 |
 |
the bias against Tropical and towards Sidereal is something I used to share back in the 1970s, it is an easy trap to fall into. So easy it isn't necessary to study either system to buy it - pop Science for example finds it a handy stick for the astrologers back. As mentioned, the constellation of Scorpio is 72 degrees long, strictly speaking that would give us over two months of people 'born in Scorpio', while other 'Signs' (sic) would all be uneven, some shorter even than 30 degrees. Well, okay that could work, but the idea that Tropical matched Sidereal back when the beginning of Sign Aries matched Constellation Aries is demolished by the equal Sign divisions - they never matched entirely! Now, on another thread we all accepted the Equinoxes and Solstices as natural divisions. Well hey, they all begin Tropical Signs (zero Aries, zero Leo, zero Scorpio, zero Aquarius). In other words the Zodiac is divided in a natural fashion in terms of the Solar year - *and remains so despite Precession* We argued also that the Seasons mean something, again the Signs remain constant because the Seasons do (as constant as a weather system anyway). Folks are born into that Season, and the characteristics are true of that time. Plus - and this is something many miss - the planetary aspects of that time, in many ways more important than the Signs they occupy, are accurately denoted by Tropical conventions. So it is the *interpretations* not the *designations* that give Tropical Astrology its effectiveness. This brings us round to *observation* versus unthinking acceptance, another issue we've encountered on this diversifying thread! Good astrologers keep case files, so interpretation is based on experience. If there are changes in the significance of a *Sign* due to different stars entering it, well hey, experience will gradually transform the interpretation. I know where the important stars are, and can readily refer to that position in terms of the conventions of Tropical Astrology: Regulus for example - 29:41 Leo. This enables me to keep track of its risings and settings, as well as its conjunctions &c. So I am still taking the stars into account. There is another set of supposedly 'arbitrary' divisions where the Stars are more important still, the equal length Lunar Mansions (compared to the uneven Chinese ones, and the equal but Sidereal Hindu ones). Precession changes the stellar content of these over time, and in this instance too it is perfectly legitimate to track the stars new positions in terms of the existing divisions, rather than re-rig the divisions. As said earlier, I don't consider myself an astrologer. I'm just familiar with the history, terminology & methodology, and know how to erect a chart/read an ephemeris. Compared to some of my colleagues who know what sign is rising and where the planets are just from hearing your date and place of birth; who can visualise the 3D heavens turning in their heads - I'm no astrologer! The idea that the conventions these folks employ makes them any less effective is entirely redundant! In short, the bias against Tropical - and the name calling we've seen shows clearly that there is one - is based on insufficient familiarity with an eminently workable system. The Western Tradition of Magic owes far, far more to *Tropical Astrology* than 'Cabala'. Thus this prejudice is a major stumbling block to comprehension, and corrosive of the Tradition's consistency. ALWays Jake http://www.underworld-apothecary.com/