Comments on the Reconciliation of the Zodiacs
If we are truly talking of astrology we have to recognize the difference between looking at the starry sky and constructing a model or horoscope depicting that sky. Permit me to expand the grammar of astrology offered by the article author.
The astrology of the sky consists of :
1) The moving "planets" and objects we see there.
2) The sky background itself which displays the stars.
3) The rise and setting of the stars and planets on a diurnal basis, the changes of the astrological planet positions relative to the stars over several or many days.
The astrology of the horoscope relates to the graphical model we create as a depiction of what we might have seen in the sky. Depending upon what we choose to place in our model we might find:
4) A depiction of the sky -- most commonly a circular band with descriptive glyphs and markers for measurement purposes.
5) A means of orienting the sky relative to our horizon or a calculated point above us -- the most easily done reference points.
6) The astrological planets relative to sky and our horizon and/or overhead point.
7) A division of the sky above and below into zones -- often based on the arc of the sky that takes a specified time to rise above the horizon or cross the zenith. We call these "houses."
All of these components, and more, found in both the sky and in the horoscope model can be given interpretive meanings. Yet, what we see in a glance at the sky above or at a sheet of paper below on a desk is not all that there is within astrology.:
Cyclic relationships are not typically indicated within the horoscope model; we do not see the planets in terms of their past or future movement, nor in the changing relationships each has to the other planets. We can imagine or appreciate planet movement but we don't chart it. Cyclic astrology, through charting techniques that show us and our charts moving through time, need to be more prevalent in our practices.
9) Positional relationships such as Parts or Lots can be placed within the horoscope model.
Recognizing the above points I would like to offer my views on the article "Reconciliation of the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs." I will BOLD the article's sectional heading for easier comparison.
Sidereal Twelvefold Zodiac.
Relative to the article's points I would not disagree with them. However, as the article develops, there is a discussion of what the signs mean interpretively. We need not disagree over perceived star patterns and the god-related attributes ascribed to them by ancient cultures. From the modern day view, we need to address how an arbitrary zone of space (and that Sidereal sign) can be associated with an influence of some kind. I am not addressing the mechanics of positioning these zones, only how a given Sidereal zone/sign can exert an influence. Secondly, if this influence was to exist, how could successive zones provide differing influences such that the ordered progression of meanings attributed to the Tropical zodiac could be presented. This, for me, is a fundamental question to be addressed about the Sidereal Zodiac.
What is the Twelvefold Sidereal Zodiac?
The author concludes this section with the question, "What then is the difference between tropical and sidereal signs?" Until we can define what makes up a sidereal sign's interpretive meaning, if it has one, how can we explore the differences with the tropical signs.
The Real Difference between the Sidereal and Tropical Conceptions.
Here, the author addresses the positional starting point of the two zodiacs. One cannot argue about the Tropical Zodiac not having a logical basis for its starting point. The zero point of Aries is an astronomical fact, and the seasonal associations of the astrological signs has a degree of validity depending upon how one nuances the interpretive model. On the face of it, the comments on the orientation of the Sidereal zodiac do not address the interpretive differences or the conceptual differences, only the positional differences.
Which One is Better?
This section sets up the following discussions in the article.
Is the Twelvefold Sidereal Zodiac Original and Correct?
Here I believe the author has strayed from a clearer path of discussion. Whatever form that Astrology-Astronomy took in ancient cultures, it was originally observational and star based. It had to be as those "times" were before accurate timing and measuring mechanisms, and mathematical calculations were fully developed. Secondly, there are many correlations between some stars and star patterns and cultural meanings associated with them among cultures located all about the globe. So, the "dots of light" have to be addressed in a more serious manner so as to recognize and address these similarities.
Next, the point of insisting that if stars have meanings then they must define the borders of the signs seems just wrong. A better question might be, "Does one star have an influence or a meaning, or can several stars have a collective influence or meaning?" If the latter is true, then a zone of influence might be suggested although this goes against some current astrological practices wherein a planet has to be in a partile degree location or at least within "orb" of another planet or point to have an influence. So, how diffused is a single star's or a group of star's influence, and can it define a boundary?
Is the Twelvefold Tropical Zodiac Original and Correct?
I have personal views that differ from the author's views. Rightness or wrongness may not be involved, only opinion, in the four constituents that make up a zodiac sign.
1) I cannot see how a planet "creates it and tends it (the sign).
2), 3) and 4) These are attributes which are self defined in the "science" and views of older cultures and writers and philosophers and which have been associated with astrology as part of a whole-world-existence view. These attributes are accepted and used within the astrology of today and of recent centuries but they do not necessarily "cause" a sign's interpretive meanings unless we choose to do so as part of a model-of-understanding.
In these opinions I am trying to distinguish between the astronomically-linked definition of signs and the astrological-cultural interpretational definition of signs. My words may not be sufficient, or the reasons for doing so may not be important to others.
Planetary Rulers Based on Relationship to the Sun.
Here the author is restating the long-accepted general views of Tropical astrologers and their "rules" of associating planets with signs. This is part of a widely used model of astrological practice.
Elemental Nature Based on the Relationship of the Sun and Earth.
Here again, long held views of ancient cultural beliefs are cited. That's OK if one accepts it. There is a logic to the associations made. As long as the whole system is cohesive in some way or another, it is a good system as long as it serves its purpose.
Authoritative Statements?
These points are highly interesting.
The True Sidereal Zodiac.
This view that the Sidereal Zodiac is Moon-related is also interesting. It still doesn't help us to better understand what the twelve sign Sidereal Zodiac is, where it is anchored, what constitutes its influence. Nor is the issue of how two close-and-overlapping 30 degree sectors of local space can claim the same interpretive meanings.
Now, my own views and comments.
I enjoyed this article and appreciate the questions it raised for me. However, those who read my comments should know that I have used Sidereal practices for some 35 of my 40 years working with astrology. I do not use signs, either Tropical or Sidereal, except for measuring, positioning. The claims and definitions of Sidereal signs baffle me.
I work with Tropical natal charts but for all future charts separated by several or many years from the natal chart I use precession-corrected Tropical charts. This allows me to communicate with the greater-in-numbers Tropical astrologers I associate with. Precession-correction is not warranted for progressed and directed charts as they are cast for periods that are several days, or weeks after the natal chart --- even though they symbolically represent future years.
There is one issue above all others that is overlooked in most Tropical-Sidereal discussions. When one works with Solar Returns and their derived daily charts (there are several types, as was demonstrated in the works of Cyril Fagan), the Sidereal or the precession-corrected Tropical charts appear to be vastly superior to conventional Tropical charts in terms of timing events and defining those events.
Before we agree or disagree with the above statement it should be noted that the Sidereal methods of chart reading and interpretation are quite different from what a Tropical astrologer would find. For Sidereal astrologers its all about planets at the angles. Angles contacting planets define the timing of the event. Those planets linked to the angles define the nature of the event or the experience being defined. Unless one has had this demonstrated to them or has actually done the chart work and interpretation, this point may be seen as argumentative. All I can say is that my practice has proven it well for me and my clients.
In summary, I offer the following points:
** I have found no explanation of what source of influence defines a Sidereal sign in terms of its position and its interpretation. I'd like to see such an explanation.
** The whole Tropical Zodiac system is a cohesive model which I understand but do not use other than in-part for natal charts.
** The results in terms of "timing" and "interpretation" when working with Sidereal or p.c.Tropical solar returns and derived daily charts are astounding, dependable and accurate compared to conventional Tropical solar returns and associated predictive methods.
** I have the nagging feeling that the issue of precession-correction for post-natal charts and cycles needs to be answered, and that answer may help us resolve the Tropical-Sidereal debate.
Dave