No Walls - Heresy or Freedom of Thought?

An astrolger, years ago, name escapes me, once pointed out that "there are no walls in space". We can't argue with that, though I wouldn't argue against Donald Trump demanding one be built at some future point in time! Graham Greene once said, or wrote, "Heresy is another word for freedom of thought." I'm about to commit the heresy of freedom of thought - on one facet of astrology.

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.

When comparing tropical and sidereal versions of a natal chart, I've found that often both can provide a reasonably accurate interpretation, yet there are around 23 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, 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". :)

A Hillary Clinton Experiment

A little two-way experimentation today with the natal chart of a woman who (if her husband's association with Jeffrey Epstein doesn't pull the rug from under) could be in the running to be the next president of the USA: Hillary Clinton. There's a question mark over her time of birth: 8 am-ish, 8 pm-ish - or perhaps neither?

Hillary Clinton was born on 26 October, 1947, Chicago, Illinois. Charts below, show her natal planetary positions according to both tropical and sidereal zodiacs, using 8:02 am birth time (as does astro.com). I realise that there are many differences between sidereal and tropical astrology, as used by professional astrologers, but interpretation of the signs remains similar for both zodiacs, as far as I know.

TROPICAL

SIDEREAL

Did I ever see Hillary Clinton as a (tropical) quadruple Scorpio? Not really. Sidereally Ms Clinton would have three planets and ascendant in Libra instead of Scorpio, and Jupiter in Scorpio rather than Sagittarius. Her Saturn, Pluto and Mars in tropical Leo would be in Cancer sidereally. Tropical Pisces Moon becomes Aquarius Moon sidereally.

I like that sidereal Aquarius Moon for her, better than tropical Pisces - but the softness of a Pisces Moon is transferred to the stellium in Cancer - Saturn, Pluto and Mars - three planets with hard reputations. Were this a male's natal chart I'd say the tropical Leo positions fit better. As it is the chart of a female, albeit a female in the spotlight of the public stage, I think the planets in Cancer, softened slightly, may be appropriate. Hillary Clinton can hold her own with the most determined male politician, but her experience as a mother and a daughter has to provide a very different base from that of her male colleagues. I understand that in her past career she has often championed children, and the underprivileged. She fought to improve the health care system in the USA some years ago, long before many politicians saw it as being an important issue. There has to be a deep-seated compassion there, well-hidden by a tough exterior.

Sidereal Libra Sun, ascendant, Mercury and Venus replace the passionate, sexy tropical Scorpio planets. Jupiter in sidereal Scorpio retains passion and determination, but Libra the diplomat takes center stage. Some say that Libra can be a flip-flop, indecisive sign. Hillary Clinton appears to be very decisive, and one who can think on her feet when under attack, but she always remains cool and diplomatic. Aquarius Moon trines Mercury/Venus in Libra, indicating an easy, sharp intelligence, and quick-thinking mind. Whilst not the epitome of charm, as in textbook Libra, she appears to be well-liked by many politicians (of both stripes) who know her personally.

As mere onlookers of her performance on the public stage, we cannot hope to know what kind of a woman she really is in private. I suspect, though, that predominant Libra may be a closer match for her than predominant Scorpio. Would quadruple Scorpio have stayed with a spouse after being famously and publicly humiliated? I'm not sure. Would quadruple Libra? Scorpio is a Fixed sign, and as such would embrace and value loyalty, one's own as well as that of others. Cardinal Libra's tact, taste and diplomacy might want to hold things together for the sake of appearances - and best not forget that Venus, planet of love, is ruler of Libra!

There's food for thought here, not necessarily about Ms Clinton in particular, but about the relative accuracy of the two zodiacs when interpreting a natal chart.

It's easier to make a comparison of the two zodiacs using a chart like Ms Clinton's with heavy emphasis on one sign. Using my own "splashy" chart it's not easy to differentiate, because though some planets move sign, general emphasis on signs remain much the same (through alternative planets).

Image, right, illustrates the difference of roughly 23 degrees, due to precession of the equinoxes, between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs. Click on the image for a sharper version.

(NOTE: In case I've given the impression of being a Clinton fan: if Hillary enters 2016's campaign for the US presidency, and becomes the Democratic nominee, I'll be disappointed, and reluctant to vote for her. Not that my vote, in this reddest of red states Oklahoma, makes one jot or tittle of difference!)

Pluto's Peregrinations Tropical and Sidereal

Reaching a clear conclusion about whether the sidereal or tropical zodiac gives more accurate results isn't easy. Using natal charts as a yardstick doesn't often provide sufficient difference, when the whole chart is considered. Using mundane astrology (how the world at large is affected) might prove more fruitful. Pluto, a far distant body interpreted by astrologers as representing transformation, often following a type of cleansing or upheaval, completes its cycle of areas of the 12 zodiac signs around the ecliptic in around 248 years. Pluto's transits provide a good focus point from which to get a bird's eye view of "atmospheres" on planet Earth as Pluto traversed each zodiac sign - using both tropical and sidereal calculations. Will transformations noted, transit by transit, more closely resemble the qualities of the tropical zodiac sign involved, or the sidereal ?

Hat-tip to Planet Waves for the diagram below:


Many astrologers have written about the tropical "eras" of Pluto. There's a concise assessment by Adrian Ross Duncan HERE, for quick reference. I'll contrast those findings using sidereal calculation. It has to be borne in mind that the two other outer planets, Uranus and Neptune, also have their own "eras" and their own areas of relevance; their cycles vary from Pluto's, clear-cut indications of combined eras are questionable. I guess it'd be a matter of layering, and deciding which layer is the strongest influence at any given point of time.

Using extracts (in italics below) from Adrian Ross Duncan's linked article as a guide, I've added my notes on sidereal contrast in blue. Dates used may not be not exact to the month, I don't have a sidereal ephemeris for reference, and my mathematical ability is negligible!


TROPICAL
"The Pluto in Cancer period, from 1913 (just prior to World War 1) to 1939 (as World War 2 started) brought the upheaval of hierarchies and families, as a great levelling factor transformed society. Men in Europe were slaughtered in their millions in the initial phase of this transit, elevating the role of women and preparing the ground for the beginning of political equality. Similarly the privileged classes lost much of their influence – no more so of course than in Russia , where they were eradicated."

SIDEREAL
Pluto in sidereal Gemini covered the years between (approx.) 1908 to 1934, most of the same middle ground as above, with adjustment at start and finish. Without contradicting any of Mr. Duncan's tropical assessment, we could say that during the period of Pluto in sidereal Gemini, communication blossomed and was transformed in every way, from economical mass reproduction of magazines, illustration, and books, to the rise and mass production of the automobile, a very important development, enabling wider travel and, consequently, transforming communication and life in general..

This is rather like looking into a multiple-sided mirror in a clothing store's changing room: look straight ahead and you see one view, turn to a mirror at the side or behind, and see a different version, equally valid.

On we go:

TROPICAL
"Pluto in Leo from 1939 to 1957/8 brought the rise of the superpower, based on the destructive power of the bomb. Schoolchildren practiced hiding under their desks, as the spectre of intercontinental ballistic missiles brought the possibility of destruction to each individual on earth. On the other hand this was the time when colonial powers lost their power, as individual countries asserted their right to be independent. The Pluto in Leo generation is obsessed with youth and self-indulgence. This first generation to grow up under the shadow of the bomb was the first to confront the fact that humanity really could be destroyed, that Armageddon could be a reality, and therefore they seized life with all their power."

SIDEREAL
Pluto in sidereal Cancer covered years 1934 to 1954/5, again the same middle-ground with adjustment at both ends. World War 2 is the most important, transforming, event included in both eras. I could argue that during this time Pluto radically transformed the home (represented by Cancer). Children were left without fathers for years, sometimes for ever. As Mr.Duncan mentioned, children "hid under desks". The whole population of my homeland, Britain, hid at some point during the war in bomb shelters. Hiding in fear under a tough protective layer brings Cancer the Crab clearly to mind! There was an abiding fear that life in the home would be forever transformed in a disastrous way, stripped of freedom and all warmth. Because of heroic action by military forces from Britain, Europe and the USA , mercifully this didn't happen. Towards the end of this period, home-life resumed for those lucky enough to have survived. For most, wherever they lived, a transformation of some kind had occurred.



TROPICAL
"Pluto in Virgo from 1957 to 1971/2 brought the transformation of work, medicine, agriculture and the service industry. With the introduction of the first computerised robots, employees performing nightmarish tasks in heavy industry were released (into traumatic unemployment) and service industries began their rise. Farms became automated, pigs and chickens became production units, so we could have egg and bacon every day. The Pill enabled women to gain control over their biology – sex was on the rise, but, for the first time, birth rates started falling. Pluto has its own medical solution to the so-called population explosion."

SIDEREAL
I find that Pluto in sidereal Leo from around 1954/5 to the end of the 1960s much better describes the period than Pluto in tropical Virgo. It was as though the sun (Leo) had begun to shine once again after the dark years of fear, depression and war. The youth of Europe and America found a voice, and in the 1960s we heard it loud and clear. The hippie era seems now almost like a stage musical (very Leo), the fashions and fads, even the long manes of hair common at that time seem to me to fit Leo's image far better than Virgo's.


Thus far, I think an argument could be made for both tropical and sidereal viewpoints. One could cherry-pick items from any era to support almost any argument though, and there's the problem of mixed influences from Uranus and Neptune to consider. It's a matter of how we each see the overall flavour of a particular, well-defined era.

TROPICAL
"For those to whom marriage was sacred, Pluto had a very special surprise when in transited Libra from 1971 to 1983/4. Aesthetics and femininity were transformed, as bras were burned, and equal rights insisted on. Roles were reversed as men renounced masculinity, and women demonstrated that they could manage very well without the opposite sex. Men loved men, and women loved women – leaving the Pluto in Libra children to ponder about love and relationships... and to create the single culture of today. This was the era of MAD – mutually assured destruction – the nuclear balance of power between the Soviet Union and USA . "

SIDEREAL
Sidereally Pluto was in Virgo for much of the same period as above, actual sidereal period was nearer to 1969 - 1980. The overall feel of that era certainly included the beginnings of equality for women and gays in Europe and the USA. Britain had its first woman Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Virgo is represented traditionally by a female figure, so symbolically there is a correspondence here, in the slowly moving transformation relating to gender equality and perception. There was an energy crisis, too, requiring restrictions and rationing, and in Britain strikes cost millions of working days. In the USA Richard Nixon rose and fell ignominiously, perhaps causing a transformation in the way Americans were to view their leaders in future years - more critically, with less passivity. The aftermath of the Vietnam war left many injured, mentally and physically. These instances equate more to transformation in Virgo's realms of economy, critical reaction and health concerns than to Libran diplomacy, and emphasis on relationships, in my view. And the beginnings of environmental awareness arose in this era - in 1970 the first Earth Day was celebrated - in keeping with Virgo, an Earth sign.


TROPICAL
"After so much sexual experimentation, Pluto in Scorpio from 1983 to 1995 brought the spectre of AIDS. Now even the most natural act in the world could result in death. Back in its home sign, Pluto focussed paranoia on sex itself, and this led to a drastic change in sexual habits, not least in a new openness amongst governments regarding sexual health. Condoms were everywhere. Economically this was the time of the yuppie, of junk bonds and how to get rich by screwing others – happy times for Reaganites and Thatcherites. Banks crashed, then merged to create huge financial entities."

SIDEREAL
Roughly the same era (give or take a few years at each end) is covered by sidereal Libra.
Fall of the Berlin Wall, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in China, a gradual transition into the computer age, the Reagan era in the USA. These could all connect to Libra rather than Scorpio, in my view. Libra, an Air sign, symbolised by the scales, representing balance, a striving for justice, love of peace. Libra is an Air sign, with mental focus, aiding transition into an increasingly computerised era. Pluto in Libra could be seen to relate to all of these.


TROPICAL
"Pluto in Sagittarius from 1995 to 2008 has of course evoked the spectre of international terror and religious fundamentalism. As a mutable sign Sagittarius creates polarity, and today we have the idea of a war of civilizations. The root cause of terror is probably injustice, which Pluto in Sagittarius seeks to redress by its own methods, but the terror of Muslim extremists is also about fighting the Great Satan of America, and the sexual flagrancy and material indulgence of the West... a last-ditch attempt to save an outdated worldview."

SIDEREAL
Not exactly the same period - actually around 1993 to 2006, Pluto lay in sidereal Scorpio. The over-riding aspect of this period was terrorism, as mentioned in the tropical assessment, terrorism and the Iraq war/occupation. As I see it, terrorism equates more to the passion and fixedness of Scorpio, ruled by Mars and Pluto, than the extremes and expansiveness of Sagittarius, ruled by benign Jupiter. Let's not forget that Pluto is very much at home in Scorpio. It's possible, though, to view this from both perspectives.


And now we are watching the future unfold as tropical astrologers consider that Pluto is transiting Capricorn, sidereal astrologers consider that Pluto is transiting Sagittarius. Transformation in business and established institutions (Capricorn) : a work in progress, I guess! Transformation relating to religion (Sagittarius): Roman Catholic priestly scandals, Pope retiring. Transformation (to come?) in the curbing of excesses (Sagittarius).

I don't see a clear overall bias to either tropical or sidereal, past or the present. That could be partly because the two zodiacs do run in tandem for part of the time, so in taking a bird's eye, long distance, view there's bound to be a blending of the qualities and traits of the two signs involved. So this exercise didn't really clarify things any more than does comparing sidereal and tropical natal charts. Any thoughts?

Astro-heresy?

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)

Heretical Thoughts

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!