posted November 14, 2011 05:07 PM            

well, the day before yesterday i was out and started the morning by building on the night before, til sunrise, and while i anticipated daylight, i was staring at the stars.. directly above me, i saw mars.. then i wondered 'why?' since mars is in 'virgo' and i knew for a fact that i was staring at the constellation Leo.

i'm referring to western astrology using the tropical zodiac rather than sidereal; tropical could be a very good starting point and the 'truth' behind every question we have; great grounds to practice but other than maybe those who study vedic, i wonder how many people have tried to understand their chart from the sidereal point of view?

i would think that for instance, 'aries', would be safe to say are what we consider and the people we know of to be taureans.. how many warriors do you know that recklessly went for what they wanted without a plan? reminds me of that saying that says: if one doesn't have a plan, that one individual then plans to fail.

does the energy that we see our surrounding taureans carry seem more appropriate for all the things we have learned about the what the sign of aries represents?

taureans are to be the traditional taurus stereotype that i think we've all read.. slow, steady, methodical, stubborn, passionate, etc.. but what if that was aries and not taurus? could anyone be an effective leader if they weren't sure of where they were going or knew what they were doing?

think of it like this.. the tropical zodiac could be used as a foundation and a nice place to start learning.. could you possibly imagine yourself being a gemini and not having some steady footing to be able to do all the things we see 'gemini' doing today?

what if that foundation they have is thanks to taurus and that foundation could be seen in the tropical zodiac.. if you've studied it that way, then sidereal could start to take a whole new meaning because you know where the new visual would be coming from since you know the interpretation very well of the signs before; building upon the lessons learned from studying tropical.

why are "Leo's" so quick to try to get attention? the people born during the last part of july and earlier portion of august, are Cancer's.. they're vying for attention while trying to emulate the essence of the Sun. Why are "Taurean's" so determined> they're Arians..

Why is 'Aries' so reckless? they're actually pisces. why are big so many 'arians' in the entertainment industry? lady gaga, mariah carey, etc... they're actually pisceans; it's their territory.

why is cap so focused on reaching their goal? they have an arrow to point and know that if they're not careful, they could start tripping over their four legs and fall from their mountain to the very pits.. they're sagittarians.

Why is aquarius also ruled by saturn? uranus is trying to open up the door to the misunderstanding by revealing information; 'aquarians' are capricorns.. they're 'weird' because they feel as if they've got a fish tail rather than legs as normal people do.

so basically, every sign that we now know of, try to think of them as being the sign we've seen in the charts that precede them; consider them to be the reason 'why' everything is the way it is.

does that work for you?

Pisces->"Aries"
Aries->"Taurus"
Taurus->"Gemini"
Gemini->"Cancer"
Cancer->"Leo"
Leo->"Virgo"
Virgo->"Libra"
Libra->"Scorpio"
Scorpio->"Sagittarius"
Sagittarius->"Capricorn"
Capricorn-"Aquarius"
Aquarius->"Pisces"

i need a break before i try to go on and entertain this idea or try to comprehend this any further.

trying to understand this is boggling my mind probably as much as it's probably boggling yours.

quote:

---

---

posted November 14, 2011 05:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hannarama:
OH MY GOD.

I've been wanting to write a book about this forever! I think it's seriously time for an astrology re-write, or update. 'Cause I completely agree - although I've found more Taurus' are Geminian, which kind of goes against the grain. Pisces are not cute, sweet and sensitive - that's totally Aries. Pisces are dicks. They're blunt and stubborn and very stereotypically "Arian". THEY are the babies of the zodiac. Aquarians are more Capricorn-ish. I could go on, and on. I'm an Aries and like we think, I feel more Taurean.

---

hmmm... i'm not sure we're on the same page.. for conversation's sake, let's call what we study using the tropical zodiac 'sign'1.. so, Arian's as we know them now, let's call them Aries1.. the sidereal one's, let's call them Aries2..

the Aries1 that we know, would be Pisces2.
The Taurus1' we know, would be Aries2.

so the Pisces1 that you know, aren't Arians2.. they're Aquarians2...

u with me?

posted November 14, 2011 05:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuxedoMask:
i always wondered why we studied charts going counter-clockwise and didn't all the way understand it.. but i think now i do.

we're studying history, we're going back in time.. we're time traveling, we're keeping in mind that there are things worth knowing so that history doesn't repeat itself and by looking at the past, we can understand and have a better view of what's ahead in the future.

---

posted November 14, 2011 05:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Purrr:
Did you smoke some ganja when thinking about this . I was totalllly thinking about this like three years ago when I smoked for the first time and looked at the stars. It made so much sense to me at the time and no one understood... as soon as I was "sober" again, I couldn't piece together what I was thinking about. But I was definitely thinking about the same thing! Maybe I should smoke again so I don't feel boggled.

---

posted November 14, 2011 06:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mintgirl123:
But it doesn't actually make sense for virgo?
And taurus and aries are VERY different. Aries are quick to anger and impulsive, taurus are very slow to anger, and they think things through more?
So your concept doesn't really work?

---

posted November 14, 2011 06:23 PM            

quote:

---

We now arrive at what the present author considers to be a major stumbling block for Sidereal Astrology, of the kind advanced by Fagan. It is this:

In interpreting Sidereal Astrology, the signs of the Zodiac move through the year over the course of ages. However, so, apparently, do the planetary rulerships!

You will recall that we observed at the start the Planetary Rulers are mainly based on the seasons – the Sun and Moon, the two luminaries, representing Summer, and Saturn, cold and distant, representing Winter.

However, according to the Precession of the Equinoxes, the sidereal signs of Capricorn and Aquarius (traditionally ruled over by Saturn) no longer represent the depths of winter, but late winter or early spring. Whilst the sidereal signs of Cancer and Leo no longer represent the height of Summer, but late Summer and early Autumn.

Hence, if both the ideas of “the Precession of the Equinoxes” and “the Planetary Rulerships” were to be incorporated into Astrology in a strictly logical manner, then the Signs would no longer be associated with their respective rulers, but be worked out separately. The Planets would still rule over the same parts of the year, but over the course of aeons, they would be ruling over different signs of the zodiac.

I must presume that this notion has not been taken up more widely before now because it complicates things a great deal. For a start, following this logical approach, one would have to rethink and redefine the traditional meanings of the signs.
http://www.jwmt.org/v2n12/against.html

---

posted November 14, 2011 06:28 PM            

quote:

---

If one were to follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, it necessarily follows that over the course of aeons, that Sidereally speaking, all points of the year have been or will be represented by all signs of the Zodiac. However, if we accept the fact that planetary rulerships are determined by seasons, then by the same token, over the course of aeons, the rulerships remain constant for their respective parts of the year. Thus from a post-modern viewpoint, the actual sign, its triplicity (Fire, Earth, Air or Water) and its quadruplicity (Cardinal, Fixed or Mutable) become irrelevant to consideration of a person or event in question. Instead they are more indicative of the nature of the aeon in which the event happens, or the person is born.

Instead the true characteristics which are idiosyncratic to the person are the planetary influences, not the elemental or quadruplicity influence of a given sign of the zodiac. For example, a person born in late November or early December two thousand years ago would Sidereally be a Sagittarius (mutable Fire); if born at the same time today, a Scorpio (Fixed Water); and if born in approximately two thousand years time, would be a Libra. However, given that Planetary influences are based on seasons, these three people from different ages would each have been born under the influence of the planet Jupiter.

On this basis, a “post-modern” Zodiac which is correct for every age throughout history can be put forward

---

posted November 14, 2011 06:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mintgirl123:
But it doesn't actually make sense for virgo?
And taurus and aries are VERY different. Aries are quick to anger and impulsive, taurus are very slow to anger, and they think things through more?
So your concept doesn't really work?

---

posted November 14, 2011 06:44 PM            

so, since mars is pioneer and the sun's heat, associated with summer, would be less associated with the sign of aries and leo (if taken into acct when considering it's traditional sense of it representing the seasons), he's more or less suggesting that maybe spring wouldn't be considered the month of Aries but rather, the season of Mars.

posted November 14, 2011 06:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by hannarama:
Taurus are not slow to anger, they simply don't voice their anger as quick as Aries do.

---

posted November 14, 2011 06:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mintgirl123:
Why do you think that?
From my experiences, they are pretty calm, and like virgos (ie me), we just don't blow up. It takes awhile for me to anger, and when I eventually do blow up it's like an explosion. But it takes AGES to get me to that stage. I'm usually calm.

---

posted November 14, 2011 07:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mintgirl123:
Why do you think that?
From my experiences, they are pretty calm, and like virgos (Which I am one), we just don't blow up. It takes awhile for me to anger, and when I eventually do blow up it's like an explosion. But it takes AGES to get me to that stage. I'm usually calm.

---

posted November 14, 2011 07:19 PM            

No, really, it's impressive. I used to do that in chemistry when I was in high school.

posted November 14, 2011 08:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by maira:
Congratulations! You just discovered sidereal astrology all by yourself http://www.mybirthchart.com/signs.aspx

No, really, it's impressive. I used to do that in chemistry when I was in high school.

---

posted November 14, 2011 08:36 PM            

Well some of caner fits me, but not all of it.. But I do have a cancer venus..

posted November 14, 2011 08:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lioness:
..
I can tell you I hate cooking.. Its such a chore..

---