Skyscript Astrology Forum

Paul wrote: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.

I have to agree with Paul on both points here. I'd rather not start splitting threads, but I do ask that the focus of the current thread be respected. A separate thread on Ernst Wilhelm's ideas would be fine, as long as it is not entirely about scrapping the sidereal zodiac. ('Tropical Indian astrology' would be an OK topic on the Indian forum, but not on the sidereal one.)

Also, posts (not to mention entire threads) of the type I don't get why people are still discussing this when it has already been settled by my favourite teacher/book/etc are not really in the spirit of Skyscript, and I would actively discourage those.

Therese Hamilton wrote: 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)
...
But in practice women (the feminine gender) tend to be sociable outgoing creatures compared to men.

I think one of the fundamental problems here is in presuming that Active/Passive has a direct correlate with men that we know and women that we know. This anthropomorphising is probably not only unhelpful but actually misleading. Yes, in practice women tend to be sociable creatures but this informs us nothing at all of Aristotle's concept of Passive Intellect.

And of course men tend to be just as sociable anyway - I disagree with the notion that women are somehow more sociable than men. Ultimately we can only take outdated gender roles so far, especially when comparing gender roles of Aristotle's times with gender roles today.

You continue this focus on actual gender roles in society today and, in my opinion, confuse it with Active/Passive intelligence repeatedly in your articles also, where, in continuing your Static (masculine) and Dynamic (feminine) analogies you cite that women like to change their outfits (dynamic) and men don't (static).

John Gray also emphasizes what could be called the static/dynamic principle in relation to men and women. Women are very much at home with change and diversity, which can be shown in many ways. For example, women often enjoy changing their clothing or hair styles to suit their feelings. Men are much more likely to wear ?uniforms? to show their status and position in the world. Over a period of many years men?s clothing styles remain basically the same. Men in general don?t possess women?s natural affinity for change; a man looking forward to a coming change in life may experience anxiety and feelings of insecurity. However, a man with many planets in the sidereal earth or water signs and with a prominent Moon is likely to take change comfortably in stride.

But for me this is far too simplistic and takes Aristotle's Active/Passive intelligence way outside what is meant by the terms, insofar as we understand masculine/feminine in astrology to mean, because in astrology these terms 'masculine' and 'feminine' are astrologically reserved technical words. They do not mean "having the quality of the men in society" and "having the quality of women in society" which seems to be pretty much the tack that you take. Instead they relate to fundamental qualities or concepts, which, according to you at least in this thread, pertain to Active/Passive Intellect as per Aristotle.

We cannot have it both ways. I agree that the idea of masculine/feminine is if not directly linked to Aristotle's Active/Passive intelligence then basically on the same kind of gist as it. But with that in mind, it's definitely nothing to do with societal outlooks on gender roles and to conflate the two is to make a serious mistake in understanding the concept in my opinion.

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.
...
I tend to see that tropical astrologers simply have a different definition of active/passive than was understood in ancient times.

Yes, you do, but why? Let's actually demonstrate that it's true, rather than assert it as so. This is my whole point, surely if it was so obvious we could cite tonnes of examples of how tropical qualities are really sidereal. So far in our discussion we've gotten as far as masculine/feminine signs, but really this hasn't been demonstrated either. As per my source I cited on active/passsive intellect.

To wrap up some points briefly

Too much emphasis on motion as such places the wrong emphasis on polarity. (So I disagree that motion is a primary focus of polarity.)

Insofar as you bring up Aristotelian ideas of Active/Passive Intellect in how it is understood by Tropical Astrologers I do think that the of dispersing outwards and collecting/receiving/holding inwards really is important. That may not be true in a blanket sense that motion is right emphasis for polarity, but, rather, in the context we have it here, in how tropical astrologers understand this particular polarity, then I do think that this implicit idea of motion is important.

I will try to find some quotations from modern tropical astrologers which summarise this point, if my own stance isn't acceptable (which is presumably fair enough as I don't pretend to speak on behalf of Tropical Astrologers).

To continue with some of the points I made in my previous post, in your article you use embedded gender roles as you perceive them in society and use these as proofs for your thesis regarding gender swapping in Tropical astrology. As I said before, I find this to be, bluntly, a disastrous approach as
I believe it totally misses what we mean by masculine/feminine in astrological terms.

In astrology the ideas of masculine/feminine signs are more likely to be related to dryness (masculine) and moisture (feminine), as I alluded to in a previous post, and therefore the analogy of sand dispersing when dry or clumping when moist may be a much better analogy than actually looking at every day men and every day women. Another analogy may even be to consider the sperm dispersing outward, whilst the ovum is relatively stationary and receives or contains or holds the sperm.

There's obviously a degree of overlap in that we might expect, in certain circumstances, for masculine signs to represent, say, the woman will have a boy, and in feminine signs, that the woman will have a girl.

However in your article, you make the point by blatantly pointing out that women like to talk, talking and communicating is very much in the realm of the Moon, but the tropical astrologers associate communication with air signs, which aren't ruled by the Moon. But this seems to involve a hell of a lot of picking and choosing as it suits you. Let me demonstrate.

http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/amalefe2.htm

In general, women enjoy talking. A woman under stress tends to get more and more overwhelmed and emotionally distraught. She finds release in talking about her problems with family or friends, and will often ask advice on how she should act.

To astrologers this sounds like the Moon and Venus, the two feminine planets. But, if we look at the Tropical zodiac, we find that the sharing, communicative signs are the masculine fire and air signs:

But note the conclusion here, linking the feminine planets and noting discrepancy because of masculine signs - which of course is logically unsound considering that the planets such as Venus have both a masculine and feminine counter part. Also note the absence of Mercury here in the list of planets, that will be important in a second.

Tropical Gemini is often an avid conversationalist, is curious about the world, sociable and friendly. This sign overlays sidereal Taurus, ruled by Venus and also the Moon?s exaltation sign. The Moon and Venus are sociable and friendly. As a sign, Taurus traditionally rules the throat and tongue used in speech.

And presumably because Tropical Gemini is only ruled by Mercury we don't have a hit, but because that area is ruled by Sidereal Venus, one of the planets you listed, we do have a hit.

Tropical Libra is very accommodating and sociable. It can see many sides to a problem or event, and is said to need others to define itself. Tropical Libra overlays sidereal Virgo. Sociability and the ability to accommodate others are traditional feminine traits. As the lord of Virgo, effervescent Mercury is communicative, mutable and many-sided.

And suddenly we have the exact opposite logic used, with wild abandon. Now we have tropical Venus ruling. THis is totally ignored. We now have sidereal Mercury ruling, and we're told that Mercury is communicative, mutable and many-sided, and so we have a hit.

But wait, Mercury wasn't listed in the list of planets you gave! Venus was. So if we're allowing Venus as a hit in the previous sign and not allowing Mercury, why are we suddenly allowing Mercury and not allowing Venus!?

The answer is obvious - we are picking and choosing to suit our arguments. When the planet supports a sidereal perspective it is used, when it is not, it mysteriously, stops being used.

And underneath all this is the assumption that actually the planets, whether masculine or feminine, will inform us on the signs, and whether their gender has been altered. But of course it cannot, because, as I said back in May, the planets are not what defines the criterion for whether a sign is masculine or feminine - my subsequent quote from Ptolemy should show this. I can qutoe further, if there is disagreement on this issue, to show it is instead based on the idea of moisture and dryness and also on the fact that Aries, coming first, is masculine.

We have no references here to ideas of whether or not Venus and Moon are feminine and therefore have some especial link. In fact whether Venus and the Moon are feminine, and whether they rule certain signs or not will not inform us on whether those signs are masculine or feminine, and nor will using gender observations on talkativeness be persuasive when we simply chop and change whatever planet we wish provided we can make some argument for it being sidereal, especially when the logic that is thusly invented is ignored when we leverage it to the Tropical zodiac.

And underlying all these assumptions about gender expressions - which aren't even relevant to our astrological technical terms masculine and feminine that we utilise - is all from pop-psychology books along the lines of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, with the author cited multiple times to make the case.

Indeed, the findings of western social scientists seem to agree with the traditional definition of sign polarity found in the Indian texts: The even or female signs are said to be ?soft? or yielding. Masculine signs are said to be firm or ?cruel.? The meaning of this seems to be that the male signs are relatively inflexible and firm compared to the more adaptable female signs.

I'm not sure which western social scientists you mean, unless you mean to include "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" as representing western social science? But in terms of firm/cruel and soft/yielding, this actually informs us nothing at all about Tropical astrology, unless we think that A) 'masculine' and men as portrayed though pop-psychology books are an analogous concept such that the concept of masculine relates directly to gender observations about men, and B) the ruler of the signs are those which determine the gender of those signs.
This seems to be essentially the ideas that you work with through the article, and I reject both assumptions.

Paul wrote:

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)

I have to be away from the computer for some hours this morning, but the view above isn't correct, or at least not explained properly. I've tried to explain my most recent view in my posts on this thread yesterday. I should have more time to reply later today.

Male: power within, emanating outward in creative action (Solar)
"Static" isn't a good term. Firmness, determination and strength are better terms.

Female: linking to others for support and verification (Lunar: does not focus on internal strength; receptivity to outside forces)

EDIT
Paul wrote:

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.

That's funny! Most likely true, but I like the 'secretly' term! I'm working on my reply now (afternoon, California time).

Paul wrote:

...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.

I believe I?ve clarified this issue in recent posts. So I?m omitting replies to parts of your posts that discuss this issue.

Therese wrote:
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.

Paul replied:
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.

I?d say to clarify this issue we?d have to look at the lives and charts of individuals. Always, the pragmatic approach is the evidence for what we?re attempting to describe.

Therese wrote:
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.

Paul replied:
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?

I?d say that a so-called masculine emphases would be more like the self-made man, and the feminine emphasis would be (as I?ve said) linking with others, asking help and advice. It?s perhaps less confusing to dispense with labels and concentrate on actual observed behavior.

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.

No, that?s not the sidereal view. I don?t believe that looking at the situation in that way is accurate. But if that is your explanation, we can summarize our positions as this discussion nears its close (except for the discussion of actual birth charts if we choose to go on).

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.

It?s best to concentrate only on my latest article on the triplicities and sidereal signs, which is still listed at the top of my web site. http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

Also, my understanding has remained stable on the natures of the Sun and Moon.

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.

Not a quote, but the actual lives of individuals. By internal focus I mean that motivation and strength comes from within. The person doesn?t look outside him or herself for verification or approval of his or her actions.

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.

Think of the Sun: The Sun is the source of light and life for our earth. The Sun remains in exactly the same orbit trough the centuries. The Sun is Fixed, but its radiation is the source of all Life. This is masculine symbolism.

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...

It?s not so much a lack of understanding as a different view and understanding, sort of like seeing another part of the elephant (as the story where each blind person touched a different part of the elephant and saw that as the entire nature of the animal). This is why each of us is having trouble relating to what the other person is saying.

I?ll say again that as astrologers we?re on firmer ground when considering solar and lunar symbolism. We won?t get far with finger pointing and telling the other person that they?re not getting it right. That only sets up an antagonistic platform.

(I?m being interrupted....will continue a bit later here or in another post.)

Paul wrote: 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.

Thank you, Paul.

Gone through the 3 hours again and here are the relevant parts; although I won?t be doing any justice to the entire lecture.

Hope it promotes more discussion, and interests everyone here.

0-18 mins ? the importance to Parashara and Jaimini.

Nakshatras

18 mins 45 sec - 26 mins ? Why Astronomy is important to Astrology

All planets move in 3 directions along the ecliptic ? east to west, up, and down. Nakshatras only move east to west. Why the Galactic Centre is important to the ?Nakshatra Day? concept.

Ayanamsa

26 mins ? 41 mins 15 secs

Too many different schools of thought each use different stars to mark the start of a Nakshartra. No old texts give an accurate location of a star within 3 degrees of accuracy to calculate an Ayanamsa ? why? - Because stars are not fixed. The ONLY fixed point in our galaxy is the Galactic Centre. The middle of Mula (The Root) is important ? scientific valid because it is FIXED.
Revati star is probably best Nakshatra to base Ayanamsa according to old texts. Revati Star marks the beginning of Sidereal learnings ? important point.

41 mins 16 secs ? 69 mins

Why the Nakshartas (Sidereal Stars) are completely different to the Ecliptic (Tropical Signs) based on both astronomical calculations. Mathematically, there is no Sidereal Zodiac, only Tropical.

69 mins ? 81 mins

Signs are defined by the motion of the Sun relevant to the Ecliptic. The Zodiac is the relationship of the Earth to the Sun. Ecliptic is nothing to do with the stars from our Astrology Earth based science.

82 mins ? 102 mins

Why the Indian culture calculated their Zodiac 3 weeks late ? Why the ingress of Sun into Capricorn should be calculated via Tropical, not Sidereal. Lack of knowledge regarding precision ? sages observing just the stars. There is much evidence that ancient Hindu?s were using the Tropical Zodiac, pre 500 AD.

102 mins ? 120 mins

Why Tropical signs are more descriptive, 75% of the time based on house lordships. Why the scientific community laugh at Astrology whilst gold still melts at a specific point.

121 mins ? 180 mins

Ernst freestyles on Parashara and Jaimini in Tropical plus questions & answers.

Paul wrote:

Therese wrote:
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)
...
But in practice women (the feminine gender) tend to be sociable outgoing creatures compared to men.

Paul wrote:
I think one of the fundamental problems here is in presuming that Active/Passive has a direct correlate with men that we know and women that we know. This anthropomorphising is probably not only unhelpful but actually misleading. Yes, in practice women tend to be sociable creatures but this informs us nothing at all of Aristotle's concept of Passive Intellect.

And of course men tend to be just as sociable anyway - I disagree with the notion that women are somehow more sociable than men. Ultimately we can only take outdated gender roles so far, especially when comparing gender roles of Aristotle's times with gender roles today.

I don?t want to turn this topic into a gender argument. I can only say that I suspect I?ve had twice your number of years on earth to observe human nature. I?m also aware that this "outdated/modern" male/female debate is still on-going in professional circles. I do have two psychology degrees, and I receive the daily San Francisco newspaper. It's rather amusing to continue reading articles on both sides of this on-going debate. Most of these articles are supported by professional research. So I?d rather leave this distraction for now.

You continue this focus on actual gender roles in society today and, in my opinion, confuse it with Active/Passive intelligence repeatedly in your articles also, where, in continuing your Static (masculine) and Dynamic (feminine) analogies you cite that women like to change their outfits (dynamic) and men don't (static).

I?ve already said that I?ve left behind the static/dynamic view. I really need to modify articles on my web site.

Quote from Therese's article:
John Gray also emphasizes what could be called the static/dynamic principle in relation to men and women. Women are very much at home with change and diversity, which can be shown in many ways. For example, women often enjoy changing their clothing or hair styles to suit their feelings. Men are much more likely to wear ?uniforms? to show their status and position in the world.

Over a period of many years men?s clothing styles remain basically the same. Men in general don?t possess women?s natural affinity for change; a man looking forward to a coming change in life may experience anxiety and feelings of insecurity. However, a man with many planets in the sidereal earth or water signs and with a prominent Moon is likely to take change comfortably in stride.

Paul wrote:
But for me this is far too simplistic and takes Aristotle's Active/Passive intelligence way outside what is meant by the terms...

This quote is basically comparing solar (fixed) and lunar (change) symbolism. The article you are citing was written in 2004, nine years before my Triplicity/Zodiac article, and it?s confusing to mix concepts between the two, not to mention that I should find time to modify the 2004 article.

...insofar as we understand masculine/feminine in astrology to mean, because in astrology these terms 'masculine' and 'feminine' are astrologically reserved technical words. They do not mean "having the quality of the men in society" and "having the quality of women in society" which seems to be pretty much the tack that you take.

Yes, I?d say these terms do relate to the behavior and attitudes of men and women, and this is a different view that is tied to the sidereal zodiac. I know that this is not the tropical view, which is your understanding. I suppose we could say that this is a major difference in viewing polarity in the sidereal zodiac. So you can?t categorically state that these attributes don?t relate to sidereal signs because you have never used the sidereal zodiac in your work. You can say, however, that those concepts don't apply in the tropical zodiac.

Therese wrote:
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.
...
I tend to see that tropical astrologers simply have a different definition of active/passive than was understood in ancient times.

Paul replied:
Yes, you do, but why? Let's actually demonstrate that it's true, rather than assert it as so. This is my whole point, surely if it was so obvious we could cite tons of examples of how tropical qualities are really sidereal.

Yes, we can do that with example birth charts and life histories.

So far in our discussion we've gotten as far as masculine/feminine signs, but really this hasn't been demonstrated either. As per my source I cited on active/passive intellect.

I have explained active/passive as much as possible in my Triplicity/Sign article.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/aatriplicities2013.htm

I don?t know how to make the concepts any clearer. Paul, I think you are attempting a non-existent argument. We have several points of agreement that you are ignoring. I think it's time that each of us briefly summarizes our understanding of signs in our preferred zodiac, and then examine some birth charts which we see as supporting those concepts.

We have beaten Aristotle into the ground, which is saying a lot considering that neither of us has any formal education in Greek philosophy. (Well, I probably had a course or two that I've forgotten about over the years.)

Richrd Wilhelm?s translation of the I Ching pretty well synchronizes with my understanding of universal symbolism as related to the Sun and Moon. Perhaps these hexagrams also help us to understand Aristotle. Quotations are exact from Wilhelm.

1. CH?IEN - THE CREATIVE [Solar symbolism]

The first hexagram is made up of six unbroken lines. These unbroken lines stand for the primal power, which is light-giving, active, strong, and of the spirit. The hexagram is consistently strong in character, and since it is without weakness, its essence is power or energy. Its image is heaven. Its energy is represented as unrestricted by any fixed conditions in space and is therefore conceived of as motion[!]. Time is regarded as the basis of this motion. Thus the hexagram includes also the power of time and the power of persisting in time, that is, duration.

In relation to the human world, it denotes the creative action of the holy man or sage, of the ruler or leader of men, who through his power awakens and develops their higher nature. (page 1)

2. K?UN - THE RECEPTIVE [Lunar symbolism]

This hexagram is made up of broken lines only. The broken line represents the dark, yielding, receptive primal power of yin. The attribute of the hexagram is devotion; its image is the earth. It is the perfect complement of The Creative?the complement, not the opposite, for the Receptive does not combat the Creative, but completes it. It represents nature in contrast to spirit. Earth in contrast to heaven, space as against time, the female-maternal as against the male-paternal. However, as applied to human affairs, the principle of this complementary relationship is found not only in relation between man and woman, but also in that between prince and minister and between father and son...(p. 9-10)

Applied to human affairs, therefore, what the hexagram indicates is action in conformity with the situation. The person in question is not in an independent position, but is acting as an assistant. This means that he must achieve something. It is not his task to try to lead?that would only make him lose his way?but to let himself be led. (p. 11)
The I Ching or Book of Changes, translated by Richard Wilhelm, Pantheon Books, 1964.

-------------------------End Quotes----------------------

These two hexagrams describe my understanding of solar and lunar energy. And I'm now much clearer on the concept of motion. These general principles may be applied to signs in the sidereal zodiac. The Solar/Lunar brackets are mine. So, to summarize:

Solar/male: primal power, which is light-giving, active, strength, energy conceived of as motion (!): the power of persisting in time, that is, duration

Lunar/female: yielding, receptive primal power; the female-maternal as against the male-paternal; the principle of complementary relationship; the task is to let oneself be led

Thus, we have the Solar principles of light giving active strength, persistence, duration and the concept of motion

...and the Lunar principles of receptivity and complimentary relationship plus the task of being led rather than leading (cooperation?)

This is good enough for me as a basis for understanding male and female principles in relation to astrology. Solar: Sun/Jupiter and Lunar: Venus/Moon

Then we could try to decide which signs of the zodiac best reflect these principles.

But, Paul, you would have to briefly list of what you expect from Male and Female tropical signs. Or if you prefer more neutral terminology, Odd and Even signs. Then we can compare principles by looking at birth charts. I'm secure in my understanding of solar/lunar/male/female principles. Rather than continuing to criticize my views, it would be helpful to see the concepts that you feel are secure and clear for the tropical zodiac.

Therese

Neptunehead: I have let your latest post stand, as it may be construed as an answer to a question from Paul, but I think we have heard quite enough of Ernst Wilhelm on this thread. If you want to continue discussing his views on why the tropical zodiac should be used instead of the sidereal, please take it to the Indian forum. If you want to discuss Wilhelm's use of (sidereal) nakshatras, you're welcome to do so in this forum, but please start a separate thread.

Map: I have removed your latest post, which (a) was about why the tropical zodiac is better than the sidereal, which is inappropriate on this forum; and (b) used a number of terms specific to Indian astrology and probably unintelligible to many reading the post. If you want to continue that discussion, please take it to the Indian forum.

Thank you, Martin. Understood.

Therese Hamilton wrote:I've tried to explain my most recent view in my posts on this thread yesterday. I should have more time to reply later today.

Male: power within, emanating outward in creative action (Solar)
"Static" isn't a good term. Firmness, determination and strength are better terms.

Female: linking to others for support and verification (Lunar: does not focus on internal strength; receptivity to outside forces)

...

I believe I?ve clarified this issue in recent posts. So I?m omitting replies to parts of your posts that discuss this issue.

I guess what I'm trying to show is that throughout some period of time you have been consistent with claiming that the tropical signs are basically the underlying sidereal signs. That hasn't changed, what has changed is the logic employed to show it, and as I was trying to show from that example from your previous article, in some cases the logic has done a complete 180? turn. Several years ago you claimed that tropical astrologers have the masculine/feminine thing the wrong way around and you describe female as dynamic and moving outward. Therefore you conclude that tropical astrologers have it the wrong way around. Now, several years later, you've done an about turn on this, and describe Male!!! as dynamic and outward moving. Yet you STILL conclude that it's tropical astrologers who have it the wrong way around.

In fact, when we compare the two articles, the main thing that remains consistent is that tropical astrologers have it the wrong way around, and it really seems as if the conclusion comes before the arguments or the study, because even when the logic completely contradicts itself, which it does in the earlier article when it comes to sign rulers, and which it does if you compare the description of, say, female between the two articles, what remains consistent is the conclusion. And that strikes me as indicative of a bias in your argument.

I maintain that it has never been demonstrated that tropical astrologers are really using the sidereal zodiac, such that tropical signs have changed over time to reflect the sidereal signs. If we are to argue it for masculine/feminine, such as you have here, then we have to observe that you really have done an about turn on the matter, yet still, in both instances, maintain that it is tropical astrologers who have gotten it wrong all along. And that's very telling.

It?s best to concentrate only on my latest article on the triplicities and sidereal signs, which is still listed at the top of my web site.

I can understand why you might say this, after all the latest article is more free from the more glaring logic problems of the old one, but I still maintain that it is an important relic to observe how the logic you employ has changed greatly over the years, in some instances reversing, and yet the conclusion, no matter what, remains the same. In addition, it's worth noting that I read this article back in May - it is linked on the very first post of this thread, where you quote Michael who cites it. At that time, it was never specified that this is outdated data.
In addition, it forms part of your "Lost Zodiac" series - it is part 2 to be specific - this is the very same series that you link to in every single post you make in your footer.
It seems not only relevant, but actively advertised and promoted with all your posts, and forms the basis (via Michael's criticism that you quoted in the first post) of the very thread we're discussing.

However, it is only now that I have used it to demonstrate what I perceive as a great flaw in the logic, and indeed the exact reversal of how passive/active intellect is described, that this article is now 'redundant'.

By internal focus I mean that motivation and strength comes from within. The person doesn?t look outside him or herself for verification or approval of his or her actions.

Okay so to go back to what you said originally, the reason you assign the qualities of stubbornness to Aries is that it is the internalised variant of Mars? In that case are those qualities not true of Scorpio?

Considering that you believe that tropical astrologers have gotten this wrong, can you point me to some source which demonstrates that the reason that Aries is stubborn is due to it being a masculine sign? At least in this way we can start to demonstrate your points effectively.

It?s not so much a lack of understanding as a different view and understanding, sort of like seeing another part of the elephant (as the story where each blind person touched a different part of the elephant and saw that as the entire nature of the animal). This is why each of us is having trouble relating to what the other person is saying.

Not quite, in the story of the blind men and the elephant, each blind man was perceiving a different part of the whole, and by only perceiving one part and not the whole, they all formed different conclusions about what it is they were experiencing.

The difference is that, in fact totally opposite to the story of the blind men and the elephant, you believe that we're all perceiving the exact same thing, it is just that some blind men are blinder than others, and in their naivety are confusing what it is they perceive. In other words you believe that tropical astrologers are observing the exact same thing sidereal astrologers are, but, in their ignorance, do not realise that what they are perceiving are sidereal placements.

We won?t get far with finger pointing and telling the other person that they?re not getting it right. That only sets up an antagonistic platform.

But isn't that exactly what you're saying? - that tropical astrologers have gotten it wrong, and really the sidereal zodiac is the 'true' one but tropical astrologers are secretly using it without knowing?

I have no problem with the use and employment of the sidereal zodiac (obviously) and have no problem with the tropical one (obviously). But I do think it is completely without merit that tropical astrologers have altered the meaning of their signs consistently coinciding with precession such that over time tropical astrologers have been using the sidereal zodiac.

This is the argument oft made by sidereal astrologers, but so far as I can tell there is no evidence for this at all.

Now you have asked for looking at chart examples, but as you can see from when we have tried that approach, we find that actually there are more ways to interpret a chart than we might like to admit. Whilst you find it compelling that Aries was prominent in the chart, I found it much more telling that Mars was angular. And we'd find similar interpretive differences which really have nothing to do with establishing whether the tropical signs are secretly sidereal ones.

For example I remember a sidereal astrologer pointing out that Mars in Sidereal Aries for Hitler's chart is much more descriptive of his violent behaviour than fluffy Tropical Taurus which is tropical astrologers describe as being patient and calm. But, for me, Mars in Taurus makes more sense, as I would expect more dignity from Mars in Aries. But I would expect Lord 1 corrupted/maltreated by Mars, a malefic out of dignity and Saturn, a malefic out of dignity and so on to be more descriptive.

What do we end up with? All we can establish is that we each have interpretive differences, but just because we can establish a difference in focus and a difference in interpretive focus does not imply that the REASON for that difference is that one zodiac is secretly another zodiac in disguise, and even if we did, we haven't established that it's the sidereal zodiac with tropical not realising that it is secretly sidereal.

So let's not do this by some statistical measurement based on some predefined/assumed approach to interpreting charts, and instead let's look at the arguments that are actually used when the topic is raised. Cyril Fagan, as far as I know, did not run a statistical analysis in order to arrive at his conclusion. Nor did you in your article, nor does people like Kenneth Bowser who casually states on the FAQ of his site that:
http://www.westernsiderealastrology.com/#!faq/c1s4j

For example, most of what is called Scorpio in terms of ?tropical zodiac reckoning is the constellation of Libra.

The problem is that the focus is more theoretical, with, obviously, real life observation no doubt fuelling much of this also. Whilst you have example charts on your site, the focus or the logic is not directly derived from them, and, as hopefully we can see by now, some of the assumptions about active/passive and about how tropical astrologers views signs is a bit misleading, especially when we consider that you thought that tropical astrologers were getting it wrong at one instance when you thought Female was really outward moving, and still decided Tropical astrologers were wrong when you later decided Male was outward moving. Surely this shows us a big problem!

I don?t want to turn this topic into a gender argument. I can only say that I suspect I?ve had twice your number of years on earth to observe human nature.

Not in Aristotle's time you don't, and it is his Active/Passive Intellect that you are basing your argument that Tropical astrologers have it wrong. We need to keep this in mind, we're taking Aristotelian notions of active/passive intellect and correlating that with a kind of magnet like polarity, calling positive masculine and negative feminine. But instead you turn this into a commentary about gender in society TODAY, now I would prefer we don't turn to argument ad hominem or argument by authority in suggesting that my age and lack of experience looking at men and women today is even relevant to that discussion.

This quote is basically comparing solar (fixed) and lunar (change) symbolism.

No, this was relating to masculine and feminine signs, the meaning of which, according to you, has been altered over time by tropical astrologers. We have not (yet at least) discussed solar with fixed and lunar with change. Nor does this article, because whilst you start off your polarity article with the sun and moon, the part I have quoted from is at the parts where you compared the tropical and sidereal masculine signs to show how actually the tropical ones weren't masculine after all based on your understanding of John Gray's book on gender and also on an illogical schema derived from planetary rulers (there's no point repeating this argument from above).

not to mention that I should find time to modify the 2004 article.

I hope you keep the article as it stand as a record to show how your views have changed over time. Perhaps just adding an addendum to link to the latest views.

You can say, however, that those concepts don't apply in the tropical zodiac.

Right this is exactly what I'm saying, but insofar as you use it to bolster your argument about Tropical astrology it seems redundant.

Or at least as I use and understand the tropical zodiac. All I can say with certainty is that when I read your arguments about what tropical astrologers believe i do not recognise myself in there at all.

I have explained active/passive as much as possible in my Triplicity/Sign article.

To clarify my point here, you admit that you are not well studied on Aristotelian philosophy - nor am I. We both have a, probably, run of the mill understanding from our own relatively more limited scope from reading the original material and then reading second hand material on it.

However my point was that I therefore, with this in mind, cited someone who IS educated on the matter, and yet even here you disagree with what the 'expert' says. Does that not strike you as perhaps the problem is not with what tropical astrologers think about passive, or how they understand it, and perhaps more indicative of some holes in your own understanding which need shoring up. All I can say with surety is that the way that the article I cited understands/explains the concept of active/passive is how I have always understood the gender in astrology to operate. I don't want to keep citing the older article but I do think we need to observe that actually it would appear, from the records we have of your view, that actually the problem seems to be more with your own understanding of it. I don't say this to be antagonistic or to continually attach to an article which you now distance yourself from, but rather to show that actually we ought to put a massive question mark under the assumption that the problem is with tropical astrologers.

In reference to Martin's latest post about removing posts and the (ir)relevancy of certain posts to this thread, I just want to state outright that I have a lot of respect for all astrologers who are dedicated to studying astrology, regardless of our preferences for house systems, zodiacs, techniques or whether we focus on psychological interpretation or somewhere else.

I realise that we all are passionate about our astrology and, in this case, the zodiacs we employ. I do hope we can continue to be respectful of both zodiacs and not denigrate one or the other, which isn't to say anyone has, but I worry with these discussions that we can sometimes get caught up in our views and passions and veer toward it.

This thread, as I understand, is the examination of a particular idea, namely that actually both sidereal and tropical are valid because, unbeknownst to tropical astrologers, they are actually using the sidereal zodiac. It is just about this, and it is not, to be clear, about whether sidereal is superior to tropical, or, for that matter, necessitates some counter-position whereby anyone ought to feel the need to come back with some argument that tropical is superior to sidereal. We do not need those arguments here and they help nobody and serve only to divide and distance ourselves from the very people who may be the most useful in serving to expand our own understanding and knowledge of the zodiac and the different ways people employ it.