About Ophiuchus the 13th sign

ravenest

Minderwiz said:
So if Ravenest would like to put forward an alternative view, either developed or putative then this forum should welcome that.

Thank you

ravenest

dadsnook2000 said:
Now comes the impossible task. Imagine that all of those diverse stars, near and/or very far away, radiate something such that they collectively coax our orbiting solar system planets passing through their segment (relative to Earth) to be angry, more prone to taking action, seeing things as threatening and needing to be protected against. Then imagine that the next segment of space with its billions of variable star types happens to collectively influence planets moving through its bounds with a more harmonious nature, an attitude that is kind of cool, a desire for peaceful surroundings and comfort.

Imagine that each of these twelve segments, collectively containing billions upon billions of stars, were all arranged such that they bestowed a certain set of influences on Earth that promoted specific attitudes, responses, feelings, inclinations, likes and dislikes --- and that each segment, while different from the others were part of a whole system of influences designed just for us here on Earth.

Absurd isn't it.

I find it just as 'absurd' as many other convenient models that work including geocentric viewpoints. By the above emotive reasoning I think a non-astrological scientists could see the same 'absurdity' in any angular arrangement of planets could cause us 'to be angry, more prone to taking action, seeing things as threatening and needing to be protected against. '

ravenest

(I hope you can understand I am bouncing off your ideas and questioning things and seeking sensible clarification and not attacking personally)

Minderwiz said:
Firstly Dave states what should be obvious but is often overlooked. The zodiac is a geocentric concept - it's Earth bound. What is more so are the constellations - as opposed to the individual stars that 'compose' them.

Zodiac seems a much clearer word to use than astrology when discussing this - thanks.

Minderwiz said:
Orion, for example, only makes sense when viewed from Earth (or a nearby planet or solar system) and even then only for a limited period of time (in the history of the universe). Shift the angle of view and Orion no longer exists. The stars that 'compose' it do not lie equidistant from Earth, they lie at varying distances. In other words we are not looking at a fixed object.

Yes it is / was made '3-d' ... its a model, a concept, which is only relevant to the earth observer and makes no scientific sense ... just like the geocentric viewpoint.

Minderwiz said:
Stories that involve twins (well two humans) that have cultural and religious significance date from the time that the constellation of Gemini was a marker for the Spring Equinox in the North. I would guess that there are similar stores in the Southern Hemisphere that mark the Spring Equinox (or other quarter point).

So, how did this cultural and religious Gemini influence come about? It is postulted that it was because the (northern hemisphere) spring equinox point, was in the CONSTELLATION of Gemini ... not the sign of Gemini, not so many degrees off a point in the earth's orbital path. What makes one age different from another, what makes the eqinoctal point have various influence over the whole of the earths evolutionary history (so goes the theory), my friends, is the passing in front of, or moving 'through' a CONSTELLATION.

Why was the age of Aries said to be a different enrgy and 'lesson' from Pisces? The influence of the CONSTELLATION!

Minderwiz said:
Yes the zodiac of the twelve signs is a marker system. There is some debate as to whether a zodiac of the constellations predated it, or had significant use by Astrologers

Perhaps you can help with this one Mindy? I posted before that the western zodiac did coincide with the constellations (roughly and gragraphicaly - ie. 0 deg. Aries cosmologically WAS the same point as 0 deg Aries astrologically) at a certain time, my point was that they used to coincide. I was told that my calculation was a few hundred years off so I was wrong ... my point WAS that they DID coincide at some time.

Now here is the issue, in my friend's American Ephemeris, pre 2000 (or maybe it was the 2000) issue, she showed me at the front, in directions for calculations, where it instructed one NOT to forget to add the figures for equinoctal precession. Now, of course, I cant find a copy of that old ephemeris anywhere.

Have you (or anyone else) ever seen this, or have these old ephemeris? This was essential to my original idea as I noticed this calculation was removed and then people started arguing with me that a sign never represented a constellation (even though they are named the same and in the same order).

Minderwiz said:
- as opposed to certain constellations, which clearly were used as markers. That 'zodiac' though was not a joined up one. For Natural Astrology you only need to be able to predict the equinoxes and the solstices, and not necessarily all four. So you don't need a 'circle of animals'. Only when you begin to use Astrology for other reasons does a need arise.

Yes, the earlier Egyptian Zodiacs (not ones like the Dendra Zodiac which is actually Greek with the Egyptian stuff added) where liniar.

Minderwiz said:
Now whatever is the case above, the growth of the zodiac of twelve signs is one that has become used widely in Europe, the Middle East and India. Elsewhere you will no doubt find different perceptions.

Including in Aboriginal Australia where the dark shapes of dust clouds OBSCURING the stars are the ones that the animal shapes are made out of amidst the millions of stars visible in the Australian outback. That is; the shapes are made not between the relationships of stars but by the abscence of stars

Minderwiz said:
Does this mean that we shouldn't bother about precession? Well yes and No. The annual cycle of the seasons is independent of the stellar background, so from that point of view the answer is yes - don't bother.

Exactly! I have fully acknowledged the use of western tropical astrology as a great tool for the seasons but astrology is vastly greater than that ... or is assumed to be by the vast majority and by popular definition (again - dictionaries and other astrologers). But many people use astrology for other purposes, eg. Bio-dynamic agriculture uses astrology, the seasons are of ultimate importance (agriculture) yet they use a sidereal system and postulate energy coming from and even beings residing in constellations, their system can be checked in your garden or by the taste and healthyness of the produce. Just because that idea might seem 'absurd' as Dave says, doesnt stop the food tasting great!

Minderwiz

Yes I fully understand your aim is to raise reasonable questions.

ravenest said:
No, it is / was made '3-d' ... its a model, a concept, which is only relevant to the earth observer and makes no scientific sense ... just like the geocentric viewpoint.

Not quite sure what 'No' refers to here. A 3D model has a cohesion that allows you to identify it, whatever the viewpoint. In reality looking at 'Orion' from a different point is the galaxy may show not the slightest realtionship betwen the constituent stars, they appear in quite different points of the sky. Oh science is geocentric by the way, at least to the extent that it is the product of the human species which inhabits Earth. Technicall the constellations are 'asterisms'

Ravenest said:
So, how did this cultural and religious Gemini influence come about? It is postulted that it was because the (northern hemisphere) spring equinox point, was in the CONSTELLATION of Gemini ... not the sign of Gemini, not so many degrees off a point in the earth's orbital path. What makes one age different from another, what makes the eqinoctal point have various influence over the whole of the earths evolutionary history (so goes the theory), my friends, is the passing in front of, or moving 'through' a CONSTELLATION.

Why was the age of Aries said to be a different enrgy and 'lesson' from Pisces? The influence of the CONSTELLATION!

Well at least you now know the difference between a sign and a constellation but what on Earth (geocentric concept) makes you believe that there was an 'influence' that comes from the constellations, rather than a cultural change in response to changes in a marker?. What evidence have you that the constellations of Gemini or Aries are active rather than passively receiving a mythological meaning that is equinoctial rather than stellar?

Is this not humanity trying to 'rationalise' that change. Priests and mythology devoted to the Bull give way (very slowly) to priests and mythology devoted to the ram. ?

ravenest said:
Perhaps you can help with this one Mindy? I posted before that the western zodiac did coincide with the constellations (roughly and gragraphicaly - ie. 0 deg. Aries cosmologically WAS the same point as 0 deg Aries astrologically) at a certain time, my point was that they used to coincide. I was told that my calculation was a few hundred years off so I was wrong ... my point WAS that they DID coincide at some time.

Now here is the issue, in my friend's American Ephemeris, pre 2000 (or maybe it was the 2000) issue, she showed me at the front, in directions for calculations, where it instructed one NOT to forget to add the figures for equinoctal precession. Now, of course, I cant find a copy of that old ephemeris anywhere.

Have you (or anyone else) ever seen this, or have these old ephemeris? This was essential to my original idea as I noticed this calculation was removed and then people started arguing with me that a sign never represented a constellation (even though they are named the same and in the same order).

Any decent software program allows precession to be built in. Indeed as you know the Vedic Astrologers use a zodiac based on a star in the constellation of Aries (but No they also use 12 equal signs so the star is important but not the constellation). Look for a Vedic ephemeris!

The transition between signs and constellations as a measuring background is messy. There was no international conference of Astrologers to debate and agree it. It happened approximate around 700 - 600 BC but as you know the evidence is sketchy. What is more there is no clear evidence that a zodiac of constellations was used for any length of time, if at all. Why do the signs have the same names as the constellations? Well some would argue that strictly speaking they don't as some constellations have slightly different names. However that is splitting hairs. The most likely answer is that the names were borrowed. Does this mean that the constellation possessed the 'influence' that is attributed to the sign. That's a possible theory but I've seen no evidence at all that supports it. Indeed reference to the 'influence' seems to be a product of signs rather than constellations. However the evidence is by no means complete and probably never will be.

ravenest said:
But many people use astrology for other purposes, eg. Bio-dynamic agriculture uses astrology, the seasons are of ultimate importance (agriculture) yet they use a sidereal system and postulate energy coming from and even beings residing in constellations, their system can be checked in your garden or by the taste and healthyness of the produce. Just because that idea might seem 'absurd' as Dave says, doesnt stop the food tasting great!

Fully agree about those uses. However, do the people you refer to not use signs rather than constellations. I remember you referring me to an article on this, in which it was quite clear that 30 degree equal segments were used, even though the author chose to call them constellations, they were in effect signs.

I also don't have problems with using lunar cycles rather than solar ones or as more important than solar ones. After all unitl the widespread use of sun sign astrology came about Astrologers knew that the Moon was the most important planet in a chart in terms of fortunate outcomes.

Foe those wanting to read more I'd recommend

Nichoas Campion - The Dawn of Astrology
Willis and Curry - Astrology Science and Culture

No doubt ravenest would also like to recommend some books and websites for an alternative view.

Now I've thrown a few challenges back there but the problem is the tantelising lack of evidence from so long ago. All we can do is build theories about what may have happened. An attempt to rationalise the past.

We also need to bear in mind that precession is not a step change it's a contiuous change, slowly to be sure but it is noticable over a long time. Hence the messiness of cultural changes. It's perhaps (and I stress 'perhaps') an phenomenon that led to myths of a fall, as the position of constellations in the sky changed. The introduction to Bernadette Brady's book on Fixed Stars is quite interesting from that point of view.

ravenest

Well, I have to say this is the best answer by far I have had yet. Thankyou.

Minderwiz said:
Not quite sure what 'No' refers to here.

Either am I :laugh:

a stupid typo I guess, I meant 'Yes' of course and edited my post accordingly.

Minderwiz said:
A 3D model has a cohesion that allows you to identify it, whatever the viewpoint. In reality looking at 'Orion' from a different point is the galaxy may show not the slightest realtionship betwen the constituent stars, they appear in quite different points of the sky. Oh science is geocentric by the way, at least to the extent that it is the product of the human species which inhabits Earth. Technicall the constellations are 'asterisms'.

What do you mean by technically? As refered to by scientists, astrophisicists? I looked the word up and it appeared with constellation as the same meaning. I thought an asterism was any collection of stars but a constellation was a grouping as observed from earth? Yes I DO understand the shape of Orion and any constellation will change accordingly to where one views it from.

Minderwiz said:
Well at least you now know the difference between a sign and a constellation

Now know? I knew that all along! I have even had trouble over the last 5 years explaining the difference to some astrologers? Oh gawd! has my communication been THAT bad?

Minderwiz said:
but what on Earth (geocentric concept) makes you believe that there was an 'influence' that comes from the constellations.
It is a fairly well accepted MODE (not fact or even reasonible thought - see it as a tool) in some magical systems and hermetic western occult schools, this is where Steiner giot it from. It survives in some of the Order of the Golden Dawn papers although I cannot point you to the orignating source.

Minderwiz said:

rather than a cultural change in response to changes in a marker?. What evidence have you that the constellations of Gemini or Aries are active rather than passively receiving a mythological meaning that is equinoctial rather than stellar?

Click to expand...

No evidence. I ASSUME that constellations passivly recieved a meaning and as time went on they were given their own life or Identity (heck that even happened with my car and the commune's tractor!) then it was assumed either perhaps by ignorance or for convenience that it was active and the powers resided in the things themselves. A LOT of magical / mythical stuff starts like this, but I see these things as tools that help make other unexplained things work for us.

Minderwiz said:

Is this not humanity trying to 'rationalise' that change. Priests and mythology devoted to the Bull give way (very slowly) to priests and mythology devoted to the ram. ?

Click to expand...

Well, we know that now I was refering and tying these ideas into this theory that is in some magical / occult traditions and in SOME astrology of the progression of great astrological ages due to the effect of the constellations

I should point out that the artistic and magical part of my brain that does things (that might even work on the physical plane) is different from my intellectual side. Mentally and scientifically I can say rubbish to the idea that there is a big star goat in the sky that beams his energy down to us (same as that internal cynic can say rubbish to Neptune infuencing the psyche) but it can be integrated into a useful system - I fully acknowledge some people wont like that, but I thought at least magicians occultists and SOME astrologers might understand that.

Minderwiz said:

Any decent software program allows precession to be built in. Indeed as you know the Vedic Astrologers use a zodiac based on a star in the constellation of Aries (but No they also use 12 equal signs so the star is important but not the constellation). Look for a Vedic ephemeris!

Click to expand...

The point was it was in a western tropical ephemeris and ... oh it doesnt matter!

Minderwiz said:

The transition between signs and constellations as a measuring background is messy. There was no international conference of Astrologers to debate and agree it. It happened approximate around 700 - 600 BC but as you know the evidence is sketchy. What is more there is no clear evidence that a zodiac of constellations was used for any length of time, if at all. Why do the signs have the same names as the constellations? Well some would argue that strictly speaking they don't as some constellations have slightly different names. However that is splitting hairs.

Click to expand...

Yes it is - one appears to be modernised by modern English and I'd expect intelligent people to be WAY beyond that type of silly hair splitting that makes in depth and difficult conversations not worth while.

Minderwiz said:

The most likely answer is that the names were borrowed. Does this mean that the constellation possessed the 'influence' that is attributed to the sign. That's a possible theory but I've seen no evidence at all that supports it. Indeed reference to the 'influence' seems to be a product of signs rather than constellations. However the evidence is by no means complete and probably never will be.

Click to expand...

Yes, hence the inability to PROOVE either point of view. But what I have been thinking is that there have developed two schools of throught. One internal and solar based and the other external and stella based. It is AS IF the one school knew that the stars and constellations marked a point on the ecliptic that had seasonal reference, that point marked the ecliptic (so many degrees from whatever arbitrary staring point) and that was the use of the stars, as markers, as is often pointed out here. The focus was distances from the eqinoxes and solstices . As the background 'moved' the distances from the equinoctal point had to remain the same so the zodiac started to 'move' against the background stars. The other school (magical and hermetic, like the G.D. saw the actuall constellations as significant and not just the markers as distances from the equinox or solstice. The occult (meaning occluded or 'hidden') viewpoint had to do with greater life issues, spirituality, initiation, like direction and purpose. The other viewpoint seems to relate more to seasons, agriculture and the casting of fortunes for the populace, not a map for an individual initiatory journey. I never claimed my ideas wwere in the mainstream, but I have encountered them in other places. I feel that its our western perspective that is slowly trying to take over and these ideas are now being lost or poo-pooed. It is the sky beings that LIVE IN the shapes in the sky, asterisms, constellations and dust clouds that give hope and help and example to man in his initiatory journey for people like the certain Aboriginal tribes of Australia, and here we have a living ancient system of star lore STILL HAPPENING older than any other record we know, even in writing. But it might be too alien and removed from the cultural roots and environment for some here.

Minderwiz said:

Fully agree about those uses. However, do the people you refer to not use signs rather than constellations. I remember you referring me to an article on this, in which it was quite clear that 30 degree equal segments were used, even though the author chose to call them constellations, they were in effect signs.

Click to expand...

Yeah but they postulate the existence of beings within these constellations. If one looks carefully at the material, their sky maps, astro charts and planting guides one can see that although their system IS devided into 12 equal segment unnatural zones, within this are diagrams of the actual constellations with the rlevent space either side of the CONSTELLATION BOUNDARY.There is research within the organisation to claify these boundaries of influence within a constellational area. This is done by, eg. a ceratin plant is recorded to commence flowering when a specific planet is in a specif sign [I said that on purpose as one can find it in their literature but they MEAN constellation and sign is a (confusing for some) convenience (I believe MOST dont know the diff anyway]. they watch the planet, track the sky and observe the plant. when changes are seen in the plant the planits position is noticed (in the actuall sky) as information builds up they hope to construct some more accurate boundaries and dates. I know it LOOKS like a sign but when examines the literature the theory is deffinatly constellational, even though they are bordered by equal segments. Its a work in progress, and that's what I like about it.

Minderwiz said:

Now I've thrown a few challenges back there but the problem is the tantelising lack of evidence from so long ago. All we can do is build theories about what may have happened. An attempt to rationalise the past.

Click to expand...

Not just that but an attempt to understand the past, it need not be rational, but it should be rational according to its OWN precepts (which may not be rational outside the box). That can also help us understand some inherited traditions, dispell some ghosts and graft new discovers onto ancient 'wisdom'.

Minderwiz said:

We also need to bear in mind that precession is not a step change it's a contiuous change, slowly to be sure but it is noticable over a long time. Hence the messiness of cultural changes. It's perhaps (and I stress 'perhaps') an phenomenon that led to myths of a fall, as the position of constellations in the sky changed. The introduction to Bernadette Brady's book on Fixed Stars is quite interesting from that point of view.

Click to expand...

ravenest

Well, I have to say this is the best answer by far I have had yet. Thankyou.

Minderwiz said:
Not quite sure what 'No' refers to here.

Either am I :laugh:

a stupid typo I guess, I meant 'Yes' of course and edited my post accordingly.

Minderwiz said:
A 3D model has a cohesion that allows you to identify it, whatever the viewpoint. In reality looking at 'Orion' from a different point is the galaxy may show not the slightest realtionship betwen the constituent stars, they appear in quite different points of the sky. Oh science is geocentric by the way, at least to the extent that it is the product of the human species which inhabits Earth. Technicall the constellations are 'asterisms'.

What do you mean by technically? As refered to by scientists, astrophisicists? I looked the word up and it appeared with constellation as the same meaning. I thought an asterism was any collection of stars but a constellation was a grouping as observed from earth? Yes I DO understand the shape of Orion and any constellation will change accordingly to where one views it from.

Minderwiz said:
Well at least you now know the difference between a sign and a constellation

Now know? I knew that all along! I have even had trouble over the last 5 years explaining the difference to some astrologers? Oh gawd! has my communication been THAT bad?

Minderwiz said:
but what on Earth (geocentric concept) makes you believe that there was an 'influence' that comes from the constellations.
It is a fairly well accepted MODE (not fact or even reasonible thought - see it as a tool) in some magical systems and hermetic western occult schools, this is where Steiner giot it from. It survives in some of the Order of the Golden Dawn papers although I cannot point you to the orignating source.

Minderwiz said:

rather than a cultural change in response to changes in a marker?. What evidence have you that the constellations of Gemini or Aries are active rather than passively receiving a mythological meaning that is equinoctial rather than stellar?

Click to expand...

No evidence. I ASSUME that constellations passivly recieved a meaning and as time went on they were given their own life or Identity (heck that even happened with my car and the commune's tractor!) then it was assumed either perhaps by ignorance or for convenience that it was active and the powers resided in the things themselves. A LOT of magical / mythical stuff starts like this, but I see these things as tools that help make other unexplained things work for us.

Minderwiz said:

Is this not humanity trying to 'rationalise' that change. Priests and mythology devoted to the Bull give way (very slowly) to priests and mythology devoted to the ram. ?

Click to expand...

Well, we know that now I was refering and tying these ideas into this theory that is in some magical / occult traditions and in SOME astrology of the progression of great astrological ages due to the effect of the constellations

I should point out that the artistic and magical part of my brain that does things (that might even work on the physical plane) is different from my intellectual side. Mentally and scientifically I can say rubbish to the idea that there is a big star goat in the sky that beams his energy down to us (same as that internal cynic can say rubbish to Neptune infuencing the psyche) but it can be integrated into a useful system - I fully acknowledge some people wont like that, but I thought at least magicians occultists and SOME astrologers might understand that.

Minderwiz said:

Any decent software program allows precession to be built in. Indeed as you know the Vedic Astrologers use a zodiac based on a star in the constellation of Aries (but No they also use 12 equal signs so the star is important but not the constellation). Look for a Vedic ephemeris!

Click to expand...

The point was it was in a western tropical ephemeris and ... oh it doesnt matter!

Minderwiz said:

The transition between signs and constellations as a measuring background is messy. There was no international conference of Astrologers to debate and agree it. It happened approximate around 700 - 600 BC but as you know the evidence is sketchy. What is more there is no clear evidence that a zodiac of constellations was used for any length of time, if at all. Why do the signs have the same names as the constellations? Well some would argue that strictly speaking they don't as some constellations have slightly different names. However that is splitting hairs.

Click to expand...

Yes it is - one appears to be modernised by modern English and I'd expect intelligent people to be WAY beyond that type of silly hair splitting that makes in depth and difficult conversations not worth while.

Minderwiz said:

The most likely answer is that the names were borrowed. Does this mean that the constellation possessed the 'influence' that is attributed to the sign. That's a possible theory but I've seen no evidence at all that supports it. Indeed reference to the 'influence' seems to be a product of signs rather than constellations. However the evidence is by no means complete and probably never will be.

Click to expand...

Yes, hence the inability to PROOVE either point of view. But what I have been thinking is that there have developed two schools of throught. One internal and solar based and the other external and stella based. It is AS IF the one school knew that the stars and constellations marked a point on the ecliptic that had seasonal reference, that point marked the ecliptic (so many degrees from whatever arbitrary staring point) and that was the use of the stars, as markers, as is often pointed out here. The focus was distances from the eqinoxes and solstices . As the background 'moved' the distances from the equinoctal point had to remain the same so the zodiac started to 'move' against the background stars. The other school (magical and hermetic, like the G.D. saw the actuall constellations as significant and not just the markers as distances from the equinox or solstice. The occult (meaning occluded or 'hidden') viewpoint had to do with greater life issues, spirituality, initiation, like direction and purpose. The other viewpoint seems to relate more to seasons, agriculture and the casting of fortunes for the populace, not a map for an individual initiatory journey. I never claimed my ideas wwere in the mainstream, but I have encountered them in other places. I feel that its our western perspective that is slowly trying to take over and these ideas are now being lost or poo-pooed. It is the sky beings that LIVE IN the shapes in the sky, asterisms, constellations and dust clouds that give hope and help and example to man in his initiatory journey for people like the certain Aboriginal tribes of Australia, and here we have a living ancient system of star lore STILL HAPPENING older than any other record we know, even in writing. But it might be too alien and removed from the cultural roots and environment for some here.

Minderwiz said:

Fully agree about those uses. However, do the people you refer to not use signs rather than constellations. I remember you referring me to an article on this, in which it was quite clear that 30 degree equal segments were used, even though the author chose to call them constellations, they were in effect signs.

Click to expand...

Yeah but they postulate the existence of beings within these constellations. If one looks carefully at the material, their sky maps, astro charts and planting guides one can see that although their system IS devided into 12 equal segment unnatural zones, within this are diagrams of the actual constellations with the rlevent space either side of the CONSTELLATION BOUNDARY.There is research within the organisation to claify these boundaries of influence within a constellational area. This is done by, eg. a ceratin plant is recorded to commence flowering when a specific planet is in a specif sign [I said that on purpose as one can find it in their literature but they MEAN constellation and sign is a (confusing for some) convenience (I believe MOST dont know the diff anyway]. they watch the planet, track the sky and observe the plant. when changes are seen in the plant the planits position is noticed (in the actuall sky) as information builds up they hope to construct some more accurate boundaries and dates. I know it LOOKS like a sign but when examines the literature the theory is deffinatly constellational, even though they are bordered by equal segments. Its a work in progress, and that's what I like about it.

Minderwiz said:

Now I've thrown a few challenges back there but the problem is the tantelising lack of evidence from so long ago. All we can do is build theories about what may have happened. An attempt to rationalise the past.

Click to expand...

Not just that but an attempt to understand the past, it need not be rational, but it should be rational according to its OWN precepts (which may not be rational outside the box). That can also help us understand some inherited traditions, dispell some ghosts and graft new discovers onto ancient 'wisdom'.

Minderwiz said:

We also need to bear in mind that precession is not a step change it's a contiuous change, slowly to be sure but it is noticable over a long time. Hence the messiness of cultural changes. It's perhaps (and I stress 'perhaps') an phenomenon that led to myths of a fall, as the position of constellations in the sky changed. The introduction to Bernadette Brady's book on Fixed Stars is quite interesting from that point of view.

Click to expand...

ravenest

extra wierd. When I submit reply I cant see my posts, blank screen (blue) where text should be .... but I think its there! I just cant see it, Can you.
Heeeelp!

Ed to add. But now I can see this one!!!

I hope you can Mindy (or save it) I put time and money into this at IT cafe for a long response to yours above ... basically, some great answers and thankyou, but I am not gonna sit here and pay to write for another hour and loose it all

QUACK!!!
Far too wierd for me ... I'm going home.
(If I were paranoid I'd think I was being censored :laugh:

Minderwiz

ravenest - Not sure what is wrong. However when I clicked on 'edit' on your post I did find your original post. When I clicked 'save' it simply went back to the blank screen.

Because of the time difference, I'll try to rescue it and copy and past the parts.

All being well it will be there when you return but may be in sections, as I have no idea what trips the black screen.

You sure you done nothing to anger the constellations

Minderwiz

Attempt at rescued post from ravenest - Part 1

Well, I have to say this is the best answer by far I have had yet. Thankyou.

Minderwiz said:
Not quite sure what 'No' refers to here.

Either am I :laugh:

a stupid typo I guess, I meant 'Yes' of course and edited my post accordingly.

Minderwiz said:
A 3D model has a cohesion that allows you to identify it, whatever the viewpoint. In reality looking at 'Orion' from a different point is the galaxy may show not the slightest realtionship betwen the constituent stars, they appear in quite different points of the sky. Oh science is geocentric by the way, at least to the extent that it is the product of the human species which inhabits Earth. Technicall the constellations are 'asterisms'.

What do you mean by technically? As refered to by scientists, astrophisicists? I looked the word up and it appeared with constellation as the same meaning. I thought an asterism was any collection of stars but a constellation was a grouping as observed from earth? Yes I DO understand the shape of Orion and any constellation will change accordingly to where one views it from.

Minderwiz said:
Well at least you now know the difference between a sign and a constellation

Now know? I knew that all along! I have even had trouble over the last 5 years explaining the difference to some astrologers? Oh gawd! has my communication been THAT bad?

Minderwiz said:
but what on Earth (geocentric concept) makes you believe that there was an 'influence' that comes from the constellations.
It is a fairly well accepted MODE (not fact or even reasonible thought - see it as a tool) in some magical systems and hermetic western occult schools, this is where Steiner giot it from. It survives in some of the Order of the Golden Dawn papers although I cannot point you to the orignating source.

Minderwiz said:

rather than a cultural change in response to changes in a marker?. What evidence have you that the constellations of Gemini or Aries are active rather than passively receiving a mythological meaning that is equinoctial rather than stellar?

Click to expand...

No evidence. I ASSUME that constellations passivly recieved a meaning and as time went on they were given their own life or Identity (heck that even happened with my car and the commune's tractor!) then it was assumed either perhaps by ignorance or for convenience that it was active and the powers resided in the things themselves. A LOT of magical / mythical stuff starts like this, but I see these things as tools that help make other unexplained things work for us.

Minderwiz said:

Is this not humanity trying to 'rationalise' that change. Priests and mythology devoted to the Bull give way (very slowly) to priests and mythology devoted to the ram. ?

Click to expand...

Well, we know that now I was refering and tying these ideas into this theory that is in some magical / occult traditions and in SOME astrology of the progression of great astrological ages due to the effect of the constellations

I should point out that the artistic and magical part of my brain that does things (that might even work on the physical plane) is different from my intellectual side. Mentally and scientifically I can say rubbish to the idea that there is a big star goat in the sky that beams his energy down to us (same as that internal cynic can say rubbish to Neptune infuencing the psyche) but it can be integrated into a useful system - I fully acknowledge some people wont like that, but I thought at least magicians occultists and SOME astrologers might understand that.

Minderwiz

Attempt at rescued post - Part 2

Minderwiz said:
Any decent software program allows precession to be built in. Indeed as you know the Vedic Astrologers use a zodiac based on a star in the constellation of Aries (but No they also use 12 equal signs so the star is important but not the constellation). Look for a Vedic ephemeris!

The point was it was in a western tropical ephemeris and ... oh it doesnt matter!

Minderwiz said:
The transition between signs and constellations as a measuring background is messy. There was no international conference of Astrologers to debate and agree it. It happened approximate around 700 - 600 BC but as you know the evidence is sketchy. What is more there is no clear evidence that a zodiac of constellations was used for any length of time, if at all. Why do the signs have the same names as the constellations? Well some would argue that strictly speaking they don't as some constellations have slightly different names. However that is splitting hairs.

Yes it is - one appears to be modernised by modern English and I'd expect intelligent people to be WAY beyond that type of silly hair splitting that makes in depth and difficult conversations not worth while.

Minderwiz said:
The most likely answer is that the names were borrowed. Does this mean that the constellation possessed the 'influence' that is attributed to the sign. That's a possible theory but I've seen no evidence at all that supports it. Indeed reference to the 'influence' seems to be a product of signs rather than constellations. However the evidence is by no means complete and probably never will be.

Yes, hence the inability to PROOVE either point of view. But what I have been thinking is that there have developed two schools of throught. One internal and solar based and the other external and stella based. It is AS IF the one school knew that the stars and constellations marked a point on the ecliptic that had seasonal reference, that point marked the ecliptic (so many degrees from whatever arbitrary staring point) and that was the use of the stars, as markers, as is often pointed out here. The focus was distances from the eqinoxes and solstices . As the background 'moved' the distances from the equinoctal point had to remain the same so the zodiac started to 'move' against the background stars. The other school (magical and hermetic, like the G.D. saw the actuall constellations as significant and not just the markers as distances from the equinox or solstice. The occult (meaning occluded or 'hidden') viewpoint had to do with greater life issues, spirituality, initiation, like direction and purpose. The other viewpoint seems to relate more to seasons, agriculture and the casting of fortunes for the populace, not a map for an individual initiatory journey. I never claimed my ideas wwere in the mainstream, but I have encountered them in other places. I feel that its our western perspective that is slowly trying to take over and these ideas are now being lost or poo-pooed. It is the sky beings that LIVE IN the shapes in the sky, asterisms, constellations and dust clouds that give hope and help and example to man in his initiatory journey for people like the certain Aboriginal tribes of Australia, and here we have a living ancient system of star lore STILL HAPPENING older than any other record we know, even in writing. But it might be too alien and removed from the cultural roots and environment for some here.