Minderwiz
ravenest said:The Astro calendar deffinatly uses constellations, and has great revelance for the many, many Bio-dynamic agriculturalists that use it. This type of astrological based system (using a sidearal system of "12 Constellations" {Ibid. p.14} ), of agriculture is prooving to be successful word-wide, producing healthy, crops, with high life-vorce vitality and no chemical fertilisers, pesticide,etc. It is not just a theoretical system but a living, dynamic working system in use today.
I dont understand why some people are trying to say that these types of astrology are not there or not revelant.
Well the calendar can't use the physical constellations because we both agree that more than 12 lie on the ecliptic - it uses a sidereal zodiac of 12 equal signs.
Indeed Brian Keats, author of the calendar says
'At this stage it is important to clarify the use of two words. When the word ‘sign’ is used in this article it refers to the Tropical Zodiac and ‘constellation’ refers to the Sidereal Zodiac. Both zodiacs are divided into twelve and they both use the same names, which understandably causes enormous confusion.'
So Keats is using the word 'constellation to avoid confusion (though clearly he is unsuccessful'.
He acknowledges that the Sun appears to move through 12 or 13 (physical) constellations (whic we both agree)
He further says:
'Different cultures and systems have positioned them differently i.e. there is no universal consensus to the boundaries or even to the size of the constellations. Generally speaking the sidereal zodiac is that belt of stars 7 degrees either side of the sun’s path (ecliptic) through the sky that is divided into 12 equal sized (30 degree) constellations. '
Baring in mind his definition of 'constellations' it is clear that he is using the same sidereal zodiac of 12 equal signs that both Dave and I have referred to. He is not using the physical constellations that you appear to believe he is.
Now he, like me, clearly accepts that someone might wish to use the physical constellations but that is not the same as claiming that he is actually doing it.
Your quote does not support your case - indeed it supports my case.
Also has it occured to you that the reason for the constellations baring the same names in the same order as that used by Astrologers is that Astrologers made it so? Who do you think named the constellations and (finally) settled on their order? You seem to believe that someone who was not an Astrologer settled the names and order totally independent of and prior to Astrology.
Primitive Astrologers decided the names and when they realised that the physical zodiac was too primitive for sophisticated work they developed the 360 degree circle and 'joined up' the constellatios as signs.
Yes, three thousand years ago or so, primitive Astrology did make predictions using the stars as a back drop - or rather those stars that marked the equinoxes and solstices. Astrology never used the constellations for any orther purpose than predicting changes in seasons - and rconsequen events such as the flooding of the Nile Fom about two thousand five hundred years ago Astrologers developed the 12 equal sign zodiac that we use today (either in its tropical form or its sidereal form.
That's the basis of Western (and Vedic) Astrology. Now feel free to use a different base but realise that you will have to develop a whole new system if you want to do more than predict regular seasonal change.
Edited to add:
In all the argument about the nature of the Astrological zodiac we are concentrating on a solar based approach to Astrology. Don't forget that for much of its history lunar cycles have been as much or more important. They are also important for many religions. To accurately use lunar cycles we need tables just as much as for solar based astrology. It's mathematics rather than physical observation which dominates, which you'd realise if you tried to look for the first signs of the New Moon in Northern England.