Signs/Constellations

[Guest guest]

, Dark Star <pansophia@e...>

wrote:

>

>>I believe that I will have to go along with that. [sidereal

terminology]

 

>>Now what is this about Fagan being inaccurate about some of the

signs? Example?

 

D*S,

 

I'll look up some examples.

 

>> Constellations on an astrological line should always refer to 30

degrees without even saying so. When it doesn't the preface should be

astronomical constellations.

 

The problem with this view is the world in which we live. Most people

are aware that there are constellations in the sky, and they don't

preface constellations with 'astronomoical.' It's a given:

constellations are mythical star formations in the sky. They belong

to the realm of astronomy. A sidereal sign is *not* a constellation.

These are the facts that we have to deal with.

 

If I were a follower of Fagan's astrology, I'd call it " Fagan's

School of Constellational astrology.' Meaning the signs relate to the

constellations but aren't synonomous with them.

 

Also, to confuse the topic even more in India the nakshatras are

often referred to as 'the constellations.' Thankfully, this

terminology is becoming less common.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Therese,

 

Because this is a Fagan line (yes!) it can only be assumed that

constellation always means 30 degrees, Fagan's or someone else's.

Hindu hasn't bought the house, merely enjoying occupancy with the

..original owners. We delight in each others diversity. It is our strength,

no?

 

Dark*Star

 

 

therese92003 wrote:

 

> A sidereal sign is *not* a constellation.

> These are the facts that we have to deal with.

>

> If I were a follower of Fagan's astrology, I'd call it " Fagan's

> School of Constellational astrology.' Meaning the signs relate to the

> constellations but aren't synonomous with them.

>