From: eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun)
Subject: Re: Old Stars, New Stars  (was Re: HALLOW'EEN)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:05:27 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago IL
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

>>cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
: 
: [Eshin-Fun goes on to mention the following examples.]
: 
: >Fagan-Allen houses which uses sidereal computations...
: 
: >sidereal house system...
: 
: >intercepted sign of Ophiucus....
: 
: These are all minority practices. You cannot draw conclusions about
: the general tradition of Western astrology citing the practices of
: recently established minority groups. For example, the Hamburg school
: thinks any kind of zodiac at all is nonsense, and bases everything on
: inter-planetary relationships.<<

Why not? Do minorities not count? Unfortunately when a person makes a
sweeping statement on a subject >everything< counts! This was the mistake of
the ancient Romans about Christianity; and the same mistake of the
aristocrats during the reign of Luis XVI---ah! poor Marie Antoinnete.

Perhaps you should read ASTROLOGY 14 by Steven Schmidt who goes on to
explain a 14 sign calendar.


>>: >There is also the practice of using certain stars (Regulus for example) and
: >asterioids that never were part of the original tropical considerations.
: 
: The minority of Western astrologers who use certain individual stars
: interpret them, just as they do the planets, as influences coloured by
: their position within the framework of the tropical zodiac. The
: asteroids which a minority of Western astrologers use have solar
: system orbits just like the planets, and are once again interpreted,
: just like the planets, as sources of influence coloured by their
: positions within the tropical zodiac.
: 
: I think you are confused about this sideral/tropical issue because you
: think that astrology supposes influences to emanate from the signs (or
: constelleations) themselves.<<


You cannot possibly know what I >think< as you do not asks questions. You
presuppose and presumptiously conclude on very little stated. I suggest that
perrhaps this is the flaw of your conclusions.

It seems obvious that though some people have taken a heliocentric interest,
the majoprity of astrology, from remote antiquity is still convinced on a
Geocentric observation. Why? because we >do< live on earth. Though it may
seem unscientific, the purpose of Astromancy (divination by the stars) is
based on the relationship of the native on a particular position on earth,
of a particular time in relationship with the celestial phenomena as it
occurs.

In ancient times there was no use of telescopes, and the stars were viewed
as they actually appeared in the heavens. Temples were built in Harran,
Egypt, Sumer and a dozen other places that took into consideration the angle
to a star, planet or luminary to be able to shine through a door, aperture,
window etc to shed its light on the terrestial native for different
purposes.

The planets may have been analogised to dieties but then again this was
metaphorically.But still their observations were sidereal as it took into
consideration the actual viewing, latitude, longitude etc in knowing how to
find a celestial body. Further in Babylon even the phases of Venus were
detailed as the left horn of Ishtar or the right. (Venus goes through
apparent occultation phases like the moon) 

In the end, all of astrology has been based on a >Geocentric< observation
and effect to that particular place and not to any other orientation. This
is perhaps why some have tried to say that the earth is stationary and the
planets revolve around it. 
But much to the reneissance man's chigrin, the circumference of the earth
was already measured by the ancient Greeks with use of shadows, clearly
indicating that the belief of ancient observers was that the earth was
Round!



>> To suppose that astrologers
: intepreting the position of a planet in a sign are attributing some
: special influence to that position in the sky is as silly as supposing
: that astrologers who interpret house positions are ascribing some
: special significances to the mountain masses and seas of the earth.<<

This suppositon, is not only prejudiced, but despotic.

It is the experience on earth at a time when certain observations in the sky
occur that makes the observation a traditional concern.
You seem to forget that at the time astrology/astromancy there were >no<
books. No particular reference but the naked eye.  When stone and clay
tablets were introduced there is a brevity in their data, as it seems that
it was assumed you knew enough to understand what they were talking about.

i.e. (Babylonian Tablets W.A.I. III, 60)

12 ci-its-ru-ta gab-ra-tuv sa DP. Nin-si-an-na bag-ri Babili
Twelve ancient observations of Venus from Babylon.

Ina arakh Ululu 2 yumu 1 D.P.Nin-si-an-na ina D.P. Samsi-eribi it-[pal-va]
yumu 15 ina sami ittamar-va ina arakh Ululi 2 yumu 17 D.P. Nin-si-an-[na]
ina D.P. Samsi-atsi ittamar namartu ina mati.......ibassi: ina ecalli gu...

[translation]
In the 2nd Elul, the 1st day, Venus at Sunset dissapears; and the 15th day
in heaven it is seen; and in the 2nd Elul, the 17th day, Venus at Sun-rise
is seen. A prodigy in the land .(lacuna)....is: in the place...(lacuna)..

Unfortunately there are numerous of tablets left yet untranslated since
there does not seem to be as much interest in Sumerio/Assyriology as there
is in Egyptology.

The point is, Astrological observations come from terrestial observations of
happenings that coincide with celestial phenomena that have been observed
and are recorded or handed down orally from age to age.
One cannot dismiss thousands of years of the ancient's efforts as merely
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
caprice nor superstition!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: 
>>: Of course the great popularity of newspaper sun-sign "astrology" has
: persuaded a lot of common folk, and a lot of simple-minded and
: uneducated astrologers, that the signs of the zodiac (or the
: constellations) are supposed to have some special influence of their
: own, rather than being a way of indexing progression through the
: harmonic divisions of a cycle, and that these influences derive from
: the visible denizens of those segments of the sky, the stars. This is
: no more than a popularised mistake, and you will not see it made in
: any of the astrological textbooks recommended by the serious
: astrological training schools which offer recognised qualifications.<<

And where do think they got their original information from if not from the
alleged astrological textbooks recommended by the alleged serious training
schools to begin with?
Their error is no different than yours in admonishing sidereal astrology as
a minority nonsense, unacceptable to reason.


>>: A zero tropical correction is not the same as the non-existence of a
: tropical correction. The observational records of the library of
: Alexandria which Ptolemy was using went back at least several hundred
: years, quite far enough for the precession of the equinoxes to be very
: clearly evident.<<

Correct! At that time observations were made from the heavens primarily not
from Ephemerides or other books as the absolute reference from which they
made thyeir calculations.
But then again at night they could see the stars much more clearly than we
can today in smog filled cities, and arttificial light flooding the night
sky with a diffusion that it has almost but made celestial observation
passe.



>>: >And I am afraid your understanding of astrology is not only bias but
: >unrealistic. You are not following the changes that have taken place in the
: >last thirty years or so.
: 
: I have been talking about the Western tradition of astrology as
: derived from Ptolemy 2,000 years ago. I'm quite aware of the
: developments of the last thirty years, which are rather insignificant
: in that time scale, and have little to do with the question under
: discussion, which is whether or not the _tradition_ recognised the
: precession of the zodiac.<<

I whole heartedly agree with you that the Western tradition, derived from
Ptolemy 2,000 years ago has the foundation of many flaws. But that tradition
was written at a time when the human eye was trained to look at the sky and
recognize what it saw. With the medieval ages that tradition was corrupted
by extenuating circumstances that today has sorely questioned Astrological
traditions let alone has opened an abyss between Astrologer and Astronomer.
But the zodiac seems to have originally ben juxtaposed by the vernal or
autumnal colure and what happens to that, according to the precession of the
equinoxes is very important. 
There is certainly enough evidence that the equinoxes were carefully
observed by ancient eyes, why not then its precession?

I stand corected if I misled you to believe that it was the ancients that
made that correction.As they did not have reason to correct anything at that
time. But my point is that they >were< aware of its subtle motion.

 
>>: >Astrology did not make an error. Human frailties did. The correction of the
: >ecliptical movements was not really popularized till a few years ago when
: >this argument was made a public scandal.
: 
: A public scandal? Correction of ecliptical movements made a few years
: ago in response to it? This is nonsense.<<

Granted, the scandal was not of the magnitude of Princess Di or the rest of
that the royal family enjoys today ;-) But it was certainly enough to bring
about the rise of new evaluation and several books that refered to it.
Besides, if you have made a business of selling charts for, let's say the
last twenty years and in configuration you are irrevocably proved wrong,
don't you think that in this age of such fragile ego's those clients would
not come knocking at your door for their money back or some sort of
recompense? No, the scandal, though public was carefully muted so as to not
cause such an upheaval. Besides, if all of your life you believed that you
were born a "Leo" to suddenly realize that you are a "Cancer" really, don't
you think this would be so traumatic to some that you would rather
perpetrate that which you always thought you were, that had such imagery
than to admit that one, you were mistaken, two that you were a fool to
believe that you were one when in reality you were another..etc.etc..

>> If it were true you would be
: able to cite a set of astrological ephemerides of say, ten years ago,
: which contained this error, and another recently published set, which
: corrects this error. There are no such ephemerides.<<

I doubt it. Considering the baove paragraph, I would expect exactly what did
take place. A rational with "TIME". U.T. and the rise of observer's
handbooks that help to keep your secret latent so as not to reveal your
mistake.

I have known many astrologers that have done just that. They still
rationalize the difference by exalting certain aspects as an explaination.
But if the precession of the equinoxes changes signs, what about teir
nature?

Pisces, Gemini, Virgo, and Saggitarius become "cardinal"
and the fixed signs now are:
Cancer, Libra, Capricorn and Aries, etc....

No, I do not presume to dictate any idea on you. I am merely observing and
reasoning. That I leave for some body else to write about or to make a more
convincing argument for astrology.

However I cannot dismiss the past so lightly and stereotype astrology as a
fantasy of unenlightened minds.

If it were not for that past we really could not have had our present.

I feel that in order to understand something, one has to open up and always
be ready for change. As we further our understanding of things we grow so
long as we do not stand brittle in self assumption and certainty.

After all, one of the most interesting things we have learned from the stars
is that the only consistency in the universe is its inconsistency. For this
reason we poetically accept the term for the sun's sattelites, "planets"
which means wanderer.

Eshin-Fun