insofar as we both admit that, we ought to also admit that when our inexpert opinions clash with those who are more educated and studied on the matter than we know we are, the sensible move would be to admit that we may be ignorant on the matter and so at the very least listen carefully to the views of those educated on the subject.

Clearly your idea here of Masculine/Active as being static and Feminine/Passive as moving outward is not a reflection of Aristotelian philosophy.

The problem, as I would conclude it, is not that tropical astrologers are reversing the meaning, it's that, in effect, you are. Because it is Masculine which moves outward (don't take my word for it, but do listen to the source I quoted).

No, I think that 'motion' may not be the best way of understanding these terms. I think we both agree that Aristotle's 'active' generates its actions from within, but the idea of 'reception or being moved for the passive' is a bit confusing.

But the idea of generating and observing/receiving, or, moving and moved, is exactly how others who are better informed on the matter describe it.
Whether we find that confusing or not is another matter.

The point is that now I have demonstrated by using a source (and I could offer a couple more) that motion, or rather direction (say of force) is one way in which we can understand Aristotle's concepts of Active/Passive intelligence and it is a way that we can see quite well reflected in the understanding of masculine and feminine as tropical astrologers use it today.

No, I don?t see that movement or direction is the important part. What seems to be important is where the power focus is: within or outside oneself.

Do you mean I ought to mention tropical astrologers' sources which demonstrate the concept of masculine being dynamic and feminine as being passive, or masculine as dispersive and feminine as receptive? If we see movement/direction in that sense do you disagree?

Because I, being a solely tropical astrologer, with no sidereal pretensions or uses, explicitly disagree that masculine and feminine is about where the 'power focus is' as I said in my last posts - it is not about a locus, it is about a direction. Masculine disperses out, feminine receives or contains.

Perhaps the better thing to do is to find a reference which shows that tropical astrologers overwhelmingly do not connect masculine with outward movement, or a sense of dispersal, and do not connect feminine with receptive qualities, and those which contain or altered/moved.

It is difficult to tell what exactly you mean by these things now as your articles, as you now admit, do not reflect your current understandings, but, having been directed to those articles, it is now difficult to grasp which you really believe.

I guess what I would say is we ought to find a quote, then, to support your view that Aries is an internally focused sign - because this relates to your focus on the locus being internal or external and ignores movement altogether.

Even if you agree that Projects is a better word, where I am using 'moves outward', then even here we see that actually Aries isn't internally focused, but is in fact expressive instead, or outwardly moving, or, if you prefer, projecting outwards.
After that we can look at why you then link stubbornness with masculine signs. But I think we need to go one step at a time.

Because ultimately I still want to get back to the opening assumptions you made on this thread, but until we can follow the logic trail back we can't do that. Right now there's an assumption that modern tropical astrolgoers don't understand masculine/feminine, but the more I look into your articles at least, the more convinced I am that actually modern tropical astrolgoers do understand it just fine, and actually the problem is in how you understand it.
I have cited my references from a classics publication by someone more educated on the matter than either of us, so it's striking to me that this is not enough especially when, so far at least, we have no similar references to support your view that modern tropical astrologers really do get it the wrong way around.

I think this is what we need.