Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi there - there was a stimulating thread recently which mentioned Vic Di Cara's work on the zodiac. Unfortunately now I can't find the posts - I don't think I was imagining them! Leaving aside the tropical/sidereal question for the moment (although I think this is extremely relevant in this context), Di Cara suggests (I hope) that we move away from using the seasonal metaphor for explaining the meaning of each zodiacal sign. I, for one, am glad that the skeptics haven't got hold of this as it would be another way to attack astrology. I don't hear them frequently arguing "You're having a laugh! Aries = Spring Equinox: well not where I live mate, in Australia, South America, New Zealand etc etc."

I don't think this rejection of the seasonal metaphor is a new idea, but it is not widely discussed. However it would be interesting to gather people's views on what an alternative metaphor (explanation) might be. It seems to me Aristotle's "On Generation and Corruption" might offer something to help us formulate some ideas. In Bk. 2, Ch. 10 he explicitly links the cycle of generation and corruption with the Sun's annual cycle through the ecliptic. (Bk. 2 seems to be the most relevant one here of the two books that make up the whole volume "on Generation and Corruption".)

So, in this case, the annual cycle of the Sun would be one of 'generation' and 'corruption', leaving the seasons as important, but not primary, exemplifications of the overarching continuous cycle of generation and corruption. (I found myself wanting to replace generation and corruption with birth and death and then realised that in Aristotle's cycle there is no beginning and end.) I guess, from an Aristotelian point of view, the cycle of the seasons is one major way in which mortals can experience the timeless round of generation and corruption.

I will post additional thoughts as I go along, but if you have views and ideas please post them.

The most relevant post that I could find on the forum was:

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/view ... corruption

Ed

hi ed

this is an interesting suggestion for conversation... their is an ongoing problem with the search engine feature of skyscript where many posts from the past are not accessible... it appears one can access posts from a long time ago - 2008 and back, or they can access recent posts from the past few years, but their is a big chunk of history that appears inaccessible using the search engine here... perhaps this is going to get worked out with the skyscript work on it's website coming up.. i don't know...

back to the specific topic you've raised, here are some quick thoughts.. the seasonal metaphor, regardless whether it is flipping upside down or not, has its basis in a real astronomical event that defines the sun and earth relationship, contained in this solar system we are a part of.. this reference is earth centered and no matter how one defines it - cycle of life and death, or something more metaphysical, it is real... as to the starting point - perhaps that is more up for debate - northern hemisphere being different then southern hemisphere with all this entails... but i think the symbolism is quite good and not in need of revision as i understand it...

the tropical zodiac system is a different reference point then the sidereal one.. i think they are both valid but using different reference point...

the idea of a spiral, as opposed to a circle might be something to consider...

Ed and James: Good observations and an intriguing rabbit hole, but just playing devil's advocate here to provide a bumper to the conversation.

The seasonal symbolism of the tropical zodiac is deeply embedded in its conceptual framework, making it difficult, if not impossible, to remove without fundamentally changing the system. The tropical zodiac uses 12 generalized celestial contsellational divisions, but their symbolism is primarily based on the equinoxes and solstices, which are directly related to the axial tilt of the Earth and the seasonal cycle. Aries is defined as the point of the spring equinox, Libra as the fall equinox, and so on. If we try to remove the seasonal references, we create a contradiction: the signs would still be defined by the equinoxes and solstices, but stripped of the very logic that gives them meaning.

Alignments of megalithic structures to celestial events go back at least 11,000 years, with Göbekli Tepe in modern-day Turkey showing possible astronomical orientations. However, the most widely recognized megalithic alignments begin appearing in the Neolithic period (c. 5000 BCE onward), with sites across Europe, the Near East, and beyond showing clear astronomical planning. So the seasonal alignments are very hardwired into the human psyche, and the symbolism of the zodiac, which may have come later, was naturally coded according to the seasons.

Aries represents bursts of life and new growth (spring), Cancer aligns with the beginning of maximum solar force and creative expression (summer), and Libra (autumn) embodies decline and Capricorn transformation (winter). These associations are not accidental; they are intrinsic to the logic of the system. Detaching the tropical zodiac from the seasons might require redefining the entire sequence of signs, not just adjusting the metaphors. Even alternative frameworks, such as a process of generation and corruption in the Aristotelian sense, still indirectly reference the seasonal cycle, making it more of a reinterpretation that simply looks the other way.

One of the major problems of the seasonal model, which is often critiqued, is its misalignment with the southern hemisphere, where the equinoxes and solstices are reversed. Although a few astrologers have proposed reversing the zodiac to reflect this, this would contradict the established meanings of the signs, which remain consistent worldwide. However, astrology is not purely seasonal; it is also archetypal, meaning that the zodiac reflects deeper symbolic patterns that transcend literal climate. This may explain why astrologers in the Southern Hemisphere continue to use the traditional meanings of the signs despite seasonal differences.

If we were to do away with seasonal symbolism altogether, we would have to ask ourselves what new organizing principle would replace it.
Why does Aries come first? Why does Scorpio follow Libra? etc.
There's no getting away from the equinox/solstice framework as I see it. This is the structural backbone of the tropical zodiac Without it, we need an entirely new logic to justify the order of the zodiac. So far, no alternative has been able to replace the seasonal model without introducing deeper inconsistencies. While complementary interpretations can enrich our understanding of the zodiac, attempting to circumvent its seasonal basis ends up undermining the coherence of the tropical system.

Now, taking one foot out of the devil's shoes for a moment.
One alternative to the seasonal model I read ages ago in some astro magazine; I can't recall now; maybe it was Aspects magazine by Aquarius Workshops. suggested that a metaphor for the tropical zodiac could be a cycle of light and consciousness rather than a strictly seasonal one tied to climate. The idea was that instead of linking Aries to spring, Libra to autumn, etc., we can view the zodiac as twelve phases of the Sun’s annual journey, marked by shifts in light, length of day, and its symbolic impact on consciousness and experience. The problem is that this metaphor is still tied to the seasonal cycle of the Sun, so it too is more of a reinterpretation than a true replacement.

aj

thanks... very good articulation of what i was trying to suggest in a more muddled manner...

AJ wrote: If we try to remove the seasonal references, we create a contradiction: the signs would still be defined by the equinoxes and solstices, but stripped of the very logic that gives them meaning.

i think you answer this quote below by pointing out it is the light/dark ratio that governs the growth/decay cycle/spiral.. it would apply in reverse, depending on north or south hemisphere..it is typically described as ''seasonal'' but i think that is misnamed... however, i have never tried understanding the role of the tropical signs in the southern hemisphere ( because i don't live their and haven't worked with many sh charts).. maybe the symbolism is flipped in the southern hemisphere?? aries and libra roles are flipped?? just speculation here, but the basis for the 'seasonal' ideas are based of the light/dark ratio and growth/decay as a consequence as i understand it..

AJ wrote: ...a metaphor for the tropical zodiac could be a cycle of light and consciousness rather than a strictly seasonal one tied to climate. The idea was that instead of linking Aries to spring, Libra to autumn, etc., we can view the zodiac as twelve phases of the Sun’s annual journey, marked by shifts in light, length of day, and its symbolic impact on consciousness and experience. The problem is that this metaphor is still tied to the seasonal cycle of the Sun, so it too is more of a reinterpretation than a true replacement.

astralwanderer wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:18 pm Hi there - there was a stimulating thread recently which mentioned Vic Di Cara's work on the zodiac. Unfortunately now I can't find the posts - I don't think I was imagining them!
Ed

Hi astralwanderer,

Have you tried searching with Google like this?

skyscript.co.uk/forums vic di cara

These may be the posts you're looking for.

--stargeezer

Hi there - thanks for all your very thoughtful contributions. I will reply in more detail during the course of the day.

AJ

astrology is not purely seasonal; it is also archetypal, meaning that the zodiac reflects deeper symbolic patterns that transcend literal climate.

I think this is the point that I am keen to unpick. When I am rehearsing my response to the sceptic who makes the 'seasonal challenge', I usually reach for an answer that describes the archetypal quality of the zodiac and astrology in general. I'm a thoroughgoing Platonist and a response like this puts us firmly in the realm of Platonic ideas.

But this brings its own challenges, which Aristotle tried to address in his own philosophical thinking. The challenge for a Platonist is explaining where these archetypal ideas exist and how they inform/form the physical world. If the ideas are transcendental (existing beyond the sensible world) what is their relationship with all that is sensible (not in the common sense of this word, but able to apprehended by the senses).

In my view these are critical points in astrology, and particularly for the zodiac. In Bk. 2, Ch. 10 of On Generation and Corruption, Aristotle explicitly writes about the Sun's annual cycle through the zodiac, but unless I am misinterpreting him, he doesn't refer to the seasons. What is it that he is telling us that might allow us to move beyond this seasonal metaphor when explaining the derivation and meaning of the zodiac.

Using Stargeezer's suggestion I dug up a few old threads for reference:

Tropical zodiac and the Southern hemisphere:

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8134

Tropical Vedic Astrology

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7691

Aristotle's Elements and the Zodiac: Astrologers' Error?

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6547

Sect

viewtopic.php?t=6483

However I don't really want to get bogged down in the age-old Tropical/Sidereal debate, but to focus more specifically on this question of the validity (or otherwise) in the seasonal metaphor as a way of describing the meaning of the tropical zodiac.

By the way, what a mine of information and learning Skyscript is!

Ed

james_m wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 8:42 pm by pointing out it is the light/dark ratio that governs the growth/decay cycle/spiral.. it would apply in reverse, depending on north or south hemisphere..it is typically described as ''seasonal'' but i think that is misnamed... however, i have never tried understanding the role of the tropical signs in the southern hemisphere ( because i don't live their and haven't worked with many sh charts).. maybe the symbolism is flipped in the southern hemisphere?? aries and libra roles are flipped?? just speculation here, but the basis for the 'seasonal' ideas are based of the light/dark ratio and growth/decay as a consequence as i understand it..

I totally agree that it would have to reverse in the southern hemisphere. That's why I said this concept 'was more of a reinterpretation than a true replacement to the seasonal model.'

I also just mentioned this cycle of light and consciousness concept as one alternative to the seasonal model for topical interest. I am not advocating for it, nor do I have the original article to try and explain on behalf of the author, whose name I can't remember. Maybe a detailed Google search would come up with something if someone cares to spend the time.

Ed: That’s a very thoughtful critique. Let me say upfront that I haven’t studied Aristotle or Plato in any real depth for years and years. So, what you have from me is less a firm stance and more an attempt to engage with the topic out of sheer interest rather than any deep investment in a particular position. I like where you are trying to go with this and hope it flushes out a fuller argument by reframing a wee bit.

So here goes...
If we take the Platonic view, the tropical zodiac reflects eternal archetypes—patterns of being that exist in a realm beyond sensory experience, shaping the material world. This supports the idea that Aries, for example, is not just about "springtime energy" but a primordial principle of emergence, assertion, and individuation that manifests in different ways beyond any specific earthly season.

However, as you point out, Aristotle challenges this by grounding forms in nature rather than in a separate transcendent realm. His discussion of the Sun’s motion through the zodiac in On Generation and Corruption suggests that the cycle itself—the alternation of growth and decay, light and darkness—is primary rather than just the earthly seasons. This could allow for a more universal, cosmological framing of the zodiac, where its meaning is tied to fundamental processes of change rather than to seasonal metaphors alone.

The question then becomes: If we remove the seasonal metaphor, what remains?
The zodiac still corresponds to a solar cycle, a framework based on the Sun's changing relationship with Earth. The interplay of light, heat, and time is fundamental to life, and even if Aristotle does not explicitly name the seasons, his analysis still reflects the broader cycle of generation, culmination, and dissolution—concepts mirrored in the zodiacal sequence.

Thus, perhaps the key isn’t to reject the seasonal framework outright but to see it as a manifestation of a deeper, more universal principle—one that exists regardless of local climate. The zodiac would then be understood not as a "seasonal calendar" per se but as a cyclical model of transformation that applies across all levels of existence, from the natural world to human experience.

Does this help move toward an answer that satisfies both the Platonist and Aristotelian perspectives?

astralwanderer wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 7:49 am I think this is the point that I am keen to unpick. When I am rehearsing my response to the sceptic who makes the 'seasonal challenge', I usually reach for an answer that describes the archetypal quality of the zodiac and astrology in general. I'm a thoroughgoing Platonist and a response like this puts us firmly in the realm of Platonic ideas.

But this brings its own challenges, which Aristotle tried to address in his own philosophical thinking. The challenge for a Platonist is explaining where these archetypal ideas exist and how they inform/form the physical world. If the ideas are transcendental (existing beyond the sensible world) what is their relationship with all that is sensible (not in the common sense of this word, but able to apprehended by the senses).

In my view these are critical points in astrology, and particularly for the zodiac. In Bk. 2, Ch. 10 of On Generation and Corruption, Aristotle explicitly writes about the Sun's annual cycle through the zodiac, but unless I am misinterpreting him, he doesn't refer to the seasons. What is it that he is telling us that might allow us to move beyond this seasonal metaphor when explaining the derivation and meaning of the zodiac.

Hi AJ - thanks for taking the time to respond with these very interesting thoughts.

Thus, perhaps the key isn’t to reject the seasonal framework outright but to see it as a manifestation of a deeper, more universal principle—one that exists regardless of local climate. The zodiac would then be understood not as a "seasonal calendar" per se but as a cyclical model of transformation that applies across all levels of existence, from the natural world to human experience.

I'm fairly sure this is exactly what Aristotle is suggesting. In this case the seasonal changes that we observe would be but one example (a major one of course) of the cosmic cycle of growth and decay. The zodiac would be a primordial or original model for describing this cycle. I think what astrologers tend to do is put the 'cart before the horse' so to speak, and conclude that the seasons are primordial - we have the zodiac because we have the seasons. However it seems more likely, from this philosophical point of view, that that the seasonal cycle, that is so fundamental to our experience in the sub-lunar world, is one exemplification of the deeper processes at work.

I think this is the question in a nutshell - very precisely expressed by yourself. Thanks so much for bringing this degree of clarity to the issues.

I will reply more fully in due course.

Ed

serious question - what is the basis for the seasonal connection? my answer -

it is very much a northern hemisphere phenom as described in the cycle of outer growth, followed by fruition, and a slow decay, but to the start point.. it is the reverse in the southern hemisphere...

if this isn't based on the importance of the sun bringing warmth and growth in the spring / summer, and the opposite in the southern hemisphere, i don't know what it is..

james_m wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 3:38 pm serious question - what is the basis for the seasonal connection? my answer -

it is very much a northern hemisphere phenom as described in the cycle of outer growth, followed by fruition, and a slow decay, but to the start point.. it is the reverse in the southern hemisphere...

if this isn't based on the importance of the sun bringing warmth and growth in the spring / summer, and the opposite in the southern hemisphere, i don't know what it is..

If you really want to discuss the seasonal nature of the tropical zodiac, you should start a new topic because if we get into the details of that, it will hijack Ed's goal of trying to get beyond the 'Seasonal Metaphor.'

I'm game if you are; though we are mostly on the same page, it could still be a fruitful discussion.