From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.magick,alt.astrology
Subject: Re: Old Stars, New Stars  (was Re: HALLOW'EEN)
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:00:41 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <Bvt0D3.5nE@ddsw1.mcs.com> eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun) writes:
>>>cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

>: These are all minority practices. You cannot draw conclusions about
>: the general tradition of Western astrology citing the practices of
>: recently established minority groups.

>Why not? Do minorities not count? Unfortunately when a person makes a
>sweeping statement on a subject >everything< counts!

I made a statement about the 2,000 year old Western astrological
tradition. Minority practices which have arisen in the last thirty
years are not relevant to discussions of that tradition. If you think
they are I suggest you look up "tradition" in a dictionary.

>: 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. 

Are you implying that your postings are no guide to your thoughts?
This latest posting of yours convinces me further that you think as I
suggested above. I note that you neither deny nor confirm my opinion.
This discussion would be easier if you made your position clear.

>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!
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I wasn't trying to. You suggested that the precession of the equinoxes
was only recently noticed by astrologers, a recent public scandal. I
was pointing out to you that the ancients were more knowledgeable than
you thought, since Ptolemy is on record as knowing about the
precession. It is also the case that the Alexandrine library which
Ptolemy was working from 2,000 years ago had _written_records_ of
celestial observations going back at least several hundred years.

>>>: 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
>: 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?

There is a vast number of silly books published on astrology, because
it is a fashionable subject which a great deal of very ignorant and
credulous people are interested in. Many people have become
professional astrologers, in the sense of making a living by charging
people for horoscopes, by reading such silly books. What such books,
or those educated by them, believe, might be of interest in a
sociological study of superstition, but has nothing to do with
_serious_ astrology. You will _not_ find these errors in any textbook
recommended by an astrological training school which offers a course
of study leading to recognised qualifications.

If you want to assert otherwise, then please quote the textbook and the
school which recommends it.

>>>: >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.

There are none of these books in my library, and I have never
encountered one in a bookshop or library. Please cite one so I can
look it up.

>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..

It is quite clear that you sincerely think that Western astrology was
very recently embarrassed to discover that the precession of the
equinoxes had thrown its signs out, and that they have tried to hush
this up. This is complete nonsense. Either you have misunderstood
something you have read, or you have taken some very silly book or
article seriously.

>>> 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.

Either you or your English is very confused here, since I can't
understand what you mean. The only recent change in ephemerides I can
see is a general change from GMT to UT, which is just a reflection of
the changed practice of astronomical ephemerides, and as far as
astrology is concerned, makes a difference so small as to be
completely imperceptible. But you have made it clear that you are
talking about an error of about 30 degrees!  Please explain the
change in ephemerides you are talking about more clearly.

>But if the precession of the equinoxes changes signs, what about teir
>nature?

You have obviously failed to grasp what I have tried to explain to you:

	1. Many people think the astrological signs of the Western
	astrological tradition refer to influences from constellations
	of stars.

	2. They are simply wrong. The Western tradition of natal
	astrology has always been concerned with the tropical zodiac,
	which is defined with respect to the equinoxes.

	3. It has been known for at least 2,000 years that the
	equinoxes, and hence the tropical zodiac, precesses through the
	constellations.

	4. This precession defines _another_ zodiac, the sidereal
	zodiac, which in the Western tradition is rarely used in natal
	astrology, but is used is such things as the great religious ages.
	It is not considered in natal astrology because it changes
	too slowly to differentiate people who are alive at the same
	time.

I can't make any sense of what you post unless you believe 1. above,
which is a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. If what you say
is true, then astrologers could only very recently have started
talking about the end of the age of Pisces and the beginning of the
age of Aquarius, since the notion of the religious ages depends on the
idea of the two zodiacs, with the tropical zodiac precessing past the
sideral zodiac. But if you consult any library with a decent
astrological section you will easily find astrological books 100 years
old which discuss it. Yet according to you its discovery was a very
recent scandal!
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205