tropical and sidereal

[Guest guest]

Chris wrote:

> ...My feeling is that tropical charts appear to give more succour to

clients because that is the orientation of the astrologers

interpreting the chart. Sidereally oriented astrologers could do the

same, but generally don't find this approach to the chart to be

interesting....

 

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the comments and for your level-headed approach to these

discussions. What I was trying to get to is how it is that the

tropical and sidereal zodiacs are different. I get thrown off when

people discount the tropical view out of hand and then find myself

defending it, which wasn't my intention at all.

 

I'm used to having discussions in a neutral forum where all ideas are

equally considered, and keep forgetting this is a sidereal-oriented

group that isn't all that interested in the tropical zodiac as a

viable option. So the question of why the two zodiacs are different

is consequently not a burning issue here.

 

But for me, understanding what those difference are can only help me

better appreciate and accept the sidereal zodiac. Everyone keeps

saying " give examples " , which I agree is the only way anything can be

proven. But if I give examples of how I see a tropical chart working

better than the sidereal, this is not something people here would want

to put up with. It would require a thorough study of someone's

tropical natal chart, and I don't want to get into that here anymore

than anyone else does! Not because the tropical zodiac doesn't work

or is hard to prove, but because (as you say) it's person-centered and

not event-centered, and going into this is contrary to the objectives

of this group.

 

Mundane sidereal interpretations go for the quick kill, and rightly

so. Quick, clean, angular, surgically precise answers are harder to

come by in a tropical chart (except for horaries, by the way).

Everyone says this demonstrates the mistake of the tropical chart; I

say it simply illustrates different methodologies.

 

In your comments above, Chris, you made it sound as though the zodiac

a person uses is entirely dependent upon the astrologer's

inclinations, as if the zodiac itself had nothing to do with it.

Therese recently made the same point. But the reason people are

attracted to certain types of symbolism has a lot to do with the

nature of the symbolism in combination with the person's inclinations.

Each zodiac resonates better for some people than for others because

the symbolism and the person using it are a good match.

 

My point is this, that the differences between the two zodiacs can be

seen in the symbolism of the zodiacs as well as in the people using

them. My interest is in trying to identify this difference of

symbolisms, and my method is not the modern scientific model of

hit-or-miss experimentation until a match is found that is preferred

here; but rather, the Platonic method of dialectic (or Socratic

method), in which events are known from their paradigms, or effects

are comprehended in their true nature through their first causes.

 

Therese is doing such a wonderful job of being patient with me! I

know from her tone that I'm testing her limits, and I'm sure I'm

driving a few others nuts too. If I'm a bother, someone tell me and I

can go away.

 

But until then (!), here's the latest on my comparing the two zodiacs.

The mode of investigation is different in keeping with each view.

The sidereal way is overtly empirical, relying on lots of clear-cut

examples of planetary alignments that correlate to definitive events

with enough consistent to prove the symbolism for future use. A fine

approach!

 

The tropical mentality is to investigate into the nature of the

differences (as I'm doing now) to uncover the motivating impulses that

lead to desired resolutions. Also a fine approach. Psychology is

nothing more than the study of the mind. It's use in therapy is not

inherently ineffectual, as several people here have stated. It has

floundered a bit during its development, but its effectiveness depends

on who is using it and how it's used, exactly as with astrology.

 

I know mundane sidereal people will think I'm spinning my wheels

because I'm not getting to the desired empirical results quickly

enough. Tropical people will respond by saying, don't worry so much

about the outer effects of things, look to the underlying causes of

the situation to resolve or understand it. The event is ultimately an

after-effect of the life that is being lived.

 

Both approaches lead to valid knowledge, but the ideal is to use both:

have reproducable, reliable results, and a thorough understanding of

why the symbolism is working.

 

In spite of my tropical leanings, it might surprise some to know that

it's very clear to me now that the Real Zodiac is the Sidereal Zodiac.

That's why I'm hanging in here. I support the notion that the

sidereal zodiac is a more pure form for holding life experience. But

I disagree that this in any way disproves the effectiveness of the

tropical zodiac when used on its own terms.

 

I'm starting to see now why the sidereal zodiac is spoken of as

" error-free " , and what the error is that the tropical is expressing;

in other words, what the symbolism of precession really means. But

that will have to wait for another day (as I've already put most

everyone to sleep!).

 

Again, Chris (if you're still there), thanks for your even-keeled

comments. And thanks, Therese, for being as accepting of me as you

are. It speaks well of you.

 

-Greg

[Guest guest]

At 07:41 AM 1/14/05 -0000, Greg wrote:

 

>Again, Chris (if you're still there), thanks for your even-keeled

>comments. And thanks, Therese, for being as accepting of me as you

>are. It speaks well of you.

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

 

Thanks, Greg. I apologize to you and others on this list for not having the

time or mental energy to follow all the discussions. I'm having to do a

fair amount of off-list writing of my own (continuing articles for my web

site along with research plus other writing), and I'm finding that I simply

don't have the mental energy to get deeply into other topics. I tried, but

ended up exhausted. So, generally my comments here are brief, and I do pay

more attention to shorter posts because it takes less mental energy to reply.

 

Greg, you are welcome to post whatever you like here. I see this list as an

informal classroom of sorts where members wonder in and out and join in

any conversations that interest them. As long as even one person replies to

a post by another, that's all that's necessary. It's like a personal

conversation within a room full of people. Others can listen or not as they

choose.

 

I personally would be interested in how you would analyze an in-depth

Tropical chart (preferably your own), but I'd be looking at the sidereal

chart for whatever you found in the Tropical chart. For me...and this is

strictly my view...I want to see examples rather than rhetoric. My often

tired mind can't follow the rhetoric anymore. Been there, done that in my

younger days. Apologies.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Greg,

 

Thanks for expounding your perspective.

 

Don't worry about not " delivering the empirical goods " at the moment. I

fully understand why it may not be a productive use of your or other

people's time. If so, then please send me something offlist so we can

discuss it there.

 

As for which zodiac fits which astrologer, well, no I wasn't trying to

make it sound like it doesn't matter. Your'e quite right I think that

zodiac selection is connected to the personal style of the astrologer.

 

I also dont' disagree with the notion that events are understood in terms

of their paradigms. While this is a priori true, I don't think it's

helpful to leave the matter there. At some point, we have to use common

sense and recognize when a car accident is linked to Mars rather than

Venus and so on.

 

Nobody would disagree with this on paper, and yet too often I find western

astrologers sinking into the abyss of mythologically-inspired verbosity

that doesn't get anywhere.

 

While I'm a practicing siderealist, I haven't fully shut the door on the

tropical zodiac, if only because I recognize how complex the universe is

and little we understand it. So it's good to read your tropical views

from such an informed perspective.

 

As I said, feel free to email me offlist if you want to get into this

zodiac comparison further. No worries if you don't -- I know how valuable

your time must be.

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

--- mr_greg_kramer <grkramer wrote:

 

>

> Chris wrote:

> > ...My feeling is that tropical charts appear to give more succour to

> clients because that is the orientation of the astrologers

> interpreting the chart. Sidereally oriented astrologers could do the

> same, but generally don't find this approach to the chart to be

> interesting....

>

> Hi Chris,

> Thanks for the comments and for your level-headed approach to these

> discussions. What I was trying to get to is how it is that the

> tropical and sidereal zodiacs are different. I get thrown off when

> people discount the tropical view out of hand and then find myself

> defending it, which wasn't my intention at all.

>

> I'm used to having discussions in a neutral forum where all ideas are

> equally considered, and keep forgetting this is a sidereal-oriented

> group that isn't all that interested in the tropical zodiac as a

> viable option. So the question of why the two zodiacs are different

> is consequently not a burning issue here.

>

> But for me, understanding what those difference are can only help me

> better appreciate and accept the sidereal zodiac. Everyone keeps

> saying " give examples " , which I agree is the only way anything can be

> proven. But if I give examples of how I see a tropical chart working

> better than the sidereal, this is not something people here would want

> to put up with. It would require a thorough study of someone's

> tropical natal chart, and I don't want to get into that here anymore

> than anyone else does! Not because the tropical zodiac doesn't work

> or is hard to prove, but because (as you say) it's person-centered and

> not event-centered, and going into this is contrary to the objectives

> of this group.

>

> Mundane sidereal interpretations go for the quick kill, and rightly

> so. Quick, clean, angular, surgically precise answers are harder to

> come by in a tropical chart (except for horaries, by the way).

> Everyone says this demonstrates the mistake of the tropical chart; I

> say it simply illustrates different methodologies.

>

> In your comments above, Chris, you made it sound as though the zodiac

> a person uses is entirely dependent upon the astrologer's

> inclinations, as if the zodiac itself had nothing to do with it.

> Therese recently made the same point. But the reason people are

> attracted to certain types of symbolism has a lot to do with the

> nature of the symbolism in combination with the person's inclinations.

> Each zodiac resonates better for some people than for others because

> the symbolism and the person using it are a good match.

>

> My point is this, that the differences between the two zodiacs can be

> seen in the symbolism of the zodiacs as well as in the people using

> them. My interest is in trying to identify this difference of

> symbolisms, and my method is not the modern scientific model of

> hit-or-miss experimentation until a match is found that is preferred

> here; but rather, the Platonic method of dialectic (or Socratic

> method), in which events are known from their paradigms, or effects

> are comprehended in their true nature through their first causes.

>

> Therese is doing such a wonderful job of being patient with me! I

> know from her tone that I'm testing her limits, and I'm sure I'm

> driving a few others nuts too. If I'm a bother, someone tell me and I

> can go away.

>

> But until then (!), here's the latest on my comparing the two zodiacs.

> The mode of investigation is different in keeping with each view.

> The sidereal way is overtly empirical, relying on lots of clear-cut

> examples of planetary alignments that correlate to definitive events

> with enough consistent to prove the symbolism for future use. A fine

> approach!

>

> The tropical mentality is to investigate into the nature of the

> differences (as I'm doing now) to uncover the motivating impulses that

> lead to desired resolutions. Also a fine approach. Psychology is

> nothing more than the study of the mind. It's use in therapy is not

> inherently ineffectual, as several people here have stated. It has

> floundered a bit during its development, but its effectiveness depends

> on who is using it and how it's used, exactly as with astrology.

>

> I know mundane sidereal people will think I'm spinning my wheels

> because I'm not getting to the desired empirical results quickly

> enough. Tropical people will respond by saying, don't worry so much

> about the outer effects of things, look to the underlying causes of

> the situation to resolve or understand it. The event is ultimately an

> after-effect of the life that is being lived.

>

> Both approaches lead to valid knowledge, but the ideal is to use both:

> have reproducable, reliable results, and a thorough understanding of

> why the symbolism is working.

>

> In spite of my tropical leanings, it might surprise some to know that

> it's very clear to me now that the Real Zodiac is the Sidereal Zodiac.

> That's why I'm hanging in here. I support the notion that the

> sidereal zodiac is a more pure form for holding life experience. But

> I disagree that this in any way disproves the effectiveness of the

> tropical zodiac when used on its own terms.

>

> I'm starting to see now why the sidereal zodiac is spoken of as

> " error-free " , and what the error is that the tropical is expressing;

> in other words, what the symbolism of precession really means. But

> that will have to wait for another day (as I've already put most

> everyone to sleep!).

>

> Again, Chris (if you're still there), thanks for your even-keeled

> comments. And thanks, Therese, for being as accepting of me as you

> are. It speaks well of you.

>

> -Greg

>

>

>

>

>