--- On Mon, 8/30/10, Jake Stratton-Kent <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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.

Same here, but it was the 90s for me.  You can even see traces of that attitude in "Secrets..."- though I was already beginning to back off of my sidereal kick at that point.  (I'm sure you've read my previously-posted take on the Tropical system.)  I sat on the fence for a bit, but then I realized that all of the grimoires I study were using the Tropical system.  So I stuck with it as well.

NOTE:  In my last post I said that Agrippa presents both Sidereal and Tropical systems.  That was in error.  :(  I was thinking of his presentation of the 36 Deacons- where he offers two different sets of planetary attributions.  They have nothing to do with Sidereal or Tropical, though.  :/

> 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!
[...] 
> 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.

Now folks are going to think we're colluding off-list.  lol

> 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*

Ah very good point!  I have considered Tropical to be a simple mathematical division of the sky/year - much as I viewed Solomonic magickal hours as mathematical divisions of the day.  However, both of these are perhaps better explained by highlighting their links to solar cycles.
 
> 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. 

Also a very good point.  This is similar to my own "watch hands" theory of astrology.  That is, the physical stars and planets do not extend some kind of occult force here to Earth, no more than the hands of a clock "create" time.  In both cases, they are simply measuring devices we use to keep track of a natural process here on Earth.
 
> 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.

Amen.  :)

LVX
Aaron