Signs and Constellations

[Guest guest]

Whoop there it is!!!

Terese Hamilton <eastwest wrote:At 01:41 PM 12/17/02 -0000, Ed K

wrote:

 

>As for sidereal whole signs, that too is a bit presumptuous. No

>constellation was ever considered to be exactly 1/12th of the

>complete circle of the sky until the Greeks forced the issue for

>mathematical purposes.

 

Not quite, Ed. When the Greeks inherited Mesopotamian astrology, the equal

sidereal signs of 30 degrees each already existed, presumably to make

measuring planetary positions easier. These were named for the 12

constellations.

 

Now there is another point about which we can only guess or theorize. There

is little evidence pro or con that higher civilizations existed long before

the era of recorded history. According to Edgar Cayce, astrology was

already in existence around 10,500 B.C. in Egypt and the '12 houses' were

part of Temple study. We don't KNOW for sure exactly what went on that far

back in time, so we have to go on what scholars have discovered, and that

is that a 12 sign SIDEREAL zodiac existed in later Mesopotamia. The

sidereal zodiac was she first zodiac as we know it. Even Robert hand admits

that. There's a big knowledge gap between a few centuries BCE and the

period around 10,500 BCE. A void actually.

 

Around the time that the two zodiacs exactly corresponded, no one knew

exactly what zodiac they were using, but eventually the Tropical/Sidereal

split happened between India and the west.

 

Terese

 

 

 

 

" How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

 

Post message:

Subscribe: -

Un: -

List owner: -owner

 

Shortcut URL to this page:

/

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Terese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

> At 01:41 PM 12/17/02 -0000, Ed K wrote:

>

> >As for sidereal whole signs, that too is a bit presumptuous. No

> >constellation was ever considered to be exactly 1/12th of the

> >complete circle of the sky until the Greeks forced the issue for

> >mathematical purposes.

>

> Not quite, Ed. When the Greeks inherited Mesopotamian astrology,

the equal

> sidereal signs of 30 degrees each already existed, presumably to

make

> measuring planetary positions easier. These were named for the 12

> constellations.

 

Hi there,

 

Yes, surely they , but the nature of the 30* signs was not to mimic

the constellations, but as you said, for the math. At that moment,

it ceases to be a " constellation " and becomes a simple measure of

space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Now there is another point about which we can only guess or

theorize. There

> is little evidence pro or con that higher civilizations existed

long before

> the era of recorded history. According to Edgar Cayce, astrology was

> already in existence around 10,500 B.C. in Egypt and the '12

houses' were

> part of Temple study.

 

Terese, citing Cayce as a source for anything is a bit silly, don't

you think? It is proof of nothing other than Cayce's own limited

knowledge of astrology.

 

 

 

 

We don't KNOW for sure exactly what went on that far

> back in time, so we have to go on what scholars have discovered,

and that

> is that a 12 sign SIDEREAL zodiac existed in later Mesopotamia. The

> sidereal zodiac was she first zodiac as we know it. Even Robert

hand admits

> that.

 

This statement is problematic. What do you mean by " as we know it? "

If you mean that it is like the sidereal zodiac that you are using

presently, then perhaps yes. But, the original zodiacs were not 12-

sign, and also sidereal, which tells me that the

Mesopotamian " zodiac " (what they saw as the path of the moon) was

based upon groupings of stars that were of varying size and shape.

Taurus consisted of about 4 different constellations for them.

 

 

 

 

> There's a big knowledge gap between a few centuries BCE and the

> period around 10,500 BCE. A void actually.

 

Are you suggesting that before 10,500 BC there is recorded history??

I think not!

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Around the time that the two zodiacs exactly corresponded, no one

knew

> exactly what zodiac they were using, but eventually the

Tropical/Sidereal

> split happened between India and the west.

 

Right, they were using a zodiac that attempted to match the seasons.

Once that could be measured with precision, the sidereal fell out of

use in the West abruptly. To quote Gleadow:

 

" The first zodiac, of course, could not have been tropical. It was

not supposed to be either tropical or sidereal, but was simply

assumed to be both at once. "

 

- Ed K

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/2002 5:57:26 PM Central Standard Time,

eastwest writes:

 

 

> but eventually the Tropical/Sidereal

> split happened between India and the west.

>

> Terese

>

 

oh god, Terese, and NOW it's happening between the west and the west. ///

wing

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/2002 7:45:50 PM Central Standard Time,

crumpo writes:

 

 

> . At that moment,

> it ceases to be a " constellation " and becomes a simple measure of

> space.

>

 

and for the sake of simplicity we call them " signs " except in the tropical

the signs are too far removed from their progeny to make much sense.

simplicity . . . it's a way of love. /// wing

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is starting to sound like an East Coast-West Coast battle. Don't shoot,

Don't shoot. I'm unarmed.

cpwing44 wrote:In a message dated 12/17/2002 5:57:26 PM Central

Standard Time,

eastwest writes:

 

 

> but eventually the Tropical/Sidereal

> split happened between India and the west.

>

> Terese

>

 

oh god, Terese, and NOW it's happening between the west and the west. ///

wing