Skyscript Astrology Forum

I have a question why the elements in the zodiac are arranged as they
are arranged, and not otherwise. So far, I have found the following explanations:
1. The trine and sextile aspects have a fundamental meaning for the zodiac.
Thus the signs which are in trine have the same elements, too. And signs which are in sextile have elements of the same polarity. From this follows that opposite signs have the same polarity.
2. This principle still does not determine the elemental distribution completely.
The following analogies could give a reason why the elements in the cardinal signs are like they are:

Cancer (Summer) <-> Capricorn (winter)
-water -earth
-live/movement -death/no green/quiet

Aries (spring) <-> Libra (autumn)
-fire -air
-beginning/ -compensation/balance
breaking out of the new

The elements in the other signs are determined by the cardinal signs which they are in trine with.
In fact, these analogies hold for the northern hemisphere. But, on the one hand, most of the land on earth lies on the northern hemisphere, and on the other hand, there must be a reason that e. g. fire is associated with the spring equinox and not with the autumn equinox.

So, that are some ideas, which could explain the elements in the zodiac. But are there some other (ancient) ideas and analogies which can explain this?

With kind regards

Felix

Oh sorry, the arrangement of the analogy tables has not been displayed
as I wanted, so that they are not comprehensible. I show them again:

Cancer (Summer) <-> Capricorn (winter)
-water <-> earth
-live/movement <-> death/no green/quiet

Aries (spring) <-> Libra (autumn)
-fire <-> air
-beginning/outbreak of the new <-> compensation/balance

Fire is a beginning energy and each of the fire signs begin a group of four elements. The first group of four signs are the personal energy of the four elements (Aries to Cancer). The second group of four signs (Leo to Scorpio) are the interpersonal energy of the four elements. The third group of four signs (Sagittarius to Pisces) are the outerpersonal energy of the four elements. While fire is a beginning, earth is a crystalisation, air is a transition, and water is an ending.

Each element moves in a cycle and the four elements together make one big cycle of the complete zodiac. There is order and purpose in every sign and their order and their position relative to another, and in the order of the elements. The clues are in the seasons and cycle of the Sun.

For example earth signs. As in agriculture, Taurus brings physical excess and growth and begins the earth element cycle, Capricorn brings physical lack and decline and ends the earth cycle. The two signs of each element at the beginning and end of the earth cycle are complete opposites relative to each other, and in between those two opposites, half way through the cycle, the energy of the middle sign Virgo expresses everything in the middle on the earthly plane which is neither too little or too much and represents the physical balance or perfection of the cycle. The modality of a sign has meaning too, for example Virgo is mutable because physical perfection cannot remain that way. As soon as the perfect fruit of Virgo is ripe it is ready to be picked, which is symbolic of the virgin that is ripe but untouched.

With water, the soul is eternal but is reborn to start anew and is washed clean during each new incarnation. The new life of the soul begins with the middle interpersonal sign Scorpio, when the shared watery fluids from each parent containing DNA, interchange to create the seed of the new soul energy and this is at the same time a sort of death of individuality of each parent into a rebirth of both parents combined - a blend of the one personal water sign of Cancer and the outerpersonal water sign of Pisces. In Pisces the soul experiences the universal water inside the womb. Cancer gives birth to the individual soul again and here the soul receives the imprint of the mother.

And so on...
Look for the patterns and cycles in the wheel which hold the key.

Well, I have some opinions on the matter that are based on tradition, but I'm not quite sure if they are compatible with traditional astrology understanding or the current understanding en vogue.

In some of the hindu traditions of astrology, there are charts of the beggining of the world, just like there is, in the western one, the Thema Mundi.

One of these hindu charts is very interesting in that it depicts the beggining of the world as all of the planets are together, rising in the 0? of Aries.

Now, we know that the earth rotates from east to west (through our geocentric perception). As east is the place where the Sun rises, it is easy to see why Aries would be associated with cardinal fire.

If, Earth was, in it's essence, rotating without precession (a platonic idea of how Earth should be) then we would have an order of beggining in Aries already established, since Aries is essential East, and analogicaly we could put Saturn in Libra, since it is the farther of the wandering stars. Also, it would be only logical to consider that in this platonic model the ecliptic and the celestial equator would be alligned, as so would the north direction and the north celestial pole (Cancer). The idea here that the wandering stars, out of "love", imitate the motion of the "One", but are not quite successful in this endeavour, so we experience precession and extremes due to unbalance and fragmentation (the simple fact that there are 5 stars and 2 luminaries already refers to imperfection and corruption, pointing we are away from the "One").

But those are not the only relations to be drawn from the stars in relation to their signs. The order of the elements have their importance as well, i.e, fire (Sun) would be the most sublime and spiritual of the elements, and earth the most mundane. In between, the moderated elements, Air and Water, imperative for life to take place.

The other beggining chart I mentioned, the Thema Mundi puts Cancer in the ascendant. The Moon is the most mundane of the wandering ones, and the luminar of the night, away from the light of the "One" (Sun), but animated by it. Since north could be drawn from that platonic model as Cancer, and as the Moon rising would indicate the birth of the material, and the generation of life and consequent corruption, we would have a justification for it's domicile in Cancer, and from there could use the caldaic order, that depicts a very beautiful symmetry, to put each star in it's place.

At some point, I think these slowly agreed on perceptions/understadings were mixed with others, like the pythagorean and the arabic ones, while some foundations were lost of sight, but the basic principles that allows us to understand the construct/concept of a chart is still at our grasp...

This is indeed a difficult question. It has its meanigns mixed with the occult philosophy and geometry.

BTW, Felipe, I liked your words about the ideal world

I will also bring some ideas to think about:

The elements are said by Plato to be pre Socratic, coming from the philosopher Empedocles( 450 BC), who called them roots.

In his Timaeus ( 360 B.C.) Plato associated each of the four classical elements ( earth, air, water and fire) with a certain solid shape. His solid shapes were figures of 4, 6, 8, 12, and 20 faces. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_solid

With the idea of sameness, duality, truncation, etc the first Tetrahedron( the triangle) formed the other triangular platonic solids, then duality made the other ones: it is more complicated, but this is the simple version.

It looks like that the correspondence between shapes, meanings and elements came from philosophical systems.

Earth was associated with the cube, air with the 8 faces figure, water with the icosahedron, and fire with the tetrahedron. There was intuitive justification for these associations: the heat of fire feels sharp and stabbing (like little tetrahedra, a triangle). Air is made of the octahedron; its minuscule components are so smooth that they are difficult to feel. Water, the icosahedron, flows out the hand when picked up, as if it is made of tiny little balls. By contrast, a un-spherical solid, the hexahedron (cube) represents earth. These little solids cause dirt to break when picked up, in obvious difference from the smooth of water. The solidity of the Earth was believed to be due to the fact that the cube is the only regular solid able to fill the space.


My understanding is that the triangle shows the final result of 1-the One, or Sameness, Monad or Spirit, represented by the Sun; and 2-the Dyad,( or number 2) or Otherness, matter and nature, the Moon. They give birth to number 3,the triangle, life.

Similar elements are part of triangles, beginning by fire because Aries and the Sun are rising in the East, bringing Spring.

The cross or the 4 is the repetition of the lunar element (2). The square, the division of the circle by 4, holds the meaning of 2x2, which is an antagonism against the sameness. The four is a double result of the Dyad, the otherness, so we have the squares and the un- similar natures, where the elements did not agree with each other.

There are much more things to say, but I have not time to develop them all the way.

Clelia

?2 of Patrice Guinard's article gives some explanations,
http://cura.free.fr/25avazod.html

Hi Clelia,

One quibble:

Clelia Romano wrote:My understanding is that the triangle shows the final result of 1-the One, or Sameness, Monad or Spirit, represented by the Sun; and 2-the Dyad,( or number 2) or Otherness, matter and nature, the Moon. They give birth to number 3,the triangle, life.

The Dyad is indeterminate and not a number, neither is the One; their interaction creates the number 2 and thus the world of the intelligibles.

GR wrote:Hi Clelia,

One quibble:

Clelia Romano wrote:My understanding is that the triangle shows the final result of 1-the One, or Sameness, Monad or Spirit, represented by the Sun; and 2-the Dyad,( or number 2) or Otherness, matter and nature, the Moon. They give birth to number 3,the triangle, life.

The Dyad is indeterminate and not a number, neither is the One; their interaction creates the number 2 and thus the world of the intelligibles.

Hello Gabe!


I was trying to put things together, so I come to link the idea of Monad as number One and Dyad as number 2.
But I have some support to do that, since the Dyad is the general opposite to the Monad, the cause of dissimilitude, the interval between multitude and the Monad. Of figures, those, which are characterized by equality and sameness, have relation to the Monad; but those in which inequality and difference predominate are allied to the Dyad.

Aristotle said in his Metaphysics, 986a 15-21:"Evidently, then, these thinkers also consider that number is the principle both as matter for things and as forming both their modifications and their permanent states, and hold that the elements of number are the even and the odd, and that of these the latter is limited, and the former unlimited; and that the One proceeds from both of these (for it is both even and odd), and number from the One; and that the whole heaven, as has been said, is numbers."

Aristotle says also in the following page :"For the Pythagoreans say that things exist by imitation (mimesis) of numbers"

For the Pythagoreans, the elements of number are the even and the odd, the limited and the unlimited; this is because numbers derive from the One and the One from the even/unlimited and the odd/limited. ( we can see that he One as number already a limitation) It is important first to understand the Pythagorean principles of the limited/odd and unlimited/even in order to understand Pythagorean philosophy.

But all this is controversial and perhaps Pythagoras confused the (number) One, an extended unit, with an incorporeal idea of unity.

And... this goes to Margherita: Se non ? vero, ? ben trovato! Translating: If it is not true, it is a good story!

Cl?lia

Hello Clelia!

Clelia Romano wrote: But I have some support to do that, since the Dyad is the general opposite to the Monad, the cause of dissimilitude, the interval between multitude and the Monad.

Ah, see, this is a problem, as all opposition belongs to the Dyad; the relationship of the Monad & Dyad cannot be one of opposition, as this is erring in favor of the Dyad.

Also, saying that all numbers come from the One is also erring, as not all numbers are the same in magnitude, and thus skews the relationship of One & Dyad in favor of the One.

But the Pythagorean or Peripathic takes on this are not the same as the Platonic...

But the Pythagorean or Peripathic takes on this are not the same as the Platonic

To Gabe and All interested in the present thread I strongly recomend this link:
http://www.archive.org/details/p1greekp ... 00burnuoft

It is a really precious and very comprehensive book:
GREEK PHILOSOPHY , PART I, THALES TO PLATO - BY JOHN BURNET

You?ll be able to download the book in PDF format.

enjoy!

Cl?lia

Clelia Romano wrote:
And... this goes to Margherita: Se non ? vero, ? ben trovato! Translating: If it is not true, it is a good story!

Cl?lia

I always wait for you in Rome. You should absolutely come now or then.

margherita

To make a further addendum to that topic, there some
analogies between the motion of the sun and the elemental
natures of the cardinal signs.
I mean not the daily motion from the sun but its seasonal motion
(with days getting shorter and longer)

Aries: Fire (warm and dry)
The days get longer (active, forward-pushing movement, dry),
and they get longer fast (warm).

Libra: Air (warm and moist)
The days get shorter with a fast rate (warm), but it is a receding
movement (moist). While Aries pushes forward (dry),
Libra equalizes (moist, making the days shorter again)

Cancer: Water (cold and moist)
The sun begins to recede (moist), the days get shorter,
but still very slow (cold). A slow receding movement
accords to the passive nature of water.

Capricorn: Earth (cold and dry)
The days get again longer (proceding movement, dry),
but still with a very slow rate (cold). The sun begins to
rise having reached its deepest point - an analogy for
a solid ground (the movement goes not further downward,
but has reached a minimum and changes its direction).

With kind regards

Felix