Skyscript Astrology Forum

Recently I was discussing astrology with a sceptic. He made the common argument used by astronomers about the tropical zodiac being 'out of place' with the fixed stars. I therefore explained how the tropical zodiac was seasonal and how it was calculated from the position of the Sun in relation to the ecliptic. I made the point that while it could be argued the tropical zodiac was no longer linked to the original stars and constellations the sidereal zodiac was no longer linked with the seasonal equinoxes and Solstices.

I went away fairly happy with myself. However, if this sceptic had been better informed he could have used another good follow up argument. In particular he could have argued...
Q: 'You claim the tropical zodiac is seasonal yes'? ..
A: Correct
Q' Then tell me why astrologers in the southern hemisphere use the same zodiac even though the seasons are reversed?'

I am not necessarily wanting to get into the debate about tropical vs sidereal zodiacs or the issue of whether the tropical zodiac should be reversed in the southern hemisphere. I am not having doubts about the tropical zodiac or retaining the usual zodiac for southern hemisphere charts. In my experiece it works ok. Its just logicaly defending this I find awkward!
So are we western astrologers using the tropical zodiac trying to have our cake and eat it? We argue the direct connection between the signs and seasons when it suits us and declare this as inessential when it doesn't fit?

Are we guilty of hypocrisy? Are we being logically inconsistent? Does this confirm that astrology is fundamentally irrational? Or should we simply see it as a 'lunar art' that does not fit neatly into our over rational systematizing?

I accept even in the southern hemisphere the connection to the Equinoxes and Solstices is not lost. However, the traditional linkage between the signs and seasons is. I would welcome any comments on this. How do you resolve this potential paradox? Do astrologers put too much emphasis on the seasons to explain the tropical zodiac or is that an oxymoron?

Mark

The way I see it the Sun at 0 Aries doesn't just mean 'spring', but 'Spring', maybe even 'Springness'. Since the tropical zodiac concerns signs rather than constellations it has become ? I'll use the word I can't claim to understand well ? archetypal. The tropical has disengaged from the sidereal and become its own freestanding symbolic system reflecting archetypal realities (I wish I knew for sure what I was talking about).

The tropical signs do not consist of stars, but Stars. As a physically or materially nonexistent group the signs don't come down to, affect and enter us but, rather, we approach and enter them and their reality, participating therein. Once this realm of the signs was formed and entered the collective consciousness the matter of which hemisphere of Earth you're located in became irrelevant.

Those of you who are philosophically more sophisticated could do a much better job with this than I.



A die-hard dry scientific mind still isn't going to be comfortable with it.

Hi Kirk,

The way I see it the Sun at 0 Aries doesn't just mean 'spring', but 'Spring', maybe even 'Springness'. Since the tropical zodiac concerns signs rather than constellations it has become ? I'll use the word I can't claim to understand well ? archetypal. The tropical has disengaged from the sidereal and become its own freestanding symbolic system reflecting archetypal realities (I wish I knew for sure what I was talking about).

That seems a reasonable way round it. If I am honest though I am guilty of slipping into the 'seasonal' mind set quite a bit. For example I was explaining the traditional rulerships to someone the other night and made the point that it was appropriate that the Saturn ruled signs were in the depth of winter. Contrasting this to the summer signs Leo and Cancer ruled by the luminaries.

Of course that kind of analogy falls apart if your working in the Southern Hemisphere. Its hard to avoid seeing tropical astrology as an exclusive construct of northern hemisphere assumptions by suggesting a seasonal links to the signs. Ptolemy seems to support such thinking in the Tetrabiblos. As he single handedly originated tropical astrology that is surely pause for thought?

However, as you suggest maybe its just a case of taking symbolism too literally.

In my way of looking at this (very important) question, I simply make the connection with the angles (equinoxes and solstices) as geometrical points of space and not with seasonal (actually weather-type) qualities ascribed to those points. In sum, I look at the signs as primary (fundamental) descriptives of the qualities of the directions of the pleroma of space, and only relatively (secondarily, proximately) as descriptive of seasonal qualities, this latter function dependant entirely upon the relavant area (northern or southern hemisphere) specifically under consideration.

(Side note: While I am a tropicalist, and while I always apply the Aries-to-Pisces order of signs in practical astrological work, on a metaphysical level I follow Mathers in regarding Leo as the origin point of the zodiac, and I regard Capricorn as the astrological "beginning of the year" )

Well, I live in Brasil and here we have only two seasons: summer and winter .

In sum, I look at the signs as primary (fundamental) descriptives of the qualities of the directions of the pleroma of space, and only relatively (secondarily, proximately) as descriptive of seasonal qualities, this latter function dependant entirely upon the relavant area (northern or southern hemisphere) specifically under consideration.

. . .

Archetypes, anyone? . . . Springness is looking better all the time.

The seasonal cycle of each hemisphere starts when the Sun turns back on itself towards equator.
Tropos = A turning point; a limit, a boundary

-and the season changes at each cardinal sign.

Lastly, just because the sceptic went away without asking any further questions does not mean he was either impressed or converted

PD

PFN wrote:Well, I live in Brasil and here we have only two seasons: summer and winter .

Only a short in between question to you, PFN:
Are the meanings of the signs (in personal charts) in Brasil contrariwise to those of the northern hemisphere? To be very short (too short of course, but in this context it may be allowed) Virgo 'tidy', Pisces 'chaotic'?

Thanks in advance.

Are the meanings of the signs (in personal charts) in Brasil contrariwise to those of the northern hemisphere? To be very short (too short of course, but in this context it may be allowed) Virgo 'tidy', Pisces 'chaotic'?

This topic has come up a few times here on skyscript. I believe the early modern astrologers Campanella and Cardano suggested reversing the signs and/or dignities.

However, the overwhelming majority of astrologers seem to agree the traditional order and meanings work. Our Brazilian moderator Yuzuru certainly upholds this view as did our late Australian moderator Sue Toohey. I know Deborah Houlding has done a lot of horary 'down under' and has not reversed the signs or dignities. This seems to be the experience of all the southern hemisphere astrologers I have discussed this with too. Having looked at lots of charts myself now it does seem to work. One example I like to use is the pop singer Kylie Minogue who has a chart clustered with planets in Gemini using the normal approach. As a friend once said 'If this woman was a stick of rock it would say Gemini down the middle' . Its just as well as we would get into an awful mess with equatorial charts. The sceptics (and siderealists) would have a field day making fun of those kinds of charts.

Mark

The seasonal cycle of each hemisphere starts when the Sun turns back on itself towards equator. Tropos = A turning point; a limit, a boundary -and the season changes at each cardinal sign.

Yes I acknowledged that point in my original post. The link between these key seasonal shifts is retained. Its just that they are not the same seasons!

Lastly, just because the sceptic went away without asking any further questions does not mean he was either impressed or converted

Of course! I wasn't really hoping to convert him. I just wanted to make the most intelligent, well thought out defence of astrology I could. I still do...keep your suggestions coming folks.

This subject has always intrigued me. Perhaps because I was born on Australia day (Jan 26th) and the fact I was nearly born there. Sitting through my grey gloomy winter birthday here in Scotland I envy those Australians born at the same time who can hold a birthday celebration in the burning hot summer sun. If astrology is about bringing the celestial down to the terrestrial its seems odd that such a fundamental difference is not reflected in a chart.

dr. farr wrote:In my way of looking at this (very important) question, I simply make the connection with the angles (equinoxes and solstices) as geometrical points of space and not with seasonal (actually weather-type) qualities ascribed to those points.

I agree with this geometrical point of view. And I would go even further. I think there's no real difference between 0?Aries and 0? Libra as geometric points. Therefore I don't use zodiac signs, but I consider the equinoctical points as a sort of nodes (of which 0?Libra would be the north node) and important as reference point for transits and synastry. Perhaps aspects of planets to the equinoxes have some meaning too.

Since I further believe that the rulerships of the signs are related to north hemisphere issues I'd say they would 'flip over' in Australia. However on the equator none of these would apply. One could go for the Tetrabiblos I.19 ( http://www.reocities.com/astrologysourc ... htm#side19 ) climatological view but even the north hemisphere has so much differences that Ptolemy's explanations wouldn't count in Iceland for example. If climate is significant then another view could be that every area has different zodiac meanings according to the local climate, like more Saturn in the zodiac in cold areas and Sun and Mars in hot and dry areas. However as the changes throughout the year gradually change I would rather see a gradually change between (rulerships of) signs than strict boundaries in sectors of 30?

A while ago I had some thoughts on the origin of exaltations in this thread: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4554 I don't have any proof for this hypothesis but I think that this is somewhat how the Babylonians might have seen it. Put very briefly, I think they give their planet-gods places in the sky according to the characteristics of the gods (e.g. Jupiter/Marduk as the highest god, the highest position in the sky thus exaltation in Cancer) Yet still this explanation would be a northern hemisphere explanation and in this view a cultural/religious artefact. A difference with the Ptolemy view is that the climatological view is mainly focussed on the Sun's position. The Sun's meaning in relation with the seasons is mainly in height above the horizon. The higher the Sun the warmer. If I'm correct in the analysis of the Babylonian view then that meaning mainly depends on the duration or arc above (and below) the horizon.

Mark C" wrote:I am not having doubts about the tropical zodiac or retaining the usual zodiac for southern hemisphere charts. In my experiece it works ok. Its just logicaly defending this I find awkward!

Then the support of this standpoint should not lie in the seasonal/climatological view. I once read somewhere that Morin de Villefranche had another explanation rather than the climatological one. He saw the 30? sectors as backgrounds in the highest sphere around Earth and therefor affecting every place on Earth similarly. It should be noted that Morin didn't believe the Copernican heliocentric view which would make his view untenable. Perhaps an adapted view could be that the 'effects' from the zodiac 'radiate' from the inner of the Earth to the surface. I consider the ecliptic is not 'up there' in the sky but rather in the center of the earth in the combined movements of diurnal equatorial rotation and precession. But this definition is rather how I would see it. (A bit more on the definitions in a post I wrote here at Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:06 pm http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... ba556e3301 )

Still a difficult matter though. Perhaps the differences aren't that strict and there could be combined causes, a seasonal one, a symbolical one, geometrical etc.

Hi Eddy,

Thanks for your post.Always thought provoking and informative.

I agree with this geometrical point of view. And I would go even further. I think there's no real difference between 0?Aries and 0? Libra as geometric points. Therefore I don't use zodiac signs, but I consider the equinoctical points as a sort of nodes (of which 0?Libra would be the north node) and important as reference point for transits and synastry. Perhaps aspects of planets to the equinoxes have some meaning too.

Well this certainly removes the problem. Although the price you pay is rather high...the tropical zodiac itself! I know you firmly follow Kepler and a more limited mathematical approach.

Since I further believe that the rulerships of the signs are related to north hemisphere issues I'd say they would 'flip over' in Australia. However on the equator none of these would apply

The idea of reversing or flipping over the dignities or signs is an interesting theoretical point. For various reasons though I think this is an unattractive proposition. The idea of the Sun ruling Aquarius and Saturn being in detriment there plays havoc with traditional understanding of the signs and their linkage to planets.

From all accounts horary still seems to work just as well in the southern hemisphere according to its practitioners. As its so related to planetary strength that rather undermines the case made by Cardano and more recently Maurice McCann.

The idea of reversing signs, as suggested by Campanella and Cardano, is superficially attractive but gets into major problems with equatorial charts. We also have the same objection that the 'normal' arrangement of signs seems to work perfectly well. One would think that practitioners would have detected that an exalted Moon in Taurus (Northern hemisphere) would be more like a debilitated in Scorpio and not operate smoothy (Southern hemisphere). However, southern hemisphere practitioners report the contrary. The traditional associations still seem accurate.

We could of course suggest that southern hemisphere practitoners are misguided and deluded by a northern hemisphere paradigm. In which they are particularly inept for getting it 'wrong' all this time and not even noticing! However, that seems an arrogant approach to adopt. I think we need to respect their feedback and extensive experience working in this way.

As I see it these suggestions lead to a total shambles theoretically. Moreover, what is suggested by Cardano/Gauricus is simply not reflected in the actual experience of astrologers in the southern hemisphere. Another beautiful theory ruled out by empiricism I would suggest.

A while ago I had some thoughts on the origin of exaltations in this thread: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4554 I don't have any proof for this hypothesis but I think that this is somewhat how the Babylonians might have seen it.

I hate to steal your thunder Eddy but this theory has been around for a while. For example Gavin White mentions it in his book 'Babylonian Star Lore'. The link between the Exaltations and the seasons is suggested by Ulla Koch-Westenholz in her book Mesopotamian Astrology: Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination (1995). However, she didn't originate the hypothesis and was merely referencing older research.