.JPG)
When comparing tropical and sidereal versions of a natal chart, I've found that often both provide a reasonably accurate interpretation, yet there are around 24 degrees difference between the two zodiac systems.
What if, in both versions of the zodiac, the division into 12 signs, passed to us by ancient astrologers is just too detailed and precise to fit real-life living breathing mortals in the 21st century ?
All the widely used astrological systems stick to the 12 classical sign divisions, Aries through Pisces, apart from Uranian astrology and Harmonics, both of which ignore signs completely and concentrate only on planets. I've found that there's proof enough that the signs have value, but I do get the feeling that there is much more "wiggle room" between them than has always been assumed.
An astrolger, I can't remember the name, once pointed out that "there are no walls in space", how true that is! A longish "blending in" phase between each cusp would result in a more complex system for sure, but one which would follow the rules of nature more nearly. Nature doesn't move abruptly, from one situation or stage, to another, it does so gradually. Even in the case of what seem to us to be abrupt events - earthquakes, hurricanes and such, the causal factors have gradually built up over a period of time, sometimes centuries, sometimes days, but never instantly - on/off.
Any blending-in phase would need to be too long to account for the 24 degrees of difference between tropical and sidereal, using a zodiac of 12 signs. I wonder whether anybody has ever experimented with, say, seven or eight signs, re-interpreting them, using traditional meanings in a subtly different mix.
I've always accepted that astrology is a natural phenomenon, so these thoughts fit my own perception. People who look on astrology as a mathematical phenomenon, or in the realm of the spiritual or metaphysical, or those who stick firmly to the system of the ancients, would not find this view tolerable, I realise that.
Just thinking (heretically)!
"Heresy is another word for freedom of thought"(Graham Greene)
Still on the subject of change, but in an entirely different arena, a question which some may consider equally heretical.
A large part of the population of the USA seems passionate for change, hope, peace and unity, as evidenced by their unbridled enthusiasm for Barack Obama, his promises and policies. How is it, then, that Dennis Kucinich, who offered a Department of Peace, single payer health care plan and other goodies was almost totally ignored by these same people? John Edwards was similarly ignored. He promised to move the country away from the corporate stranglehold in which it now finds itself, which would have been a much bigger and better change than anything Obama envisages. A strange inconsistency here methinks. Neptune in Aquarius & Uranus in Pisces showing perhaps? Fog, illusion, delusion, confusion in the realm of change, and change in the realm of fog, illusion, delusion....
Just wondering!
What if, in both versions of the zodiac, the division into 12 signs, passed to us by ancient astrologers is just too detailed and precise to fit real-life living breathing mortals in the 21st century ?
All the widely used astrological systems stick to the 12 classical sign divisions, Aries through Pisces, apart from Uranian astrology and Harmonics, both of which ignore signs completely and concentrate only on planets. I've found that there's proof enough that the signs have value, but I do get the feeling that there is much more "wiggle room" between them than has always been assumed.
An astrolger, I can't remember the name, once pointed out that "there are no walls in space", how true that is! A longish "blending in" phase between each cusp would result in a more complex system for sure, but one which would follow the rules of nature more nearly. Nature doesn't move abruptly, from one situation or stage, to another, it does so gradually. Even in the case of what seem to us to be abrupt events - earthquakes, hurricanes and such, the causal factors have gradually built up over a period of time, sometimes centuries, sometimes days, but never instantly - on/off.
Any blending-in phase would need to be too long to account for the 24 degrees of difference between tropical and sidereal, using a zodiac of 12 signs. I wonder whether anybody has ever experimented with, say, seven or eight signs, re-interpreting them, using traditional meanings in a subtly different mix.
I've always accepted that astrology is a natural phenomenon, so these thoughts fit my own perception. People who look on astrology as a mathematical phenomenon, or in the realm of the spiritual or metaphysical, or those who stick firmly to the system of the ancients, would not find this view tolerable, I realise that.
Just thinking (heretically)!
"Heresy is another word for freedom of thought"(Graham Greene)
Still on the subject of change, but in an entirely different arena, a question which some may consider equally heretical.
A large part of the population of the USA seems passionate for change, hope, peace and unity, as evidenced by their unbridled enthusiasm for Barack Obama, his promises and policies. How is it, then, that Dennis Kucinich, who offered a Department of Peace, single payer health care plan and other goodies was almost totally ignored by these same people? John Edwards was similarly ignored. He promised to move the country away from the corporate stranglehold in which it now finds itself, which would have been a much bigger and better change than anything Obama envisages. A strange inconsistency here methinks. Neptune in Aquarius & Uranus in Pisces showing perhaps? Fog, illusion, delusion, confusion in the realm of change, and change in the realm of fog, illusion, delusion....
Just wondering!
4 comments:
I think Edwards & Kucinich were just plain overshadowed by running against the first black & the first woman candidates that actually seem like they have a good chance to win the presidency.
It didn't matter how good their message was, the fact that they were white men, played against them. However I beliveif it had been them running against JUST Hillary or JUST Obama (not Hillary and Obama at the same time)....
they would have been given more attention and a better shot at being heard.
You could be quite correct Mrs. L - Hi again!
But if so, it means that focus may have been on the wrong issues - the concept of "first woman" or "first black person", or even "first charismatic person in decades", being given priority over "what is wrong with the country and who has the best ideas and the best know-how to fix it?"
I mostly blame the media on-line and off, they have pushed the two "first" candidates who offer the best on-going stories for journalists, without upsetting corporate masters. Any concentration on Kucinich or Edwards would have been anti-corporate interest in both cases - and we can't have that, can we? :-(
And the consequence was - the people followed - for the most part unquestioning.
One of my favorite heretics was Pelagius. You may one day go down in history as the Pelagius of Astrology.
Your final question is easier to answer: both Kucinich and Edwards have run the nomination race before, with equal lack of success. The suggestion they were simply outshone by the "woman" and the "black" is, therefore, less likely. I believe both parties failed because the corporates refused to back them. Hardly surprising when both ran on anti-corporate platforms.
LOL! Twilightsius the astrological heretic. Yep!
Oh yes, the corporate bullies had their way again. Our only hope is that one of the remaining candidates - the one who wins, may be independent-minded enough to say to the corporations,insurance companies, etc. -"I took your money - now I'll do what I think is just for the people of America"
(Dream, dream dream!)
Post a Comment