Skyscript Astrology Forum

Martin Gansten wrote:As suggested, I have removed a few recent posts on the topic of which zodiac is the right one and why. This is a perfectly legitimate topic of discussion in itself, but it is not the topic of this thread, nor appropriate for this forum. I would suggest taking it to the Philosophy & Science forum.

As Deb has written, Skyscript is a site dedicated to Western tropical astrology. I don't understand why we'd now need to defend the validity of this astrology in the Philosophy & Science Forum. It was disruptive enough when people with their own non-Western, non-tropical systems tried hard to have mystery charts in the Traditional Forum presented in a distracting variety of ways to appease everyone's belief that theirs was the "right" system. That argument itself was extremely distracting, not to mention how scattered the mystery charts themselves became. Now it'll be the Philosophy & Science Forum?
Conversely, the "sidereal" forum is an alternative forum contained within a Western tropical website. In this context it seems natural for alternative ideas which claim to be incompatible with Western tropical astrology to meet counter-arguments from the website's mainstream folks -- in this very forum. I say "incompatible" because these alternative ideas routinely center on Western tropical astrology?s being "wrong" (as stated in this very thread: "...only one zodiac can be right...").
Yes, it may seem "unfair": Western tropical astrologers don't have to constantly defend their fundamentals in the other Skyscript forums, while "siderealists" and others who flatly state that Western tropical astrology is wrong do have to defend their positions in this forum. But I thought Skyscript was a site dedicated to the preservation of Western tropical astrology. That foundation in and of itself means that such fundamental debates, since they are useful and are not ignored on Skyscript, should be contained in one part of the site, namely this particular forum. My humble opinion.

Well, Phil, your 'humble' opinion, I'm happy to say, is wrong. Had the intention of Skyscript been as narrow as you suggest, I should never have bothered with it.

The Philosophy & Science forum is explicitly there for the discussion of fundamentals ('Does astrology work? Why?'). I'm not its moderator, but certainly, to my mind, a question on which zodiac(s) work(s) and why seems to fit right in.

As for traditional astrology, I think we should all be aware that for more than half of its known history it has been a mainly Asian phenomenon (that's true even if, due to some bias on our part, we exclude South Asia) and has been practised using a variety of zodiac definitions, Ptolemy's tropical definition becoming dominant only in the Islamic period (and that's 'dominant', not 'exclusive'). The Babylonians, most Hellenistic astrologers (including Valens), and the Persians all used zodiacs where the equinox did not define the beginning of Aries.

The Sidereal forum is not some sort of garbage bin for everything that doesn't seem to fit the label 'Western Tropical astrology', nor is it a place where sidereal astrologers have to defend the use of a sidereal zodiac. (Just as traditional astrologers shouldn't have to defend the use of traditional techniques on the Traditional forum, even if those techniques happen to be sidereal -- but that's another discussion, for another time and place.) I shall continue to prune posts that do not respect this.

Phil wrote: As Deb has written, Skyscript is a site dedicated to Western tropical astrology. I don't understand why we'd now need to defend the validity of this astrology in the Philosophy & Science Forum.
...
Yes, it may seem "unfair": Western tropical astrologers don't have to constantly defend their fundamentals in the other Skyscript forums, while "siderealists" and others who flatly state that Western tropical astrology is wrong do have to defend their positions in this forum. But I thought Skyscript was a site dedicated to the preservation of Western tropical astrology.

Phil

I think it's worth reading the sticky on the this forum started by Deb under the title "Please read this before posting in this forum" wherein she lays down her 'vision' and understanding of what this forum is all about.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6581

Of particular importance is this part:

the only requirement for posting on this forum is that questions, contributions and discussions be in the context of a sidereal zodiac. "A" sidereal zodiac because the ayanamsa question has yet to be settled. This isn't the place to compare the tropical and sidereal zodiacs, though different ayanamsas can be discussed and debated if necessary.

As you see, this is not the place to compare, in particular to compete, the sidereal and tropical zodiac nor to get into discussions about which is best.

As you can see then, we're already on shaky ground here with this discussion in that it runs perilously close to doing just that - comparing the two zodiacs. My understanding of this thread is that really this is about trying to find out if Tropical signs match Sidereal ones. Perhaps that breaches the purpose of the forum already, however insofar as the moderator of this forum (to whom Deb entrusted the forum with mutual understanding of its purpose) is okay with it being here, we can continue to post on the matter, provided we keep in mind that it is explicitly not an exercise in competing one zodiac against another.

Now it's been suggested that we could examine gender broadly within the tradition extending up to the modern day, and also the philosophy behind it, which, if you've followed these (admittedly long and perhaps exhausting) posts, you will see stretches back to Greek philosophy through, in particular, Aristotle.

With that in mind, surely the only sensible place to discuss this would be the philosophy section?

I also want to address in particular this part of your post:

I don't understand why we'd now need to defend the validity of this [Tropical] astrology

(insertion mine)

I don't think anybody should feel the need to defend the astrology they do here to anyone. Including tropical astrologers. Just as much as including sidereal astrologers. However I don't think that's what's been asked for. I think instead there is a theory, which is common enough among some sidereal astrologers, particularly stemming back (as far as I understand it at least) to Cyril Fagan, that the tropical signs have had their meanings altered to match sidereal descriptions. Now as far as I know that theory has never been demonstrated, merely asserted. To an extent, Therese has a similar view as we can see from her website. For me, then, this topic is more about discussing that theory, which we can do without feeling any threats to our own astrological preferences, and we can do it without feeling then that we ought to defend our preferences either.

Phil, I understand your concerns and I can see that at some stage we should perhaps have a longer, sensible discussion on some of the issues that have come up lately about what the remits of the different forum sections are, and why, and whether there needs to be some tweaks and adjustments. I would like to delay that for now as I'd hope to be actively involved with it and this is my first day home after a very enjoyable but "full-on" conference, and I have a "catch-up" period ahead of me.

Although I employ the tropical zodiac myself, and have stated that it is the perspective that the site generally adopts and uses to show example charts (unless otherwise stated), we have to accept that the sidereal approach has had an important place in astrology historically, and remains the zodiac of choice for some very well-informed astrologers whose views deserve to be aired and respected. We don't want forum discussions to devolve into pointless and disruptive debates about whether an example chart should be using this zodiac or that, but equally we don't want to strangle informative and educational interchange that come from different perspective either. I can't see any reason why the Philosophy and science forum should not be able to host any kind of interesting discussion on the philosophical or theoretical basis of anything that impacts on the placement of astrology in philosophy or science. I think that should be a place where all intelligent contributions are welcomed - even from sceptics if the points they make are relevant and not presented in a disrespectful manner (or with an agenda to close minds rather than open them).

The remit of this particular forum is pretty clear, in that it facilitates free flowing discussion on sidereal zodiac concerns in an environment that should be spared the interruption of astrologers who may want to undermine it because they consider that there can only be one zodiac system which represents astrological truth. I don't believe that myself, for many reasons. When I have time to articulate them effectively, I will be able to kick-off the exploration that seems to be in need of development. But in the meantime, it remains the case that each forum keeps its stability because the ultimate word rests with its appointed moderator. I know that none of the moderators enjoy having to remove remarks or point out when boundaries are getting crossed, so when they do make a comment we should all respect what they have to say, knowing that everyone is volunteering efforts with the aim of keeping beneficial debate flowing between astrologers (who sometimes hold very diverse views). I have chosen to put myself under the direction of the moderators too, because sometimes I get very passionate in astrological debates, and can need a moderator's reminder to stay on-topic as much as anyone.

If you would like to develop this further, then feel free to articulate your concerns as a way to encourage more contributions of views in the philosophy section. The timing would not be good for me personally, but that never held a good discussion back before

(Apologies Martin, for continuing comment on a point that is off-topic, but I thought it would be helpful to clarify my own position, so we can draw a line under this now, without contributors feeling that their concerns are not considered or their views have been choked)

Jim Eshelman is without doubt the current primary spokesperson for the Fagan school of sidereal astrology. I didn't realize that he advocated Fagan's view of the zodiacs. Recently Jim wrote on his Solunars Forum:

by Jim Eshelman on Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:31 pm

Q: Do you find the tropical descriptions to be truthful?

A: "Only if the person who wrote them is a real observer of human character - meaning, if they really observe a Tropical Aries, they will actually see the same traits I attribute to Pisces. But they'll only see it for 5 people out of 6 at best, and you still have to ignore the reasons (symbolism, metaphors) they give - strip the packaging away to disclose the meat. Occasionally there is a rare, quality observer of human nature such as Linda Goodman who nails it better than most.

"But no, there is nothing inherently truthful about the Tropical zodiac. It's just that, for 5 people out of 6 (at this point in time) it's a different label for categorizing the same behavior. If you let observations prevail over the labeling, valid observations will emerge."
(End quote)

http://solunars.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=16361#p16361

Therese Hamilton wrote:Jim Eshelman is without doubt the current primary spokesperson for the Fagan school of sidereal astrology. I didn't realize that he advocated Fagan's view of the zodiacs. Recently Jim wrote on his Solunars Forum:

Thanks for the reference Therese, but I am not quite sure what conclusions if any we're drawing from this. I would have expected it to be obvious that a follower of Cyril Fagan would follow Cyril Fagan. I didn't see any rationale for the assertion that Tropical Signs are really modelling Sidereal ones, just the claim that it is so (I should add that obviously I don't expect anyone to provide endless references each time the point is made online of course, so this is no criticism of Jim Eshelman).

I think we can all agree that it has been claimed to be so, but I would be interested in, personally, is evidence that it is so. Particularly textual evidence in regards how signs have been described over the years. We started this with the gender issue but for the time being at least we've put that on hold.