| I don't know about Cephus, the Whale, but I thought Hercules
had stuck a foot into the zodiacal track and could be thought
of as a 13th sign...Maybe also the Zodiac precesses as Sol
sweeps forwrd on it's own path...I need to know since my wife
is an Oct 6 Libra of earlier vintage. I know for sure she's
afflicted with the inability to take a biased viewpoint, always
weighing both sides of an issue until she drives me, a Scorpio,
to distraction...An aside, I've discovered this fall, once again,
that all the people who I've been spending free time with are
Scorpios, as has happened before, many moons & miles away....MWR
|
| Re .7 (Marcia):
>Idea! Maybe we could get _really_ true to nature here, and create
>"signs" of every constellation along the Ecliptic, awarding each
>sign only the number of degrees and minutes of space that the
>constellation actually takes up in the sky. Some "signs" would
>pracatically vanish, they're so small (Aries), while some of you
>might be dismayed to find that you had suddenly become Scorpios
>or Leos (nice, big, spectacular constellations!).
Sort of "A niche in signs saves mine"? :-D
Actually, the solar/lunar stuff makes sense for a _model_. What
interesting is that the lunar _effect_, such as tides, is significantly
stronger than the solar (steeper gravity gradient, not strength
of attraction). Additionally, there's a male/female aspect to this
stuff (there's an obvious strong linkage between women and the moon;
men seem more solar, though there's some of each in all of us).
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| <<< DMATE2::DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 604.7 Zodiac 14 7 of 10
NATASH::BUTCHART 87 lines 23-DEC-1987 10:02
-< Random Ramblings >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a scoop of sorts so far as I know it.
There have _always_ been more than 12 _constellations_ that comprise
the star patterns in the Zodiac.
But the divisions of the Zodiac that astrology uses are based on
dividing the 360-degree circle into 12 30-degree segments. These
segments only correspond roughly to the positions of the actual
constellations, and due to the precession of the equinoxes, don't
correspond even more than they used to not correspond. Once I learned
the distinction between the actual constellation patterns (which
are right out there in the sky) and the concept of the "signs" of
the Zodiac (a human thought construct roughly based on reality)
I didn't feel driven to modify the system I work with to take those
into account.
Now, some may take issue with the "regularity" of the 12-based system,
believing that a system that purports to help reveal our inner natures
should be more, well, "naturally" based. The most common argument
I have seen is for 13 signs; this would commonly include Ophiucus.
People who feel this way feel there should be some congruity between
the Lunar cycles (13 lunations in a Solar year) and the number of
signs in a Solar year. I feel that the _combination_ of the 12
and 13 represents the complexity of human nature even better. The
Solar year, on which we have imposed our "will" by making it 12
signs is that part of us that strives to be logical, to create order,
to have everything neatly divided and classified with no loose ends
hanging out. The Lunar year is those forces that do not fit, that
are beyond our control, that are more "natural". It the attempt
to work with, to resolve, to live this dual nature that makes being
human so interesting. So I like the 12/13 coexistence; for me it
is rich in symbolism of the human condition.
But let's see--if the Zodiac has 13 signs, then the circle would
be divided by 13. This makes each sign 27 degrees, 41 minutes,
32 seconds in length (note also that there are 27 days or so in
an average lunation). Well, it is "natural", in that it's messy
and does correspond somewhat to the lunar cycling.
If the Zodiac has 14 signs, then the circle would be divided by
14. Each sign would contain 25 degrees, 42 minutes, 51 minutes.
Even messier, and doesn't have the supposed advantages of either
regularity or corresponding to another natural cycle.
There may be some validity to people feeling that they are not
representative of "their" signs. It is possible that including
these two constellations could give them the feel of their niche.
But it is also equally possible that two stronger reasons for not
feeling "appropriately" Libran/Scorpionic/whatever apply:
(1) the astrological system is a model of reality, not reality
itself. This means that there are those who will not fit
the model; they will statistically fall outside the predicted
behavior/thinking/feeling curves that astrology creates.
(2) there are mucho other factors in a chart than the Sun; there
are more factors than Sun, Moon and Rising Sign. It is the
complex combination of _everything_ that makes you who you
are, not just some traditionally important features. If
someone has Capricorn rising, Sun in Cancer and Moon in Libra,
these energies are supposedly the most important ones in the
chart. But if Mercury is in its own sign (Gemini), in its own
house (6th), the final dispositor of the chart, in aspect to
both Sun and Moon, conjunct the planet that rules the Moon and
the chart's Signature (Venus), and is conjunct the South Lunar
Node--well, that Mercury is _powerful_. Such a person may
appear and at times feel more "Geminian" than Cancerian,
Capricornian or Libran. My point is that some of you out
there may have similar dynamics operating.
Idea! Maybe we could get _really_ true to nature here, and create
"signs" of every constellation along the Ecliptic, awarding each
sign only the number of degrees and minutes of space that the
constellation actually takes up in the sky. Some "signs" would
pracatically vanish, they're so small (Aries), while some of you
might be dismayed to find that you had suddenly become Scorpios
or Leos (nice, big, spectacular constellations!). And pity the
poor folk who can only lay claim to the foot of Hercules... :-)
Perhaps we should ask not only what animal you'd be if you could,
but what constellation you'd be if you could. I always liked
Centaurus, myself, and I can't even see it from here. I also love
Cygnus, flying right through the Milky Way.
Marcia
|