TROPical v. SideREAL

[Guest guest]

The tropical zodiac is off because it has nothing to do with the fixed

stars. The signs are only conceptual in tropical zodiac, they don't refer

to a segment of the celestial sphere. I say this only because having once

used the tropical system, I now struggle with seeing its value. I think

that it may be useful to a degree, because it tells the story of the Earth's

relationship to the Sun, which is pretty important. Much of the

astrological research and observation of past cultures has been focused on

the solstices, equinoxes, and eclipses. Sidereal astrology tells a much

more ancient story, the story of our star system's relationship to the

galaxy. The solar emphasis of the tropical zodiac tells us a lot about

Western culture. We are " blinded by the light, " so to speak. In this way,

tropical may be more popular now because it is about stuff you can see right

now (Maya = illusion). But it probably is not the system that will last of

the two. It does not help us locate ourselves in relationship to the center

of the galaxy (God?).

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David Ray

Woodstock, NY 12498

bluerodent

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

----Original Message Follows----

" Yerwurst Neitmayer " <karmabum15237

 

 

Re: Sidereal Zodiac Question

Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:32:02 -0000

 

Hello!

 

, serafime wrote:

> as some postings previously mentioned, the following fixed stars

> have these degree locations: Aldeberan at 15* Taurus, Regulus at

> 5* Leo, Spica at 29* Virgo, and Antares at 15* Scorpio.

>

> My questions is, does that stay the same in both the Tropical

> Zodiac and Sidereal? In both zodiacs is Antares at 15d Sco?

>

> -Paola Lopez (beg. siderealist, trying to figure it all out) :-)

 

In the Tropical Zodiac, the fixed stars' longitudes change over

time. They currently place Antares, the " heart of the Scorpion " , at

roughly 10* Sagittarius. (Yeah, right. . .)

 

Later,

Kevin

 

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Hello, David,

 

, " blue rodent " <bluerodent@h...> wrote:

>

> The tropical zodiac is off because it has nothing to do with the

> fixed stars. The signs are only conceptual in tropical zodiac,

> they don't refer to a segment of the celestial sphere. I say

> this only because having once used the tropical system, I now

> struggle with seeing its value.

 

As far as I can tell, the Tropical Zodiac has but two things going

for it:

 

1) It's easier to calculate Sideral house cusps by getting a

Tropical House Tables book and then correcting for precession (the

SVP's location at a given time can come from an ephemeris) than it is

to buy several volumes of Sidereal House Tables books.

 

2) Planetary & other points' aspects to the SVP (which the

Tropicalists call " The Aries Point " are easier to see: 0* and 22.5*

in the Tropical Cardinal signs, 15* in the Tropical Fixed signs, and

7.5* in the Tropical Mutable signs.

 

These are, however, very important things.

 

Still, the Sidereal Zodiac is easier to learn to use, and is much

better for calculating returns and other transits. This is

especially true for natives over thirty six, even though not

accountng for precession can negatively impact solar returns before

the native reaches their late teens.

 

Later,

Kevin