Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 At 09:42 AM 8/29/06 -0400, Don wrote: >Dear Vanessa, > >I am a new member of the Sidereal Astrology group and read your emails asking for cosmic clarification. :^) > >In my opinion, it's pretty easy and a lot of fun to answer your questions. > >The first thing to do is to calculate your chart and print out an astrological report according to the Tropical zodiac, then do the same for the Sidereal zodiac, and then you decide which is the " more you. " > >It will help a great deal if you print each report out and read it with a pencil in your hand and immediately rate each paragraph (which is an astrological aspect or sign) " yes, " " no, " or " ok " [neutral] on the margin as to whether you think it fits you... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi Don and Venessa, A major problem with the sidereal report writers is that generally they simply repeat tropical interpretations for the same sidereal signs. This simply does not work, so the interpretations will not be truly sidereal, but only tropical with the same sign names. So, for example, the report writer will give the same traits for both Tropical and sidereal Scorpio. Well, only a little thought shows that astronomically this can't be correct since each area of the sky can have only certain meanings which can't contradict each other. I haven't seen the Kepler reports, but I know that there has never been a consensus on how to interpret sidereal signs. The only consensus is on which planets rule the different signs. If the Kepler reports are based on the position of planets in relation to the ascendant and M.C., then they would say about the same thing for both the tropical and sidereal. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Hi, Therese, Good points. Is it that to be a " Siderealist " today means we're talking about essentially starting from scratch and also rewriting [tropical] astrology where there's analogy to make it conform to the constellations? Where else can or should we start? :^) Regarding " sign " rulerships aren't there differences with the " classical " and then the " new " ? The disputed planetship of Pluto brings that to light--couldn't a critic ask, 'If it's not a planet then how can it be a ruler?' You said: " If the Kepler reports are based on the position of planets in relation to the ascendant and M.C., then they would say about the same thing for both the tropical and sidereal. " I confess each time I read that I get a different idea. I guess the impetus is about houses. I would comment that my research shows that classical siderealists did not use houses as we know them today. When Ptolemy spoke of 'houses' he didn't mean the horoscope houses known to modern astrologers, he used no house-division system other than the zodiacal constellation itself. Thus the 'house' of a planet simply meant the particular zodiacal constellation(s) with which a certain planet had the greatest affinity and in which it developed maximum power (also by triplicity, exaltation, term, etc.). If you'll send me your DOB info I will be glad to send you your Tropical and " Sidereal " Kepler Cosmo report and you can check it out and see how we can go from there. I'm very happy with the reading of my " sidereal " Kepler Cosmo; I think it is much more today's " real me " than my " tropical " Kepler Cosmo. It decided me to renew my enthusiasm for classical--Sidereal--astrology. Yes, the interpretation will be ostensibly for Tropical signs but recall that two thousand years ago they coincided with the Constellations and were contemporaneous. So since they started out the same, could it be that it was the Tropical (definitions) that moved? Is it that today's " Tropical " definitions are still the valid ones for the Sidereal--but not for the Tropical anymore because they moved and they didn't adjust for that? Whoops!--now I'm doing it, I'd better stop. :^) Best Regards, Don - therese hamilton Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:07 PM Re: Hi, I'm fairly new to astrology At 09:42 AM 8/29/06 -0400, Don wrote: >Dear Vanessa, > >I am a new member of the Sidereal Astrology group and read your emails asking for cosmic clarification. :^) > >In my opinion, it's pretty easy and a lot of fun to answer your questions. > >The first thing to do is to calculate your chart and print out an astrological report according to the Tropical zodiac, then do the same for the Sidereal zodiac, and then you decide which is the " more you. " > >It will help a great deal if you print each report out and read it with a pencil in your hand and immediately rate each paragraph (which is an astrological aspect or sign) " yes, " " no, " or " ok " [neutral] on the margin as to whether you think it fits you... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi Don and Venessa, A major problem with the sidereal report writers is that generally they simply repeat tropical interpretations for the same sidereal signs. This simply does not work, so the interpretations will not be truly sidereal, but only tropical with the same sign names. So, for example, the report writer will give the same traits for both Tropical and sidereal Scorpio. Well, only a little thought shows that astronomically this can't be correct since each area of the sky can have only certain meanings which can't contradict each other. I haven't seen the Kepler reports, but I know that there has never been a consensus on how to interpret sidereal signs. The only consensus is on which planets rule the different signs. If the Kepler reports are based on the position of planets in relation to the ascendant and M.C., then they would say about the same thing for both the tropical and sidereal. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.