This is weird... about sun signs

Minderwiz

You may actually be both a tropical Scorpio and a sidereal Scorpio as the two zodiacs still over lap. If you were born in the last six days of a tropical sign then you are in that sign from a sidereal view as well.

However statistically only a small proportion (about 20%) of tropical scorpios will be sidereal scorpios.

The ingress into Scorpio occurs at slightly different times each year, so if you go by the dates printed in newspapers you might actually think you are a tropical Scorpio when in fact you are a tropical Libra.

My birthday is October 24th which according to published dates is a day into Scorpio but when I cast my chart for the first time I fould that I was actually born in the last degee of Libra.

Sometimes you might not be who you think you are :)
 

Lillie

Minderwiz said:
Lillie,

Yes the planets are indeed the planets that you see in the sky, all that differs is the system for plotting their position. The tropical zodiac plots them relative to the equinoxes and the sidereal system plots them with reference to a point in physical space. Astronomers have yet another system for plotting planet positions as they no longer use the physical constellations.

In Astrology it is the planets that are the main influences on our lives, no matter what reference system is used.

Hmmmm

Well, that's just confusing, isn't it?

If the moon is the moon then one would naturally suppose gemini to be gemini...

Maybe astrologers should change the name.
Call it sector 3, or Albert, or something other then the name of the constellation that it isn't.

The moon is in sector 3, in opposition to uranus in sector 9.
That sounds ok.
 

ravenest

Minderwiz said:
Ravenest,

the only issue I have is that you seem to think I'm having a go at you when I'm not.
Okay, sorry. Its just that sometimes I think "Am I that unclear" The treads of argument often dont seem to be logically sequential and ... bah! Okay. I'll wipe the slate and start fresh with you.

Did you check the site I reccommended, that is one way of doing it.
Minderwiz said:
I quite accept that you used the word 'Astronomy' to avoid issues that we have discussed before, it seems fully reasonable statement to me and I certainly don't challenge it. I also did not believe that you meant the star had to be exactly behind the Sun. However that led to my question about the fairly large expanses of the ecliptic where no star is close to the Sun. You reiterated your point about the star being close and I asked you how close?
As close as you want. The nearest on a map or via telescope, or not even the nearest, perhaps one you feel drwan to or have an affinity with. It might not even be near the sun, your affinity might be stronger (like a ruling planet of a sign on the ascendant can be 'overruled' by an actual planet on the ascendent -FOR SOME)
Minderwiz said:
Which seems a reasonable question. In a 2D zodiacal circle do you mean within a degree, five degrees, 10 degrees? I'm genuinely interested.

As above.
Minderwiz said:
In the same post you stated '

WE could further postulate that when the Sun is in front of a certain star/s that energy is chanelled to earth like the Sun is acting as a lense,'

I was intrigued about the nature of the energy - how you would interpret it and pointed out that Astrologers have a rather limited set of stars in regular use that have been typecast as providing a type of energy. This is not to imply that other stars don't do that.

Given the myriad of stars are we talking about providing standard interpretations or do you mean a sort of 'adopt a star' process where the person assigns a meaning to the star that he or she finds appropriate for them? I don't see anything wrong with such a process but I want to understand clearly what you mean.
Which ever way suits you. You might use a mythologucal perspective, you might have your own, you might adopt the indigenous understanding of your area, the point is as you go along you buid up info and understanding and one should be flexible enough to change as one learns more about the system or your adaptaion of the system
Minderwiz said:
I fully accept that you are not dealing with conventional Astrology in this post but you do seem to imply that there is a relationship of some sort.
Certainly there is ... I think Lilli frog knows what I mean. The signs and constellations have the same names, ALL the constellations are linked in a stroty and interreact witheach other. see orion the hunter and his dog Sirius, now see Hydra the 'water monster" nearby. nest to her is Crater the cup and Corvus (the raven or corvids, crows etc, there is all a story with a lesson and an energy and a psycological/philosophical. magical priocsess and now the Librarian is hovering over me tapping her heel waitng to go home ... sorry
Minderwiz said:
I liked your reference to the morning star people (though here we are dealing with the planet Venus as you pointed out). There is certainly evidence that past civilisations saw links between them and constellations (though not necessarily an Astrological one) through myths.

You mighr like to read the introduction to Bernadette Brady's book on fixed stars. It provides quite an interesting explanation of the links between mythology and the precession of the equinoxes and one that I think would appeal to your 'magical' take on the world.

Lillie,

Yes the planets are indeed the planets that you see in the sky, all that differs is the system for plotting their position. The tropical zodiac plots them relative to the equinoxes and the sidereal system plots them with reference to a point in physical space. Astronomers have yet another system for plotting planet positions as they no longer use the physical constellations.

In Astrology it is the planets that are the main influences on our lives, no matter what reference system is used.[/QUOTE]
 

Minderwiz

Lillie said:
Hmmmm

Well, that's just confusing, isn't it?

If the moon is the moon then one would naturally suppose gemini to be gemini...

Maybe astrologers should change the name.
Call it sector 3, or Albert, or something other then the name of the constellation that it isn't.

The moon is in sector 3, in opposition to uranus in sector 9.
That sounds ok.

Yes, I recognise the confusion. Up to aroud 2000 years ago the process of precession was better dealt with by so called primitive societies. Their gods and myths changed to reflect the equnoctial (and Solstice) constellations, thus myths relating to two people, such as Adam and Eve gave way to myths and gods relate to bulls and these in turn gave way to myths which were ram oriented.

When the Equinox shifted into Pisces this did show up in some myths and religions, the early christians used the fish as a symbol of Christ and portrayed him as a fisher of men. However Astroloers did not all follow such a sensible approach. They had already developed the signs as a tool for getting round many of the problems of using the constellations for charting planetary movements.

Most of those in the West (but not in India) simply carried on using a system based on the equinoxes but retained the old labels for the divisions. This might sound silly but remember that at the time we are talking about precession only put the two zodiacs out by a matter of a degee or two. It was convenient to carry on using the terms and definitions that had been developed.

There have been opportunites to redefine the signs but they are now so ingrained into the language of Astrology that this will almost certainly never happen.

As Bernadette Brady says 'Astrology seems to have lost contact with that which is the very central tenet of our art'.
 

Minderwiz

Ravenest,

Thanks for your explanation I now think I understand what you are trying to say. I think in any future discussion we need to be a little careful to make some clear definitions and explanations so we don't end up in confusion again.