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 ? Astrologers tend to look on the system handed down to them in much the same way as Americans look on the Constitution - sacred. Perhaps, with the passing of centuries, both could benefit from some adjustment? Ain't gonna happen, of course, in either case, but it's interesting to surmise.
All widely used astrological systems stick to 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 once pointed out that "there are no walls in space" - can't argue with that! All the more reason to experiment then.
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.
Using a zodiac of 12 signs, any blending-in phase couldn't account for the 24 degrees of difference between tropical and sidereal. I wonder whether anyone has ever experimented with, say, six or eight signs, re-interpreting them, using traditional meanings in a subtle blend?
I've always accepted that astrology is based upon natural 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, heretical blogger though I may be!
"Heresy is another word for freedom of thought"(Graham Greene)
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, with the passing of centuries, both could benefit from some adjustment? Ain't gonna happen, of course, in either case, but it's interesting to surmise.
All widely used astrological systems stick to 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 once pointed out that "there are no walls in space" - can't argue with that! All the more reason to experiment then.
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.
Using a zodiac of 12 signs, any blending-in phase couldn't account for the 24 degrees of difference between tropical and sidereal. I wonder whether anyone has ever experimented with, say, six or eight signs, re-interpreting them, using traditional meanings in a subtle blend?
I've always accepted that astrology is based upon natural 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, heretical blogger though I may be!
"Heresy is another word for freedom of thought"(Graham Greene)
Some would say you are a radical thinker. I say you are a thinker, and that is is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I only sorta understand, it does seem to make sense that things change as time marches on (even the positions of heavenly bodies) and adjustments should be made.
This is great stuff, Twilight! If there are people out there having doubts about astrology (mostly because of exagerated or "phantastic" predictions) there are others who wonder "how does this all work".
ReplyDeleteAnd it's them who count, the rest is dispensable as more or less sensational and worse even as just commercial.
Please continue thinking, as Kaleymorris so appropriately says. Little chance you will get a Nobel Price, but that's all fabricated these days anyway. What counts is to have "people like you thinking beyond the tip of their nose"!!!
Please do not now destroy the last hope I had. My astrologer told me that 2011 will be a great year for me. If what you say puts all in doubt, it's for the least not very kind of you!
ReplyDeleteI am Libra and born in Mexico.
Kaleymorris ~~~ Well, like Topsy, "sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits" ;-)
ReplyDeleteAncient, as well as 19th century and early 20th century astrologers had a completely different view of the world - and would probably be apalled that their methods are still being used with very little adjustment, considering the technology we now have available for research.
Same goes for the Constitution of the US.
Ancient astrologers and the Founding Fathers of the US worked with the world they knew THEN.
It's so different now in every way - in ways they couldn't possibly have foreseen.
I think we are too lazy or too afraid to change on account of $$$$ - on both fronts.
Gian Paul ~~ Thank you kindly!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that my meanderings amount to much - apart from exercising my brain....But much as I love astrology there are some real frustrations within it, and it does no harm to voice them once in a while.
Anonymous ~~~ Ah no - anything I've thought about here doesn't change or put in doubt what your astrologer has told you.
ReplyDeleteI am simply thinking about ways that some of the contradictions we find in astrology could be straightened out....especially regarding sidereal and tropical zodiacs.
Perhaps by using a slightly different template or method there'd be even more good news for you!
Thank you. To be sure of what you think is possible I will ask my astrologer to get in touch with you and then to confirm for me once more what she said.
ReplyDeleteShifting time and space, I agree with you T. There is no such thing as an exact science.
ReplyDeleteI had this exact conversation with my daughter today on the phone....
Synchronicity yet again.
XO
WWW
WWW ~~~ Exactly!
ReplyDeleteMy Grandad used to say - "the only two two things that are sure in life: death and rent day." ;-)
Anything written by man or woman, ever, is up for questioning (because men and women are entirely fallible) - and that means everything ever written, because nobody else has ever written anything.