Zodiac and Constellations

August 30, 2006

At 09:08 AM 8/30/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>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? :^)

Hi Don,

To be a siderealist today means that an astrologer uses the sidereal

zodiac, and considers the planets in the sidereal signs. Thus, Saturn is

exalted in Libra and stronger there

than in Aries, the sign of its fall. However, this doesn't necessarily mean

that Saturn is 'good' in Libra. On the YoungAstro site astrologers have

been looking at charts of criminals, and Mars was often at home in Aries,

whereas in some of the 'good people' charts Mars was in its fall in

Cancer. The upshot is that we may not want a Mars influence that is too

strong.

>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?'

We're always safe staying with the classical rulers. Many siderealists

never accepted Pluto as lord of Scorpio. Either (according to siderealists)

Pluto belongs to Aries, or it doesn't rule any zodiac sign. Quite a number

of tropical astrologers also keep only the classical sign lords, but use

Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in other ways.

>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.

I guess you mean 'classical astrologers.' The first house system was

sign-as-house. Any planet in the ascendant sign, for example, was said to

be in the first house. But there are early indications that how close a

planet was to a cusp was considered important. (See Dorotheus who mentions

a 15 degree cuspal orb for a planet to have first house influence.)

>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.

The zodiacal constellations were never used as houses. A sidereal sign

isn't a constellation. The constellations in the sky are irregualar. Only

individual stars were considered depending on where they fell in the signs

or if they were rising or culminating. But, yes, early astrologers used

only 'sign-as-house.'

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.).

The origin of ruling planets is something of a mystery. We have the scheme

of classical rulerships, but not how these rulerships came about. We know

the so-called exaltations came from Mesopotamia, however.

>Yes, the interpretation will be ostensibly for Tropical signs but recall

that two thousand years ago they coincided with the Constellations...

The two zodiacs were in the same area of the sky, but the constellations

are a separate entity.

>...So since they started out the same, could it be that it was the

Tropical (definitions) that moved?...

This is what siderealists Rupert Gleadow says in YOUR CHARACTER IN THE

ZODIAC. He explains, for example, how in ancient times Cancer was a sign of

the politician (see our current president's horoscope...), but now it's

said to be a sign of the home.

However, the current psychological interpretations of the signs only came

about in the 20th century, and they never turn out to be true in research.

That's because psychology is in the planets rather than the signs.

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?

The genuine Tropical interpretations are valid if they're based on

*observation,* but in my opinion the interpretations really belong to the

underlying sidereal sign (which would be the previous sign from the

Tropical viewpoint.) For more detail, see the articles on Aries, Taurus and

Gemini here: http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

An example of observation is when Tropical astrologers say that Taurus can

be stubborn and more into its own view than interested in relationships.

This doesn't fit the rulership of relationship-orinted Venus or the

sociable Moon, exalted in Taurus. But it does fit a sign (Aries) whose

lords are Mars and perhaps Pluto.

Therese

August 30, 2006

Hi, Therese,

Yes, I know you can count more than the usual 12 constellations on the plane of

the ecliptic. I am using conventional conversational terms except where

indicated.

By " observation " of delineation are you not agreeing that we start with

conventional " tropical " interpretations of sidereal " signs " ?

Don

-

therese hamilton

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:29 AM

Re: Zodiac and Constellations

At 09:08 AM 8/30/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>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? :^)

Hi Don,

To be a siderealist today means that an astrologer uses the sidereal

zodiac, and considers the planets in the sidereal signs. Thus, Saturn is

exalted in Libra and stronger there

than in Aries, the sign of its fall. However, this doesn't necessarily mean

that Saturn is 'good' in Libra. On the YoungAstro site astrologers have

been looking at charts of criminals, and Mars was often at home in Aries,

whereas in some of the 'good people' charts Mars was in its fall in

Cancer. The upshot is that we may not want a Mars influence that is too

strong.

>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?'

We're always safe staying with the classical rulers. Many siderealists

never accepted Pluto as lord of Scorpio. Either (according to siderealists)

Pluto belongs to Aries, or it doesn't rule any zodiac sign. Quite a number

of tropical astrologers also keep only the classical sign lords, but use

Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in other ways.

>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.

I guess you mean 'classical astrologers.' The first house system was

sign-as-house. Any planet in the ascendant sign, for example, was said to

be in the first house. But there are early indications that how close a

planet was to a cusp was considered important. (See Dorotheus who mentions

a 15 degree cuspal orb for a planet to have first house influence.)

>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.

The zodiacal constellations were never used as houses. A sidereal sign

isn't a constellation. The constellations in the sky are irregualar. Only

individual stars were considered depending on where they fell in the signs

or if they were rising or culminating. But, yes, early astrologers used

only 'sign-as-house.'

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.).

The origin of ruling planets is something of a mystery. We have the scheme

of classical rulerships, but not how these rulerships came about. We know

the so-called exaltations came from Mesopotamia, however.

>Yes, the interpretation will be ostensibly for Tropical signs but recall

that two thousand years ago they coincided with the Constellations...

The two zodiacs were in the same area of the sky, but the constellations

are a separate entity.

>...So since they started out the same, could it be that it was the

Tropical (definitions) that moved?...

This is what siderealists Rupert Gleadow says in YOUR CHARACTER IN THE

ZODIAC. He explains, for example, how in ancient times Cancer was a sign of

the politician (see our current president's horoscope...), but now it's

said to be a sign of the home.

However, the current psychological interpretations of the signs only came

about in the 20th century, and they never turn out to be true in research.

That's because psychology is in the planets rather than the signs.

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?

The genuine Tropical interpretations are valid if they're based on

*observation,* but in my opinion the interpretations really belong to the

underlying sidereal sign (which would be the previous sign from the

Tropical viewpoint.) For more detail, see the articles on Aries, Taurus and

Gemini here: http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

An example of observation is when Tropical astrologers say that Taurus can

be stubborn and more into its own view than interested in relationships.

This doesn't fit the rulership of relationship-orinted Venus or the

sociable Moon, exalted in Taurus. But it does fit a sign (Aries) whose

lords are Mars and perhaps Pluto.

Therese

August 30, 2006

At 12:56 PM 8/30/06 -0400, Don wrote:

>Hi, Therese,

>

>Yes, I know you can count more than the usual 12 constellations on the

plane of the ecliptic. I am using conventional conversational terms except

where indicated.

Hi Don,

Some western siderealists still use the word 'constellation' for a sidereal

sign, but that use opens us to ridicule and misunderstanding from others.

In India signs are never called constellations because that term is often

used for the nakshatras or lunar mansions which are identified by

individual stars or asterisms. I guess I'm a purist, and don't like to use

incorrect conversational terms. Astrology needs to clear up its vocabulary.

>By " observation " of delineation are you not agreeing that we start with

conventional " tropical " interpretations of sidereal " signs " ?

Yes, that's quite right, and has been pointed out by Cyril Fagan and other

early siderealists. Any interpretation based on actual obervation is

useful. But what happens is that the tropical books begin with a few

observations and then add information to the signs from theory, and that's

where the textbooks start to miss.

But remember that the observations of Tropical astrologers apply to the

**previously named sidereal sign.** I personally don't believe there is a

tropical zodiac. All astrologers are seeing in my opinion are traits of the

sidereal signs. You can show some evidence for this by noting that the last

few degrees of tropical signs tend to behave more like the following

tropical sign because these traits align with the underlying sidereal sign.

The last few degrees of tropical signs (today) line up with a new sidereal

sign.

I believe that the interpretation software reports simply apply tropical

meanings to the sidereal signs of the same name. But I haven't seen most of

the interpretive reports. If these reports say, for example, that sidereal

'fiery signs' are fiery in nature, they are missing the boat. The sidereal

Aries trigon (called 'fire' in the tropical system) has a very different

expression sidereally.

Therese

August 30, 2006

Hi, Therese,

We're going around in circles. If you'll send me by private email *in strict

confidence* your DOB info I'll send you privately your tropical Cosmo and

" sidereal " Cosmo reports and we can be on the same page here?

Best,

Don

-

therese hamilton

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:35 PM