Traditional astrology does build theoretical walls in space - both types of astrology are guilty of this. Sidereal astrology, based on the constellations, widely used in India and the East; and tropical astrology, based on the seasons - the system with which we in the west are familiar. In astrologese these theoretical walls are known as 'cusps' - the divisions between the 12 zodiac signs, Aries to Pisces.
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? Astrologers tend to look on the system handed down to them in much the same way as Americans look on the Constitution : sacred. Perhaps, after the passing of centuries, both could benefit from some updating and adjustment? Ain't gonna happen, of course, in either case, but it's interesting to surmise.
All widely used astrological systems are based on 12 traditional 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 zodiac signs have value, but I do get the feeling that there is much more "wiggle room" between them than is, traditionally, assumed. Most astrologers, even my favourite astrologers, have declared that the cusps are definite borderlines; one is born on one side of these, or on t'other - no wiggle room allowed, no 'bleeding over' of characteristics, no blending.
I've always thought that astrology has to be based upon natural phenomena, but phenomena as yet not understood. People who look on astrology as a mathematical phenomenon, or in the realm of the spiritual or metaphysical, or those who adhere firmly to the system of the ancients, would not find my view tolerable, this I understand and respect. We don't know any answers about astrological methods for sure - we just don't! If some astrologers were to accept that much and remain a tad more open-minded, it would be helpful.
A "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, as in on/off.
Using a zodiac of 12 signs, any blending-in phase couldn't account for the 23 degrees of difference between tropical and sidereal systems. While keeping in mind that any theoretical walls in space could have some slight degree of flexibility, I've often thought that natal positions of Mercury and Venus ought to be given more prominence in basic astrological interpretation, and not just labelled as "communication style ", and regarding "art and love".
Sun/Moon/ascendant positions are seen by many as the key trio. While not arguing about that trio's importance, I'd add Mercury and Venus. Mercury can never be more than the space of one sign from the Sun's position; Venus never more than the breadth of 2 signs. These two factors very often bring into a personality 'flavours' of signs adjacent to the Sun sign in a natal chart. It's possible that this might account for the fact that, sometimes, both sidereal and tropical astrology can seem to fit a personality - even discounting the ticklish question of cusps and blending-in periods.
I'm in a picky, prickly mood today, one of those moods when, though my belief that there is validity in some parts of astrology still holds, I do not believe everything the text books and teachers propose as being inarguable. Heresy? Dunno - but I don't "expect the Spanish Inquisition". :)
The concepts and mathematics of astrology are straight forward enough, but to fully engage, a finite moment in time is required for the calculation toward an accurate interpretation by the rules. Doubtful such time keeping was that accurate back then, so precision would have been a smear anyway, whether for planetary positions or ascendant and house cusps. Prince George of Cambridge's natal chart is a good example, with his Sun calculated to be at 29*59' Cancer, Moon at 28*17' Capricorn, and Venus at 0*08' Virgo. Proper astrological knowledge of a future king's Sun position was and is critical, added bonus if born during an apparent full Moon. Had George been born several centuries past, the royal astrologer may have given him a dignified Leo Sun, appropriate for a ruler, and provided that George was born at a full Moon in Aquarius. Would have been plausible to place the Sun in George's 10th house, too, considering his future as a king. I can live with all that. Good enough for government work, right?
ReplyDeleteHi there! Thank you for your input, Anon. You give a good example of deliberate "wiggle room" being made, to serve political (or rather royal) ends. :) Interesting!
ReplyDeleteThere's so much wiggle room around astrology in general, so many bits and pieces that can be brought in to justify what needs to be justified in any given circumstance. I've said more than once in the pages of this blog that astrology, badly handled, can make anything mean anything. It can, if one reads around enough, begin to seem like some celestial board game with a variable number of pieces to play with. Still, though, somewhere in there is a core of truth. That core will one day be identified and proved - of that I feel certain.