Subject: Digest Number 279

[Guest guest]

> >Message: 1

> > Mon, 18 Feb 2002 01:37:15 -0000

> > " kazikluder " <kazikluder

> >Precession Debate 1

> >

> >Hello to everyone,

> >I'm glad this discussion group has already been created.

> >During the last months I had been much curious about which approach to

> >the Zodiac yields the most precise results, and have gathered some

> >information I would like to be discussed because the issue has become

> >confuse for me: there are arguments and examples supporting both

> >approaches.

> >

> >The First One:

> >1. As we know, the first sign of the Sidereal Zodiac (the one where it

> >is actually the Spring Equinox) happens currently in Pisces.

> >

> >But

> >

> >2. Tropical Astrology usually regards people with Sun in Tropical

> >Aries or with Aries on the First House as " Leaders, ardent, ready to

> >fight and to begin enterprises; full of energy " .

> >

> >3. The Theory of Astrology states that the personality of a native of

> >a certain moment is most influenced by the astral energies prevailing

> >at the time;

> >and

> >

> >4. The energies prevailing when the Sun is in Tropical Aries are those

> >of heat and vitality, and therefore Fire (Aries is a Fire sign),

> >and not Water (Pisces is a Water sign, and the fishes are cold)

> >

> >5. And as could be expected, Aries-born people are energetic and

> >impatient.

> >

> >Far from attempting to propose any approach or criticizing anyone, I

> >would like to read what you say of this.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >______________________

>

>

 

Dear Kazikluder,

 

My experience is that trait characteristcs have no connection

with the tropical signs whatever. I know a number of tropicalists

who say from their experience with their clientele, that Aries is by

no means the domineering, aggressive type as tradition would have

it. Rather they'll occasionally use terms like, " He's a gentle Aries, "

when speaking of a sidereal Pisces who is termed tropical Aries.

Of course it isn't always that way and many tropical advocates

maintain that tropical Aries is forceful, thinks highly of himself and

seeks out positions of control. That's not remotely true in my

experience. Five out of six people in the current epoch who have

the Sun in tropical Aries have it in sidereal Pisces. My stance is

that astrology is divination by the sky, which renders the tropical

signs meaningless because they don't correspond anymore to the

constellations from which they were derived in antiquity. The logic

of it rests on the fact that the vernal equinox in the northern

hemisphere is the autumnal equinox in the southern hemisphere.

That immediately compromises the seasonal argument even before

you begin to examine the way people really are in terms of

character. Secondly, since the equator moves with respect to the

ecliptic and the vernal equinox is defined as the moment when the

Sun reaches the intersection of the equator and the ecliptic, it's not

possible to contend that the Sun is in the same place every year at

the equinox. Most important though, my anecdotal experience as

a working astrologer is that the tropical signs cannot be depended

upon to show what they're supposed to. Unfortunately, advocates

of the tropical zodiac say just the opposite. All you can do is

examine the arguments and do the horoscopes of as many people

as possible with an open mind. The argument between partisans

usually gets messy very fast though with both sides hurling insults

and much vitriolic hyperbole back and forth. The serious students

more often than not bypass such foolishness and begin a serious

examination of the issues.

Best wishes,

Ken Bowser