Opheicus

Ophiuchus

This might not be astrology, it might not be astronomy, but they used to be both. Anyway we have been working for some time on an updated, scientific astrological, sidereal southern hemisphere 'astrology'.

I've argued with Tropical Astrologers (they were silly!) Ive been dissed on the internet ("Not this again! Every so often some idiot looks at a star map and goes Wow- there are 13 constellations not 12. Its plainly obvious that the system started in ancient egypt and they devided the ecliptic into 12 houses that extended to both poles and blah blah blah") - they were silly!

The Ancient Egyptians knew about the south pole now? Even the Dendra Zodiac shows seperate constellations around the north pole, very distinct from the ecliptic?

Whadda you reckon?

Old stories keep coming around.

Over 30 years ago I remember seeing a "sensationalizing" book about astrology being all wrong because there was 13 constellations, not 12. First of all, the author was talking about constellations -- not signs. Tropical astrologers use "signs" which are divisions of 30 degrees each, the first sign being marked by the spring equinox point.

Then, someone comes along and says but signs and constellations were the same at one time and the Egyptians (or sometimes someone else is cited) used them in this way. Wrong! The last time the commonly used signs were coincidental in location with the commonly used constellations or star patterns that more-or-less represented the signs was back around 213 AD. Of course, when you talk about signs and constellations together you have to realize that some constellations stretch further along the zodiac than others, and that some constellations are further displaced from the zodiac path than others.

So, did the ancient Egyptians practice astrology? Perhaps, but not like that which we practice today. They were very good astronomers and constructed both temples and pyramid/observatory structures to help them define the heavens. They measured helical risings and set their cultural and agricultural calendars with great precision. There is even evidence to suggest the knew and could measure the circumfrence of the Earth and understood latitude calculations and other information.

I can understand that you don't respect the Tropical Astrologers because they often mis-speak and lack understanding of the basics. I subscribe to the practices and methodology of Sidereal Astrologers (as developed and defined by Fagan and Bradly and others) although I'm flexible enough to use what works from both sides of the fence. It doesn't bother me if you or someone else is trying to construct a "southern" zodiac -- a rose is a rose by any name, etc. There are horoscopes and astrological information that does go back many eons, so I think we can survive another change among many changes that have emerged over that long period of time. Dave

They sure do

Old stories will keep coming around when satisfactory answers are not given.

dadsnook2000 said:

Over 30 years ago I remember seeing a "sensationalizing" book about astrology being all wrong because there was 13 constellations, not 12. First of all, the author was talking about constellations -- not signs. Tropical astrologers use "signs" which are divisions of 30 degrees each, the first sign being marked by the spring equinox point. Dave

Click to expand...

You dont need a "sensational book" to work that out, look at an astronomical map!

dadsnook2000 said:

Then, someone comes along and says but signs and constellations were the same at one time and the Egyptians (or sometimes someone else is cited) used them in this way. Wrong!
Dave

Click to expand...

So signs are not constellations? They just have the same names, appear in the same order.....

dadsnook2000 The last time the commonly used signs were coincidental in location with the commonly used constellations or star patterns that more-or-less represented the signs was back around 213 AD. Dave[/QUOTE said:

and coincided with each other in 213 ad (bit of a coincidence ?).

dadsnook2000 Of course said:

If astrology is the 'science' of observing and collating the influence of stars and celestial bodies on the earth and its peoples, how can one ignore constellations?

Dave

Click to expand...

So, did the ancient Egyptians practice astrology? Perhaps, but not like that which we practice today. They were very good astronomers and constructed both temples and pyramid/observatory structures to help them define the heavens. They measured helical risings and set their cultural and agricultural calendars with great precision. There is even evidence to suggest the knew and could measure the circumfrence of the Earth and understood latitude calculations and other information. Dave

Click to expand...

Egyptians definatly used constellations (but not as we know them). They did devide the heavens up equally, which possibly had some specific function to do with time keeping at night (Egyptian celestial astrology and the 'Hour priests' ?)

Dave[/QUOTE]
I can understand that you don't respect the Tropical Astrologers because they often mis-speak and lack understanding of the basics. I subscribe to the practices and methodology of Sidereal Astrologers (as developed and defined by Fagan and Bradly and others) although I'm flexible enough to use what works from both sides of the fence. It doesn't bother me if you or someone else is trying to construct a "southern" zodiac -- a rose is a rose by any name, etc. There are horoscopes and astrological information that does go back many eons, so I think we can survive another change among many changes that have emerged over that long period of time. Dave[/QUOTE]


My basic problem seems to be that many tropical astrologers will not, or canot reason about their ideas. I am interested in finding out what tropical astrology is NOT defining (even though some say it is) as then I might get to some understanding of the value of the system, which so far appears to me to monitor and predict seasonal and natural cycles on earth. But if astrology is the "science of the stars" then western tropical astrology does not fulfil the deffinition?

Well, who is saying that . . .

Well, who is saying that Astrology is the science of the stars? Do they speak for all astrologers? I think not. I'm a very good astrologer, I don't use the stars in any direct or interpretive manner -- never have.

ravenest, you seemed surprised about signs not being constellations?! Have you been into serious astrology for long? Perhaps this is where our dialog is missing a connection -- perhaps this is why I say that who cares about the 12 or the 13 or even the 14 constellations along the ecliptic band -- you are talking star patterns and I'm talking about perfect 30 degrees of space as a measuring tool! I couldn't care less about constellations -- or the now unrelated signs that astrologers use. Many Sidereal Astrologers use signs; they argue with the Tropicalists about where Leo is and why some of Virgo is actually Leo and why doesn't the other type of astrology adjust its sign meanings. They both want to be right. I feel that both of them, and yourself, are all out of whack.

This isn't really worth discussing, for me, anyways. Good luck in your studies. And I sincerely hope you find your answers but it doesn't seem that I should speak for others who believe and practice differently from myself. Dave

I probably saw the same book a long time ago. All I know is that the current system of astrology as I practice it works. When Pluto, Neptune and Uranus were discovered, they were inserted into astrology and worked. For whatever reason, no one has inserted new signs into astrology and made it work. At least that I know of. If someone else wants to go to the trouble, more power to them. Astrology is already so complicated with many theories. I've looked at a lot of them and besides composites and harmonics charts, nothing else I've seen theorized on works quite as well as the good old fashioned way we've been doing it for years.

Just a question...are the signs/houses based on the myths behind them or on the constellations? Because then they signs could e caled anything, right, if they are not based in the pattern of starts that make the 'shape' of the constallation? This shape gave them the name they have.
I'm just curious because in many books of astrology i've seen Sagittarius people being decribed as 'the centaurs' and many comparations between the 'personality' of the sign and the 'mythic' creature represented by the constellation, that is half a horse, half a man. That's just and example.

For me it sounds all connected....or was it all connected once upon a time, and now isn't anymore? Why?

~Yuko

Signs are not houses . . .

Signs are not houses ... Signs are not constellations ... Houses are not constellations. FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES TREAT ALL THREE OF THESE AS BEING TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!

Constellations are commonly described and defined PATTERNS OF STARS which different people use to help identify individual stars in the sky -- of which there are a variety of brightness categories. The brightest individual stars are often used to form the framework of a group of stars that people use relative to creating a "picture" in the sky. Because of the variablity of the constellations (or groups of star patterns) in terms of their number of stars (typically from 5 to 15 stars) and space occupied in the heavens, each constellation may cover only a small portion of the sky (from 8 degrees of distance along the zodiac belt to some 45 degrees along the zodiac belt). Because we see approximately half of the sky dome from any one place on earth, we see stars spread over the entire sky area above us. Some of the star patterns we see are overhead, some are often seen at mid-sky levels, while others appear to be along the milky way or ecliptic. Not all of them straddle the ecliptic in whole or in part, most are elsewhere in the sky.

Signs are mathematical divisions of space as measured along the zodiac belt or ecliptic. They are all equal in length, 30 degrees precisely, and there are twelve of them -- 12 mutliplied by 30 equals 360 degrees. Signs have names which are also used for some constellations. That is their only similarity !!! Each person's horoscope chart has these 12 signs in it. The signs are shared by everyone in their charts and symbolically provide us with a collective common basis for measurement and meaning.

Houses are mathematical divisions of space derived and based upon a specific time and specific place. As such they are highly individual. The house system is a mathematical construct that uses the MC (overhead longitudinal line along a great circle that bisects the geographical north pole and the earthly location we are born at) and the Ascendant (eastward projection of the local horizon where it bisects the ecliptic plane). Using these factors, the various groups of house systems divide the quadrants of space defined by the MC and ASC axis points in various ways -- some divide a quadrant in terms of the time it takes to rotate up from the Ascendant to the MC, others trisect the quadrant and project it along the local horizon to where it interesects the ecliptic, others divide the quadrant along the MC's great circle and project it out to the ecliptic in a complex process. Other systems of house division also exist and are used. There are even house systems with a different number of houses -- eight-house systems were popular in biblical times (suggesting that there is no correlation between signs and houses).

Relative to houses, most astrologers have no understanding whatsoever as to which type of house-division system should be used for various types of charts. I'll go further to say that most astrology students don't even know of the many types of charts that can be used and when they could be used.

So, I hope for the final time, everyone understands that Houses are not Signs, Signs are not Constellations, and Constellations are not Houses, and one cannot correlate the meanings of Houses to those of Signs, and that Constellations are no longer a working part of Astrology and haven't been for very many centuries.

If anyone wants to undo many centuries of development or to create a whole new way of working with the stars then please have the courtesy to
A) call it something different,
B) be very precise and knowledgable when trying to link it to any form of current/past Astrology,
C) try not to confuse early-studies students of other conventional systems, D) develop your definitions and theories and concepts carefully, thoughtfully and rigorously over a period of time so that others can closely evaluate them, and
E) take the time to fully understand the other person's system, terms, practices, mathematics, history and track record before comparing their system to another. Dave.

dadsnook2000 said:

Well, who is saying that Astrology is the science of the stars? Do they speak for all astrologers? I think not. I'm a very good astrologer, I don't use the stars in any direct or interpretive manner -- never have.

Click to expand...

Well I am glad you cleared that up! I wonder how many other forms of astrology (throughout time and in different places; Vedic, Tibeten, Aboriginal Australian, etc.) would make the same statement? I always thought the original essence of Astrology had to do with the stars?

dadsnook2000 said:

ravenest, you seemed surprised about signs not being constellations?! Have you been into serious astrology for long? Perhaps this is where our dialog is missing a connection -- perhaps this is why I say that who cares about the 12 or the 13 or even the 14 constellations along the ecliptic band -- you are talking star patterns and I'm talking about perfect 30 degrees of space as a measuring tool! I couldn't care less about constellations -- or the now unrelated signs that astrologers use. Many Sidereal Astrologers use signs; they argue with the Tropicalists about where Leo is and why some of Virgo is actually Leo and why doesn't the other type of astrology adjust its sign meanings. They both want to be right. I feel that both of them, and yourself, are all out of whack.

Click to expand...

Not really, recently surprised, more long - term amazed; that astrologers calmly accept the fact that that equalling out of constellations into 30 degree 'signs' has no basis in stella reality, that they are not studying the heavens only charts, that the 12 sign system just happens to use the same names and order sas the constellations. Are you not a Sidereal astrologer? isnt sidereal astrology an attempt to move the signs into a closer alignment with the stars constellations they represent? Am I the one out of wack? Cant reasonible, logical and sensible answers be given to students, beginers or scientists?

dadsnook2000 said:

This isn't really worth discussing, for me, anyways. Good luck in your studies. And I sincerely hope you find your answers but it doesn't seem that I should speak for others who believe and practice differently from myself. Dave

Click to expand...

Well, you put a lot into something that doesn't seem worth discussing. My aim is to discuss and to get to the heart of the jewel that we all posess.

If there are any astrologers, new or ancient, young or cynical, astronomers, etc who would like to openly pool resources, perhaps we can all learn a little more and broaden our horizons.

a little confused

yes, I do understand the sign, constellation, house difference, my point is that a sign is a construct to explain a moved 30 degree area (against a background constellation) in reference to the movement of the equinoctal point. I may still be under the illusion that sidereal, fagan-allen, etc, is an attempt to align signs with their constellations?
You made a point that astrological signs are not constellations, yet got into a rave about the positioning of Ophiucus off the ecliptic so thats why it isnt included as a sign ??? As proof that they are not the same thing, you say they dont match up and only did in 223 (approx Ephemeris gives 221) AD. Um, isn't that because that was the era they were calculated for, so of course they lined up then and the 72 (71 1/2) year / 1 degree precession has continually moved that chart to be so out of wack that people have had to invent the concept that signs no longer have any thing whatsoever to do with the stars and constellations?

As for Ophiucus not being included in the band of the ecliptic as the main part of its constellation lies 45 d. nth. of Ecliptic, a quick glance at any astrolonomical map shows that the stars of lower scorpius (near Corona Aus.)
lie well below the ecliptic while the western part of the const. is in the ecliptic and mirror the same effect as Oph. ie. some in and some out of the ecliptic.

But then again perhaps I am all wrong about all of this. My seekings have been not just through one system or in one time. Perhaps I have made a grave mistake in considering that Astronomy is (or was) the science of the stars. Apparently it does not have much to do with the stars at all, nor with science (excluding the science of the 3rd millenia).

Surely the survival of the wisdom / sacred sciences is tied up with the application of new scientific, discoveries and understandings?

sez who?

dadsnook2000 said:

Well, who is saying that Astrology is the science of the stars? Do they speak for all astrologers? I think not. I'm a very good astrologer, I don't use the stars in any direct or interpretive manner -- never have.

I feel that both of them, and yourself, are all out of whack.

Dave

Click to expand...

Deborah Houlding (www.skyscript.co.uk/temples/2.html) ‘Historical Overview’ p.2.
“We know that the eastern horizon had been marked out by a particular STAR or CONSTELLATION long before the use of zodiacal degrees … the FUNDAMENTAL RELIANCE upon the rising and setting of STARS over the horizon leaves us with no doubt that the cardinal points have always been the pivotal supports for astrological interpretation.” (my emphasis)

Australian Aboriginal astrology is star based and throws up some extremely interesting concepts (see my post, ‘More Than Interesting’)

There are various types of Esoteric Astrology that use stars and constellations. One example of this is the Golden Dawn system which uses a stella and constellation astrology commencing with the star Regulus in Leo.

Some western astrologers use constellations and have various ways of calculating the area of the ecliptic they govern. One method is to look at the stars that make up the actual constellation and take the stars that are furthest ‘east’ and ‘west’ and then draw a ‘vertical’ (longitudinal) line to the ecliptic to define that constellations area of influence. Other astrologers don’t like this method as areas overlap or fall short – leaving blank unattributed space on the ecliptic. Others adjust this by averaging out (pos. or neg.) the boundary.

Some Bio-dynamic gardeners use an interesting system where they are more accurately mapping the constellation boundaries by collecting nature based observational material (see Brian Keats, Antipodean Calender). This is a very interesting field as it allows you to grow plants under certain conditions (eg time of germination corresponding to a moon phase and position) using a tropical and sidereal system and observe the differences. (Bio-dynamic farming uses sidereal astrology). Not only do they use constellations, they talk about spiritual beings that reside in the constellations, communicating and receiving energy to / from Earth. [Bio-dynamic farming shows very good healthy results]

And, of course, I use the constellations myself.

So, I have tried to show one example from each field of reference, ie:
An ancient historical; an ancient living tradition; an esoteric or magical tradition; an experimental trend; a developing, modern, nature – based, observational research; (which demonstrates success) and personal experience.

I hope this addresses anyone’s concerns that astrology doesn’t use the stars.

Of course, one can make a fuss and insist that these things do not fulfil the definition of astrology (or your particular definition of astrology) but that particular tack, I think, would expose some other ‘dynamic’ at work.

Also lets forget our old handy reference; the dictionary.
Websters; Etymology - Greek / astro = star. "Divination by the stars."
Wordnet (Princeton University) ; (syn) Star divination.
Merrian-Webster online; The divination of the supposed in fluence of the stars and planets on human affairs.
Encylopeadia Britannica; type of divination that involves the forecasting of earthly and human events through the observation and interpretation of the fixed stars, Sun, Moon and the planets...

(And I am all out of wack?)