VS: Wet/Dry (reply to Sari)

[Guest guest]

Hello Therese, and thank you for your efforts, I appreciate that. I

understand really well that you're confused, because now when I've

started to study Jyotish, I'm quite confused with Aristoteles too! I

haven't read Lehman's book (yet), but I've put it behind my ear, as they

say here in Finland. I'll copy the Mountain Astrologer article to you as

soon as I get a chance.

 

Therese wrote:

 

This is really important because it means that the tropical triplicities

are mis-labled, and their natures are misunderstood. After much thought

it seems to me that what can work well (at least in the sidereal zodiac)

is the Stoic categories.

 

Sari:

 

I agree.

 

Therese wrote:

 

This works out if we understand 'masculine' as rational (mind oriented)

and 'feminine' as irrational (of the feelngs-emotions). Then we can keep

the standard male/female categories of the signs. So we get:

 

Aries, Leo, Sag: HOT: active and masculine (self-motivating, of the

mind) Libra, Aqu, Gem: COLD: active and feminine (self-motivating, of

the feelings)

 

Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn: DRY: passive and masculine (receptive-of the

mind) Scorpio, Pisces, Cancer: WET: passive and feminine (receptive-of

the feelings)

 

Sari:

 

I've too come to the conclusion that it's better to keep with the

traditional masculine/feminine categories. All in all, the more I've

looked charts through the sidereal zodiac, the more I've started to

think that it's the sidereal signs that are in aligment with the

traditional descriptions, rulers, elements, qualities etc. and the

tropicalists are the ones who have to adapt their thinking and sometimes

at worst, to try to put a round piece through a square hole.

 

Therese wrote:

 

The entire idea of seasons and cycles is Tropical, and I'm more

comfortable with the old Mesopotamian trigons or triplicities--placing

emphais on each triangle of signs in the zodiac as distinct from the

other trigons. These were originally associated with the four winds, but

were then shifted over to Aristotle's elements. These trigons were far

more important to ancient astrology than the squares that we place

emphasis on today.

 

Sari:

 

You're might be right. We can question the validity of putting too much

weight to the Aristotelian philosophy in general... ;o) too much

rationalizing is what has made the western world what it is today - very

masculine and scientifically oriented that is. It's interesting to note

that in hindu astrology, especially with nakshatras, the key number is

not four but three. Number four points to the world of matter, but

number three points to the world of spirit...

 

Best, Sari