home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.astrology
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!dxcern!vxcrna.cern.ch!casper
- From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
- Subject: Re: StarSigns??
- Message-ID: <28JAN199323094744@vxcrna.cern.ch>
- News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
- Sender: news@dxcern.cern.ch (USENET News System)
- Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
- References: <rigking.1.727962487@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> <30956@castle.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:09:00 GMT
- Lines: 63
-
- 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
-
-