Skyscript Astrology Forum

I know Skyscript has lots of traditionalists when it comes to astrology, but...

... the thing is I have this picture, which I arrived at by asking myself "how on earth does this astrology work?".

The explanation is quite long, but the basis is really simple.

So the question is are traditionalists interested? And, does this stack up in any way?

After all, if I can't get it to make sense to you lot, then I possibly ought to forget about it.

The starting point is the acknowledgement that the signs represent one of the few certainties or fundamentals of astrology. So starting with the signs we can see that there are triplicities, 4 kinds of sign, classified as elements.

My proposal is that if you have a sector that is of one element, and you want to divide it, then the only workable way is to find the other three elements in it, as the original element is already there in the whole sector. This divides everything by 3, which from signs clearly gives us decanates, or faces.

But we can reverse the process, and grouping the signs in 3s we get quadrants - that obey the same simple rule.

tbc.

This pattern is what you get by applying a simple recursive rule to dividing up one of any group of four into the other three, while keeping to a particular order of colours.

Following the repeated division, ad infinitum, leads to a colour code for the most minute sector, that like the map of the London Underground gives the topography of whatever is being mapped. Every possible combination is there.

The pattern is regular, although the colours change. At each level there is the same 25% proportion of each colour. And like a fractal, the deeper you go the more the detail repeats. But also, a broad brush approach will fail to "see the wood for the trees", because ultimately every colour can be found at some level in every place.

So my proposal is that the colours map the elements, and that this coherent pattern is what lies behind the folklore* of astrological signs, faces, terms and Sabian Symbols. In doing so they provide a framework that places each division into a particular relationship of difference or similarity with each other section, and that this is the basis of aspects in astrology.

Because the Zodiac is descriptive of spirit, and dividing it in this way necessarily gives all the possible combinations, I think that by definition this map must be mapping Heaven, in terms of elements.

*When I say folklore I don't mean to be disparaging of tradition. After all, astrologers have worked with Ptolemy et al for centuries. But there are many traditions that I find to be inexplicable**, and I don't think we need sacred cows, rather that we should be open to the possibility of the same level of progress that physics has made with describing the physical world with just a few quarks, or chemistry has with just a few atoms, or biology has with just a few DNA bases.

**For instance, why should one term be awarded an extra degree just because it is given to the sign ruler. (that's a rhetorical question btw).

hi jeremy,

it is interesting conjecture on your part... i do believe astrology is filled with symbolism.. however, i don't know if it is as simple as your complex colour scheme, or your analogy for the colours would suggest.... this idea of the number 3 and 4 being built into much of astrology - 12 signs - 4 elements, 3 modes and etc. etc. - is indeed a part of astro folklore and a reflection of the importance of these ideas to humanity down thru the past..

but i think it is more complicated then this.. typically if we are to try to understand the terms - they often end with the rulership of saturn or mars - the 2 malefics... this is generally the way they have been explained to me via the tables..

i suppose one could equate a colour with a planet... mark was quoting someone as making a connection with the saturn as black... interestingly scorpio was also given the colour black...and this is why i think there will never be any consensus on all of the symbolism in astrology.. it is multilayered and more complicated then one way only.. thanks for sharing..

I agree to what James shared, overall. Astrology is multi-layered and multi-facetted, and reducing it to one particular perspective just won't do justice to the wealth of information it provides.

In line with that, we should also be careful not to dismiss knowledge that has come down to us through the ages because it may not fit into our (limited) view of things. Sometimes the reasons given for a particular concept indeed seem like a rationalization, whereas the concept is nevertheless valid enough. I believe that even Ptolemy did not fully understand the foundations of the art.

That said, I am all for exploring new ideas and approaches. But I have too little information about yours to form any opinion. If you seriously want to hear some astrologers' opinion about it, you are going to have to share more about it. In particular, you should demonstrate how you applying it by giving some practical examples.

Your graph surely looks pretty cool.