Lindaland
  Astrology
  Astrology Questions

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Astrology Questions
Betelgeuse
Knowflake

Posts: 33
From: England
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 11, 2007 07:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Betelgeuse     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bonjour! I'm not sure if this post was seen or not, it is from another thread, and had no responses. So here it is again.

Hey

I was hoping people would offer their opinions on the house systems also. I know it is an age-old topic and been covered many times, but it is essentially core astrology, and not enough questions are asked of it.

I guess one of my biggest questions about the house system is in respect to the systems that do not use equal 30 degree segments (The Equal House system). The Zodiac in 'real space' terms uses exact 30 degree separations to distiniguish the twelve signs. Yet some house systems regulate the distribution of the 360 degrees in terms of the position relative to the ecliptic at the place of birth. Most of the houses systems that propose this unequal distribution of house zones are relatively new to Astrology, as it has tried to evolve scientifically and mathematically.

But the thing that bothers me greatly, is the teeny tiny thing called the 'Precession of the Equinoxes'. Anyone who is not aware of this phenomena, it basically means that the background stars no longer match the zodiac. When Ptolemy formulated his rules of astrology almost 2000 years ago, the Vernal Equinox was near the start of the constellation of Aries, so in Ptolemys rules, Aries was given as the sign related to the beginning of Spring. However, as the Earth has moved on its axis in its orbit around the sun, Aries is no longer the sign at the Spring Equinox, Pisces is the sign observed at the beginning of Spring.

I know there have been numerous arguments from renowned astrologers pointing to the fact that the background constellations have nothing to do with astrology, but I find none of them convincing. Mainly because Ptolemy was the man who decided that Aries was associated with the Vernal Equinox. He was just a man making observations in accord with the stars 2000 years ago. In Ptolemys eyes, he may have had no idea that the vernal equinox would shift slowly to Pisces as the millennia passed. So if modern astrologers claim that the current Zodiac has nothing to do with background constellations, then doesnt that defy the founding principles and laws of astrology?

This also makes me question the validity of modern house systems. Each one of the houses is representative of the 12 zodiacal signs, the qualities each house represents are akin to the corresponding sign. We have the zodiac exactly divided into 30 degree segments, yet some house systems follow very different rules. Our place of birth relative to the ecliptic does not influence the constellations. But many house systems are based on the assumption that 'what we cannot see has little effect on us'. (smaller house distribution the further away from the ecliptic) It seems insane to me, and I say that mathematically and intuitively.

Here is one more idea of my own. The beginning of the Vernal Equinox is the time when there is an equal number of daylight and night minutes in a day. In this sense, it is a perfect balancing of light and dark, yin and yang, masculine and feminine. There is the possibility that astrology is actually describing the interplay and dynamic exchange between these two fundamental energies, and has little to do with the constellations at all. This would actually support the claim of astrologers that the Precession of the Ages is irrelevent to modern astrology. However, if this is the case, then most of the important questions in astrology have yet to be asked.

As the Earth orbits the Sun, and the interplay between light and dark occurs, then each of the 12 signs would be effectively describing the story of these energies as they evolve and complete their cycles. So did Ptolemy assign Aries at the vernal equinox because Aries is a sign that symbolises balance of yin and yang, or was he simply observing his ages astronomical nuances? As the Sun crosses the ecliptic, certain solar phenomena dictates life here on Earth. Weather, the seasons, sunspots, peoples moods in accordance to the balancing of night and day etc. If Astrology is really based on the seasons of the Earth rather than constellations, then how do each of the 12 signs relate to Earth according to seasonal changes of yin/yang? Just some questions I thought I would pose to anyone. I would welcome any ideas.

IP: Logged

BlueMeenee
unregistered
posted October 11, 2007 10:17 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good post, I'm glad you brought this up! I am def a budding astrologist, but I've heard this argument before and am curious about this as well.

All I know is that had I been born in Pisces instead of Aquarius, I would think that I'd have more Pisces qualities, which I don't. I know the whole Natal chart makes up the personality etc - however, I am still very Aquarius. I know it's not one of those "Oh, I'm Aquarius, so I must project those qualities as my own." It's more along the lines of reading about Aquarius as an adult and thinking - "Hey! Maybe I'm not crazy after all, and that's just who I am!" Of course, along with all the other aspects of my chart - if that makes any sense, it's still early here.

I am very curious how others here feel about this as well!

IP: Logged

CoralFrequency
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted October 12, 2007 08:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for CoralFrequency     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

kfn327
Knowflake

Posts: 150
From:
Registered: May 2009

posted October 12, 2007 03:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kfn327     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Aries stands for masculinity, on a more instinctual/sexual level than Leo/Sun.

I can see why Aries might stand for masculinity on a more instinctual level, but I see Leo standing for masculinity on a more sexual level, considering Leo rules the Fifth House.

IP: Logged

CoralFrequency
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted October 12, 2007 05:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for CoralFrequency     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a