Sign Research

[Guest guest]

At 06:50 PM 3/28/06 -0000, Chris wrote:

>

>As I see it, your concept of sign leakage across zodiacs is an

extraordinary claim.

 

Yes, but it's really important to realize that it's not *my* original

claim. It comes directly from the founder of the western sidereal

school, Cyril Fagan. Other of his contemporaries have taken the

concept and included it in their writings.

 

>It is a minority opinion in the sidereal community that is held by

perhaps 5% of siderealists -- at most.

 

It's quite true that this original idea of Fagan's hasn't been taken

to heart by most siderealists. Instead, the emphasis has shifted to

planets on angles. Because so few people think about Fagan's concept

doesn't make that concept either valid or invalid.

 

Yes, I'm supporting an unpopular approach to zodiac signs. Maybe

Fagan was right and maybe he was wrong. At one time the majority of

educated persons believed the earth was flat. The majority believed

the earth was the center of the universe. New or unpopular ideas tend

to ruffle feathers. People were even executed for departing from the

norm. That's the way of this world. Some consider that Cyril Fagan

was brilliant. Other think he was crazy. History will tell.

 

>It's a free country and people are free to say whatever they like,

but it's important to recognize that it's far outside from the

mainstream and really demands strong evidential support to be taken

seriously.

 

My hope is that sometime in the future we'll have groups researching

zodiac signs and other astrological topics. But why would you care if

a single person supports an idea that seems a bit crazy to you?

 

>As I see it, here is your working hypothesis: planets in sidereal

signs exhbit traits of their equivalent tropical sign once ayanamsha

has been accounted for. That hypothesis undergirds your

astrological perspective. So Taurus exhbits traits of Gemini, and so

on. That's your contention, is it not?

 

Yes, but can't we call it Fagan's contention? That makes anything you

say less personal. This was Fagan's approach to the astrological

signs. Obviously the idea clicked with me, and that's why I think he

was on to something. You know, we have the tools right now at hand to

study this: the 5-7 degree overlap between the two zodiacs.

 

>>As for house placement, that may or may not be significant. Slower

moving planets perhaps convey less of the signs qualities (or so we

presume) so perhaps the ascendant and Moon sign are best exemplars of

a sign's qualities. One would like to think that planets in the

10th house have something special to do with career selection, but as

we know, astrology rarely works in a simple way.

 

We won't know until we look at planets in the 10th and analyze them

according to sign, aspect, rulership and nakshatra placement. My

research has told me that planets near equal house cusps take on

greater importance than other planets in the chart. This is also

V.K.Choudhry's approach (System's Approach), which he must have

discovered through his own research. So for a beginning point in

exploring signs I've chosen the 10th house cusp.

 

>>If one was seeking to pursue the matter in that fashion, planets in

the ascendant would perhaps be a more straightforward way to go in

terms of describing basic personality traits.

 

I tried that, taking the Sun, Moon and ascendant in the same sign.

There were no specific results that I could see. That's why I shifted

to the zenith point (NG) as a focus point. Of course, the key to the

equal 10th cusp (NG) is the ascendant degree itself.

 

All Taureans won't, of course, be highly educated. But if they reach

prominence in their field, it might require more education than the

average. Or more beauty. Or greater musical ability. And so on.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Hello Group,

 

At 10:50 (PST) 3/28/2006, Chris wrote:

 

>As I see it, your concept of sign leakage

>across zodiacs is an extraordinary claim.

>It is a minority opinion in the sidereal

>community that is held by perhaps 5% of

>siderealists -- at most.

 

Although I don't always agree with Therese, I don't think she is making

any extraordinary claims in her comparison of Tropical and Sidereal

signs. I thought that her view was common among siderealists until I saw

the heated discussion going on here. How can there really be any

argument with what she is saying? The phrase " sign leakage across

zodiacs " is misleading because it implies that the Tropical and Sidereal

zodiacs are two separate and distinct things. If a Sidereal astrologer

observes common character traits among a sample of people who were all

born on May 1st, he will describe these traits as representative of the

nature of the Sun in Aries. A Tropicalist observing the same traits in

the same population sample will say that they typify the Sun in Taurus.

Assuming both astrologers are making accurate character observations,

their descriptions will be identical except for the LABEL each assigns

to the Sun's position. But the Sun has the same longitude in the zodiac

for everyone in the group, meaning that Tropical Taurus is just Sidereal

Aries under a different name. How then can Tropical Taurus and Sidereal

Aries NOT have the same characteristics, assuming that these are derived

from observation? I'm just paraphrasing here what Cyril Fagan wrote in

the introduction to ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS. Rupert Gleadow made the same

points in his book YOUR CHARACTER IN THE ZODIAC. Mr. Gleadow also notes

that the meanings of the Sidereal signs have remained constant over the

years, while the meanings of the Tropical signs have changed as

precession has shifted the vernal equinox westward along the ecliptic.

 

 

Gary Curtis

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Gary. You've explained the situation very clearly. From a

sideralist viewpoint, there's no sign leakage. There's only one area

of the sky, and we can label it as we like. With your permission, I'd

like to put your post on my web site as a 'reader response.'

 

As I've often said, the very best description we have of zodiac signs

if from today's Tropical astrologers. They far surpass the old

descriptions which seem to be based on theory rather than

observation.

 

I'd really like to know when you disagree with me. The right kind of

disagreement (without attack or sarcasm) is the best way to keep an

interesting discussion going. Without two sides to a discussion,

there wouldn't be any discussion!

 

Therese

 

 

-- In , jlcur wrote:

 

> Although I don't always agree with Therese, I don't think she is

making

> any extraordinary claims in her comparison of Tropical and Sidereal

> signs. I thought that her view was common among siderealists until

I saw

> the heated discussion going on here. How can there really be any

> argument with what she is saying? The phrase " sign leakage across

> zodiacs " is misleading because it implies that the Tropical and

Sidereal

> zodiacs are two separate and distinct things. If a Sidereal

astrologer

> observes common character traits among a sample of people who were

all

> born on May 1st, he will describe these traits as representative of

the

> nature of the Sun in Aries. A Tropicalist observing the same traits

in

> the same population sample will say that they typify the Sun in

Taurus.

> Assuming both astrologers are making accurate character

observations,

> their descriptions will be identical except for the LABEL each

assigns

> to the Sun's position. But the Sun has the same longitude in the

zodiac

> for everyone in the group, meaning that Tropical Taurus is just

Sidereal

> Aries under a different name. How then can Tropical Taurus and

Sidereal

> Aries NOT have the same characteristics, assuming that these are

derived

> from observation? I'm just paraphrasing here what Cyril Fagan wrote

in

> the introduction to ASTROLOGICAL ORIGINS. Rupert Gleadow made the

same

> points in his book YOUR CHARACTER IN THE ZODIAC. Mr. Gleadow also

notes

> that the meanings of the Sidereal signs have remained constant over

the

> years, while the meanings of the Tropical signs have changed as

> precession has shifted the vernal equinox westward along the

ecliptic.

>

>

> Gary Curtis

>

[Guest guest]

, " therese92003 "

<eastwest wrote: (snip) As I've often said, the very best

description we have of zodiac signs (are) from today's Tropical

astrologers. They far surpass the old descriptions which seem to be

based on theory rather than observation.

 

OK, now you are confusing me! Therese, if the Tropicalists write the

best sign descriptions, which I assume are based on their observations

and practice of astrology, and these sign descriptions surpass the

older " theory-based " or " less-charts-researched-based " ones, how can

these sign-meanings be claimed as " Sidereal-based " rather than

" Tropical based? " I thought that I had thrown all sign concerns into

the trash barrel, but it seems that " signs " are still a contentious

issue for me. Will the real sign meanings please stand up! -- to quote

an old TV show. Dave

[Guest guest]

, " Dave " <dadsnook

wrote:

>

> , " therese92003 "

> <eastwest@> wrote: (snip) As I've often said, the very best

> description we have of zodiac signs (are) from today's Tropical

> astrologers. They far surpass the old descriptions which seem to be

> based on theory rather than observation.

>

> OK, now you are confusing me! Therese, if the Tropicalists write

the

> best sign descriptions, which I assume are based on their

observations

> and practice of astrology, and these sign descriptions surpass the

> older " theory-based " or " less-charts-researched-based " ones, how can

> these sign-meanings be claimed as " Sidereal-based " rather than

> " Tropical based? " I thought that I had thrown all sign concerns

into

> the trash barrel, but it seems that " signs " are still a contentious

> issue for me. Will the real sign meanings please stand up! -- to

quote

> an old TV show.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Hi Dave,

 

First it's important to emphasize a point that Gary made: Traits are

valid as long as they're really there and based on *observation.*

 

Tropical astrologers have observed the signs over the last hundred

years or so. These observations can be anchored within the framework

of the sidereal signs. Tropical astrologers are 'seeing' the sidereal

signs, which they believe belong to a construct called 'The Tropical

Zodiac.' It's as simple as that. (Cyril Fagan's original contention.)

 

A fair number of Tropical sign traits in textbooks are based only on

theory, and these would not be valid in either zodiac. We have a lot

of sorting out to do.

 

Therese