Clarifying Question #2: No unified zodiac

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Juan and Therese for responding to my

first question. I will comment on some of your

points later in another post. Here I'm just

wondering about both your reactions to my second

question. Since neither of you had any comments

about it, does that mean that as far as you can

see, my reasoning is logical and my conclusion

correct? I'm sure that tropical astrologers have

their own reasons for believing that their

astrology works. But their reasons is not really

want I wanted to ask about. What I wanted to

know is whether those who know more about

astrology (and astronomy) than I do see any holes

in my reasoning and conclusion:

 

My *reason* seems to tell me that the standard

Tropical " zodiac " cannot exist for any planet

other than the Sun...

 

1. Tropical is the astrology of *time* and is

based on the *sun's* cycle (or, rather, the

earth's cycle around the sun); in this astrology,

the sun is not really " in " any sign. Tropical

" Aries " is just a convenient name for a specific

*time* -- the beginning of spring, and has

nothing to do with the *constellation* of Aries.

 

2. This being the case, tropical astrology

therefore has nothing to do with the

constellations. It is not an astrology of *space*

like sidereal.

 

3. It then seems to follow that in tropical

astrology, just as the Sun " in " a particular sign

is *not* really " in " it, but only refers to the

stage in the sun's own cycle, then the other

planets (e.g. the Moon, mercury, venus, etc) also

cannot really be " in " any sign.

 

4. So it seems to me that when Tropical

astrologers, whose " zodiac " is centered on the

Sun's path and the seasons, say the " Moon is in

Aries " , they can only be saying something

meaningless -- unless they call a specific stage

in the Moon's cylce " Aries " . They might also do

the same with the other planets. But what we

would end up with by doing this is a separate

" zodiac " for each planet, since they each follow

a different cycle/path.

 

5. So, unlike sidereal astrology which uses the

fixed stars and constellations, tropical

astrology cannot have just *one* zodiac that

works for all the planets. The result is that, in

tropical astrology, the Moon in Aries would be a

*different* Aries than, say, the Sun or Mercury

in Aries.

 

6. All of this seems to me to be a major point

against the validity of the tropical zodiac. It

seems to me that even if tropical astrology works

in its own way, it should reinvent its rules

since the ones it still uses would, as far as I

can see, only work for an astrology that uses

*one* common zodiac for all planets, i.e.,

sidereal astrology.

 

Does anyone see what I mean? I hope I haven't

made this too confusing. What I want to know is

if anyone sees any flaws with my argument, or

whether I'm missing any relevant facts

(astromical or whatever) that would change the

whole picture. But since my *knowledge* of the

technical side of astrology and of astronomy is

so limited, I thought that there is a chance that

I've come to this conclusion only because there

is some *facts* that I'm ignorant about. After

all, such great astrologers like Robert Hand, who

is much more informed than I am and who seems to

have analyzed both the tropical and sidereal

zodiac still seem to think that the tropical one

could work.

 

Elisabeth

 

 

 

____________________

Post your free ad now! http://personals..ca