Ophi-Curious?

Flamin' Nora (as we used to say in Yorkshire), not again! The Ophiuchus issue. What brought forth a re-play of this - it has whiskers on it? Slow news day ? That's hard to believe.

Seemingly something in a newspaper in the UK, or maybe the BBC - not certain, but something recently annoyed my favourite Sun sign astrologer sufficiently for him to get his Mars on and tell 'em what's what and what isn't.


Are you Ophi-curious? See Jonathan Cainer's piece HERE.

Unlike Fox News I shall attempt to really be fair and balanced and provide a slightly alternative view from UK astrology blog Astrotabletalk, HERE.

What I think, as if anybody cares, is that nobody, even the most erudite of astrologers, of any stripe, knows what astrology really is. How it's possible to feel certain about that, and all it entails, has to rest with what each individual finds most persuasive, relying on their own life experiences, and those of others. While this will not tell the hows and whys of it, it will give confidence that there is, for whatever mysterious reason, some validity in the most basic parts of astrology's claims.

As mentioned several times in these posts, my own interpretation/theory of astrology is that it's all about the cycles. Cycles of time in space. The planets and the 12 zodiac signs act as markers in time and space, separating possible "atmospheres" of different sorts, differences which affect us on earth, as we come into earth's atmosphere from the womb, continuing to affect us and our body/mind chemistry all through our lives, as we experience, to varying degrees, other atmospheres and mixes of atmospheres as they cycle along, mixing, colliding easily or with difficulty. Something like that, anyway.

The standard 12 sign zodiac, and its astrological elements (Earth/Air/Fire/Water) and modes (Cardinal/Fixed/Mutable) has worked for me, in my life and experiences - not always, and not always exactly, but pretty nearly so, enough that I retain belief that "something is going on". Therefore, I'd support the astrologers who do not wish to incorporate a 13th sign.

Barry Goddard's point, at Astrotabletalk, about using Ophiuchus in a divinatory sense, if that's what strikes an astrologer as being important, can hardly be argued against. Not being of a divinatory persuasion myself, I'm not qualified to say more.

I don't see any great objection to treating that part of the 12 sign zodiac which covers Ophi's realm as another questionable area such as, say, the Via Combusta (if an astrologer or astrology fan sincerely cannot bear to ignore Ophiuchus altogether).

PS - I scribbled a bit about this old issue in January 2011 when it had surfaced (again) - see
Sun signs, Ophiuchus and all that jazz

Sun Signs, Ophiuchus ..and all that jazz

Someone stirred the old Ophiuchus pot again last week and set off the usual mix of protest and sneers. Protest from those who cling to their "Sun sign" like Republicans cling to their guns, and sneers from skeptics about astrology in general. Deep sighs followed - mine!

I've complained before on this blog about the apparent refusal of people to accept that they are NOT their Sun sign. Why is it that people need to identify themselves in this way? Why, if they have any interest in astrology at all, do they not investigate it in a little more depth? It doesn't take much reading to establish that Sun sign is only part of one's astrological makeup and can sometimes be overtaken by other elements in one's chart.

It doesn't matter what label one claims, whether it's one from the traditional twelve signs, or the 13th: Ophi-wotsit, it's pretty darn meaningless without the rest of your natal astrological factors added. You can't tell what a person really looks like by examining a hand or a foot, or their iris, or even their face in isolation - not really. The wonderful James Thurber wrote along similar lines, though with a deal more eloquence.

I loathe the expression "What makes him tick." It is the American mind, looking for simple and singular solution, that uses the foolish expression. A person not only ticks, he also chimes and strikes the hour, falls and breaks and has to be put together again, and sometimes stops like an electric clock in a thunderstorm
(James Thurber).

One cannot "read" a person by investigating the label they wear as their Sun sign. What possible use can such a label be? Are we so lacking in self-worth that we need these labels?

We do not deal much in facts when we are contemplating ourselves. (Mark Twain)

It is possible, with some logic, to say that a person is, for example, "a Gemini-type" - but that person need not have been born when the Sun was in Gemini. I was born when the Sun was in Aquarius, but I'm not an Aquarius-type....not nearly! And I try very hard never to refer to myself as "an Aquarius". With natal planets in all but two zodiac signs I look on myself as something of an astrological mongrel, and enjoy the mix all of my astro-related traits. It's helpful to look at the issue in this way, and avoid frustration when Ophiuchus pedlars and skeptics surface in the media, as they are wont to do with some regularity.

PS: Astrologer Jonathan Cainer has a clear and informative rundown on the Ophiuchus matter at his website. Look for the link to "Ophiuchus: 13th sign, Umpteenth time".