From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: StarSigns??
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:09:00 GMT

In article <30956@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes...
>In article <rigking.1.727962487@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> rigking@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (GAVIN KING) writes:
> 
>>A question for all you astrologers: do you think that the predictive power 
>>of astrology has been harmed by the fact that, due to the precession of the 
>>Earth about its axis, the Sun is no longer positioned in the constellation 
>>which is assigned to a person when they are born, on their date of birth.
> 
>Please learn some basic astrology. One of the fundamental concepts is
>the division of time cycles into twelfths. The daily cycle is divided
>into twelfths, the yearly cycle is divided into twelfths, and the
>Great Yearly cycle (precession of the equinoxes) is divided into
>twelfths. These twelve fold divisions have the same characteristics.
>For historical reasons the daily division is into numbered houses,
>whereas the other two are in terms of the zodiacal signs. None of
>these are to do with constellations, except that the last, the Great
>Year, concerns precession of the equinox through the fixed stars. 

I think some confusion understandably arises from the the latter idea - the
Great Year.  On one hand, you say the constellations are irrelevant, and the
signs, i.e. positions relative to the equinoxes are all that matter.  But at
the same time, the meanings of the Great Ages are supposed to be implanted
on the *constellations*, such that the constellation Taurus is associated with
pre-Mosaic cattle worship, Aries with Ram worship, and Pisces and Aquarius etc.
According to the tropical picture of the Zodiac, isn't the equinox at 0 Aries
for all eternity?  In other words, it seems mysterious how the same meanings
can be imprinted on two different regions of space which overlapped at the
time proto-astronomy/astrology began, especially when, as you say, the
boundaries and shapes of the constellations are essentially arbitrary.

>Far from not knowing about the precession of the equinoxes, it is the
>precession of the equinoxes which astrologers consider give rise to
>the Great Months, known as Ages, such as the Age of Aquarius. The
>reason why Christianity is associated with fishes (Pisces) and its
>counterpart, the virgin and wheat (Virgo) (hence the loaves and fishes
>parable) is because Christ was the religious leader of the Age of
>Pisces.

Are you really sure that this is *why* Christianity is associated with fishes?
I thought it was a linguistics thing with the early Roman or Greek Christians -
a secret sign which was somehow a double entendre to those in the know.  I
vaguely recall it was a Greek letter chi (the first letter in Christ's name)
drawn to resemble a fish - quite possibly tying into the 'fishers of men'
metaphor and the putative miracle itself.

And is it plausible to associate the sign with 'it's counterpart'?  Aren't
opposing signs supposed to be opposite in all their numerological (i.e.
positive/negative, cardinal/mutable/fixed, and the four elements) meanings?

Also, isn't a little ethnocentric to call Christ 'the religious leader of the
Age of Pisces'?  There are about 1 billion Moslems and a lot of Buddhists, not
to mention plenty of other religions, who probably disagree.  By the same
token, you are reducing a lot of Christian theology to mere astrological
allegory.

Not a flame, but what you say seems rather post hoc and somewhat narrowly
centered on a Western astrological world view.  From what I have read, the
tropical zodiac is likewise a Western-specific convention, and eastern
astrologers would disagree with your dismissal of the siderial one.


Dave