What do you do with the 13th sign in astrology?

kimtsan

Hello awesome astrologers! I have a burning question and was wondering if I could pick your brains. I mainly work with tarot and don't know much about astrology, and I was chatting with a friend who is studying into astrology and we started talking about the 13th sign, Ophiuchus. Do you consider this when you do astrological readings and does this affect the established system at all? Does anyone incorporate it into their readings?
 

Barleywine

No, the tropical zodiac used by most Western astrologers is no longer aligned with the namesake constellations anyway, and is more a symbolic convention than an expression of physical reality. The presence of Ophiuchus has been known for a long time but was only recently raised in popular consciousness - probably by the scientific "debunking" crowd who are always perversely looking to throw a "wrench in the works." Traditional astrologers never needed it, and I doubt that modern ones - who are more interested in psychological profiling than their forebears - do either. The main problem - like it was for Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and the asteroids - is "Who comes up with the meanings and how are they validated?" It doesn't seem to add anything to the astrological lexicon at this point in time, so I disregard it.
 

decan

I agree with Barleywine; traditional astrology doesn't really care about astronomical reality, it is much more a symbolic cosmic view.
Modern astrology cares more (I think) about astronomical reality, that can be seen as an approach more materialistic (of course it depends on the point of view :) ). Very often modern and traditional denigrate each other (the main reason why I left astrology forums), well...
Concerning the traditional approach, for example, Venus is seen as cold and moist, whatever Venus really is from an astronomical point of view.
With regard to the 12 Signs of the Zodiac, to add a 13th sign would be a heresy! :D
Actually we need to consider that astrology is a perfect system in itself, with nothing to add or to remove. Concerning asteroids, personally I don't consider them at all.
 

Minderwiz

... traditional astrology doesn't really care about astronomical reality, it is much more a symbolic cosmic view.
Modern astrology cares more (I think) about astronomical reality, that can be seen as an approach more materialistic (of course it depends on the point of view :) ). Very often modern and traditional denigrate each other (the main reason why I left astrology forums), well...
Concerning the traditional approach, for example, Venus is seen as cold and moist, whatever Venus really is from an astronomical point of view.
With regard to the 12 Signs of the Zodiac, to add a 13th sign would be a heresy! :D
Actually we need to consider that astrology is a perfect system in itself, with nothing to add or to remove. Concerning asteroids, personally I don't consider them at all.

Well considering that it was the Traditional Astrologers that first categorised and established the constellations and what we now call Astronomy, I think it's rather a mistake to say that they didn't care about astronomical 'reality' they actually established it in the first place.

However, more importantly, why do you consider Ophiuchus (or for that matter, any constellation) to be 'real'? I'm assuming here that as you mention asteroids and the outer planets, you think Ophiuchus has the same property of reality as they do, that it it has objective existence and can be measured. Modern Astronomy would certainly not see Ophiuchus or the constellations as real entities (as opposed to the stars that comprise them). They are at the most, convenient (and arbitrary) boundaries for identifying regions of space. They also are a Western concept.

Ophiuchus is mentioned by Manilius in his first century AD poem, Astronomica and was clearly known and categorised before that. But unlike many modern Astrologer, Manilius knew the difference between a sign and a constellation and clearly says so. Ophiuchus is a constellation. Since the International Astronomical Union of 1922 Astronomers have treated it as being a separate constellation (not sign) which intersects with the ecliptic. The IAU decision is one of categorisation, not in some way, altering our perception of reality.

Signs always were different from constellations. They used to be seen (and still are in Astrology) as the backdrop against which the constellations are seen. They too, are arbitrary divisions, beginning in modern Western Astrology, with the March equinox and proceeding in thirty degree segments through the 360 degrees of the circle. The took their names from the principle constellations that fell within them, and still do in Vedic Astrology.

The precession of the equinoxes has altered the alignments of constellations and signs in Western Astrology. The advantage of the Western model is that it keeps signs in keeping with seasons. The disadvantage is that it shifts the alignment of signs with the constellations that gave them their names.

If you read the texts on Astrology between Manilius and the late Medieval Period, you will find an awful lot of what we would now call Astronomy. Look at a modern text and you will find virtually zero Astronomy apart from a definition of the Zodiac, and an explanation of Ascendant and Midheaven (if you are lucky). The constellations are now virtually ignored, probably because few are aware of their difference from signs, as evidenced by talk of a thirteenth sign.

Now we can't prevent Astrologers acting out of ignorance of Astronomy or their own history. It's happened before and no doubt it will happen again. Much of political and social change (either for good or bad) has followed decisions taken in ignorance. The best we can do is ask that such actions are preferably based on some form of rational consideration and that that is transferred into a rationale which provides a theoretical base for the change in approach and indicates why we should expect better readings if the change is implemented. Such a rationale should also explain why we should use a sign based approach to this issue rather than the more traditional star based approach. Remember, that Traditional Astrology referenced the fixed stars as well as the 'wandering stars'.
 

decan

Hello Minderwiz,

Yes, astronomers was as well astrologers in ancient times and naturally they observed the sky with the means of their generations. At present, astronomers are no longer concerned with astrology and the means at their disposal aren't the same either.
Nevertheless, currently astronomers don't look at the universe with the same phisolophical (or religious) backdrop.
In the old days Earth was considered to be at the center of the universe with around it (a bit like a Russian doll) several Spheres until the Primium Mobile. Well, I don't know if it would be relevant to detail all these things in this thread, moreover this would be beyond my skill (and I am not an astronomer as well of course :) ). Anyway the reference framework (and world view) isn't the same, and similarly with regard to how modern people consider their own place in the universe.
Concerning astrology, it is different, with regard to modern astrology as well, but there are so many different approaches and practices which overlap each other in astrology!!

Concerning our topic, the choices made in ancient times was naturally made because of their astronomical obvervations but as well because of a particular philosophical framework.
The reason I said shortly in my last post that to consider a 13th sign with regard to traditional astrology would be a heresy! :D

I am not sure we refer to the same things, but anyway it is okay with me to have a nuanced approach and I am as well quite progressive!! :)
 

Minderwiz

My point is that constellations and signs are totally different things. Signs don't exist in modern Astronomy. If Astronomers refer to regions of space they either use a modern degree based notation based on celestial coordinates or refer to the constellations, of which Ophiuchus is one. It's nothing to do with religious or philosophical views, we are talking about different systems of defining regions of space.

The key difference between Astronomy and Astrology in defining regions of space is that Astronomers use both celestial latitude and longitude, whereas Astrology concentrates only on the ecliptic circle with just a narrow band north or south of it, corresponding to the two tropics. But the essentials of the modern system are those established 2,000 years ago. Both Astrology and Astronomy use degree based systems but Astronomy doesn't give names to segments or assert that there's a qualitative difference between segments.

A sign is not a constellation and a constellation is not a sign. They never were the same thing either in the ancient world or the modern world. Claiming a thirteenth sign is like claiming you've found the 365th degree of a circle; or that as 'C' exists as a number in Hex then the decimal system has to be corrected to allow for new numbers.

It's not heresy to claim a thirteenth sign, it's just plain wrong; both in Traditional and Modern Astrology.

I have nothing against people who choose to use constellations in Astrology. Fixed stars always were a vital part of it, all that I'm asking is that you don't confuse signs and constellations and draw erroneous conclusions.

By all means use Ophiuchus or rather the stars in it, but don't confuse that with a thirteenth sign.
 

decan

Well, I don't use constellations in astrology and I don't confuse signs and constellations. Anyway I use the tropical zodiac.
A sign is not a constellation and a constellation is not a sign.
Yes, we can't say they were the same thing, but I am not sure we can certify that signs don't come from constellations (originally):
In "The Beginning of Wisdom" by Ibn-Ezra (Arhat publication)/ Preface, Robert Hand says:
"Chapter Two is an unusually throrough introduction to the various attributes of the signs of the zodiac. Particularly interesting, however, are the images associated with the decanates, or faces as they are known. It is very clear in Ibn Ezra's account that the ultimate origin of many of the images is the imagery associated with the constellations. (...)"

In my opinion, we can't really put aside the philosophical aspect, and beliefs with regard to astrology in the ancient world. At present yes of course, it is the scientific approach, but in ancient times I doubt that such a separation between beliefs and science existed. Of course I could be wrong!!
 

Minderwiz

The decans were originally of Egyptian origin and probably predated the adoption of the twelve sign zodiac but were eventually incorporated into the signs by the inventors of Horoscopic Astrology, whose main base was probably around Alexandria (a Greek speaking city). See Ben Dykes http://www.bendykes.com/articles/decans.php

The signs are a systematised way of dividing up space, either containing constellations or simply voids. Whilst they share their names with constellations on the zodiacal circle, there are by definition twelve of them. There are more than twelve constellations that impinge into the zodiac belt but the twelve signs were designed to give 30 degree segments and thus cover the entire circle, whether there were constellations there or not, or whether there were parts of two or more constellations. You can have more than twelve constellations, you can't have more than twelve signs.

Decans are interesting, as are Duodecatemoria (now taken as twelfth parts of a sign). But remember Horoscopic Astrology is a construct. It's a defined system for looking at the planets, stars and other phenomena from a predetermined place on Earth. Yes, it's inventors had philosophical backgrounds (mainly Stoic, but with Aristotelians and some Neoplatonists) but then so do modern scientists and modern Astrologers and it was A. N Whitehead who said that all philosophy is merely a footnote to Plato and Aristotle.
 

kimtsan

Hey guys! Since I don't really know anything about astrology, I don't really have much to add haha. But it's super interesting following this conversation and reading your responses. I am trying hard to keep up. :) I am doing some casual research as well and found out that there is also a 14th sign!? (Cetus) introduced by Stephen Schmidt in 1970. What do you guys think of modern astrologists trying to reinvent or "revamp" the astrological system that already exist?

Also, at the same time, having my mind blown + completely fascinated by astrology as a field of study. :D
 

Minderwiz

Hey guys! Since I don't really know anything about astrology, I don't really have much to add haha. But it's super interesting following this conversation and reading your responses. I am trying hard to keep up. :) I am doing some casual research as well and found out that there is also a 14th sign!? (Cetus) introduced by Stephen Schmidt in 1970. What do you guys think of modern astrologists trying to reinvent or "revamp" the astrological system that already exist?

Also, at the same time, having my mind blown + completely fascinated by astrology as a field of study. :D

Hi kimtsan,

It's the same issue as for Ophiuchus. Cetus now referred to as the whale though it is called after a sea monster, is a constellation, not a sign and again has been named in ancient times and it's mentioned by Manilius around ,60 AD. Ptolemy listed 48 constellations, modern Astronomy lists 88. Ptolemy didn't have access to all of the southern hemisphere, though Hellenistic and Phoenician traders dis provide much information.

Again we have modern Astrologers or Astronomers who either don't understand their own subjects or who are deliberately economical with the truth. Indeed many Astronomers use this argument for additional signs as a means of rubbishing Astrology.