I hope this is okay and the right place to open the topic.
As the developing discussion had nothing to do with my Birthdata or the analysis/commentary of my horoscope, I broke away from that thread and tried to find the place that (to me) seemed the logical place to further the discussion.
[In my birthdata thread, we were discussing the work of cemalcicek, perhaps more commonly known as "linchi."]
In that thread, Jim wrote, "As best I can tell, he's not a Siderealist at all. (Unless I missed who you meant.)," which got me wondering, what exactly constitutes being a "siderealist." I read the post on this forum relating to an official statement that seems to be an agreement (however arrived at) as to what generally constitutes "sidereal astrology." From what I took from that article/post, I don't see any fundamental breaks from linchi's approach and the main body of sidereal astrology. The one real difference I see is merely his usage of the Krishnamurti Ayanamsa, instead of Fagan-Bradley. The zodiac he is using IS sidereal, as there is no precession factor, nor is anything reckoned from the Vernal Point.
He is using standard sidereal tools (transits, progressions, sidereal solar and lunar returns, all reckoned sidereally) and the only out-of-the-mainstream idea that he is putting forth, but still would be "sidereal research" in my mind, is the usage of high-ordered harmonics in order to see alignments and connections that aren't normally visibile, in say, an ordinary bi-wheel. So, my ultimate question is...what is he doing that disqualifies him from being a "siderealist"? [I am fairly sure he would also classify himself as a siderealist, since he doesn't use any tropical positions, and (with the above-mentioned exception of high-ordered harmonics), uses pretty much straight-up sidereal techniques.]
Re: "For example, I don't want it to suddenly start appearing on search engines in a way that makes it seem "your destination on the Internet" for AH. (We've already been through a long phase of attracting people who learned we're a great site for discussing natal relocation, but they haven't a clue that they're on a Sidereal site.)"
Thank you for the background information, so I can better see in toto where you're coming from; as it makes your actions/reactions more understandable and less random-seeming. Other than strictly forbidding valid topics of discussion, I can't think of any way to prevent searchbots from building indices with your Forum in them for virtually anything that gets discussed here, at length. [If I had testicular cancer and we talked about the sidereal astrology of it, at length; theoretically, Solunars could end up in a search for "James Alexander's left testicle" and I don't see how it would be actively prevented. Lucky for Solunars, the expected demographic of those seeking info on that topic is infinitesimal, but in general the analogy holds.]
Re: "What does this have to do with Sidereal astrology?"
At first, when seeing the work (linchi's), I didn't really know exactly what the hell I was really looking at or what he was ultimately trying to show. Why are we suddenly in the 16,384th harmonic? What does Uranus/Apollon have to do with anything? A person's Sun is in harmonic relationship with the Sun in their death chart? Always? How do YOU know? etc. HOWEVER, as I've come to see exactly what he is doing and have tested some of these methods on my personal data-collection, I know from my statistics/probabilities background, that he is indeed on to something fundamentally important...and importantly, to me seems 100% rooted in sidereal astrology. ie. if he references a solar return, it's 100% a sidereal one, etc. So I guess my question here is... what doesn't it have to do with sidereal astrology?
Re: "I do know it's been damnably hard to keep your posts on-topic for the site itself."
I can feel your pain. (by your description) My posts are somewhat like me, uncategorizable. lol Ultimately, it comes down to my communication style, perhaps... verbose, rife with analogies and tangents, and as likely to mention my Grandmother's hair color as the key elements of the Battle of Hastings, and on a good day, might include references to both!
One thing for sure, I'm trying hard (from my perspective) to put things where they _belong_ or where it seems to somehow make sense. If I fail, I have no problem with posts being moved, renamed, deleted, or me sitting awhile in the corner as an example. Ultimately, it's about ASTROLOGY and hopefully, an ever-progressing one. Sorry if I somehow paint over the lines, but like any true artist already knows, paint-by-number books aren't aimed at artists.
What constitutes Sidereal Astrology
-
ODdOnLifeItself
- Constellation Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:04 am
-
Jupiter Sets at Dawn
- Irish Member
- Posts: 3522
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 7:03 pm
Re: What constitutes Sidereal Astrology
Sidereal astrology is not sidereal astrology. Mind your caps. Sidereal is copyrighted. "sidereal" has ayanamsas. Sidereal does not. It uses the actual zodiac.
There are thousands of pages explaining this stuff to anyone who comes here. Or you could download Jim's Sidereal Mundane Astrology and read the first few chapters. Take a look at the pages linked on the bottom of this page https://solunars.org/ Look at this thread viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2259
Please read the referenced material first and save up your questions till you've found out what you're asking about.
There are thousands of pages explaining this stuff to anyone who comes here. Or you could download Jim's Sidereal Mundane Astrology and read the first few chapters. Take a look at the pages linked on the bottom of this page https://solunars.org/ Look at this thread viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2259
Please read the referenced material first and save up your questions till you've found out what you're asking about.
-
Jim Eshelman
- Are You Sirius?
- Posts: 19078
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Re: What constitutes Sidereal Astrology
James, thanks for engaging in the struggle and for (it seems) understanding some of the things a forum administrator has to juggle. There need to be lines to define what the site is all about, what distinguishes it from some other venue. These lines shift over time, get bent or relaxed a lot, but still fundamentally shape us, providing a useful, shaping tension.
You found the most important thread on the site for basic definitions. (The history of the Points of Agreement is listed in that thread: I recovered an old starting point that Gary Duncan helped the founders of ROSA put together, brought it up to date, and offered it as an evolving community consensus document.) It is useful to say clearly what we are and what we aren't, with enormous room in the middle.
This, of course, is a fundamental "useful tension" of science. There isn't at all universal agreement among scientists on millions of different things, and professional scientists are constantly competing with each other and fighting the boundaries to distinguish themselves and uncover new things, or better articulations of old, somewhat settled things. Nonetheless, at any given moment, wide (approaching universal) agreement exists on certain core principles that comprise the body of, say, what should be taught in science text books. This is never with the idea that it is the be-all and end-all or the final word - just that, at the moment, it is the word.
Probably it is my Virgo mindset: I adore the idea that, at a given moment, we have a coherent working definition that is our best articulation to date and which frees us completely to investigate outside that model - as long as we strive to keep the two distinct: Stable working model defined in its own terms, new investigation published in its own place. - I always try to make my level of uncertainty clear when writing about anything outside the current paradigm.
JSAD touched possibly the most important point: distinguishing sidereal from Sidereal. For clarity, I began capitalizing Sidereal - using it as a proper noun - to mean the coherent system called "Sidereal Astrology." The first line in the Points of Agreement makes clear that this is explicitly the system forged by Fagan and Bradley with the help of their first generation co-workers. One of the next lines of the Points makes clear that the system didn't calcify or die with them, but is living, breathing, and growing - has already gone past them, just as they wouldn't be stuck in the same place, if they were alive and thriving today, that they were in the 1970s.
Many other things can be called sidereal in the (common noun) sense of aprecessional. For example, using the Tropical zodiac and adjusting for precession before calculating a return or transits, is sidereal (aprecessional). It isn't, however, Sidereal. It isn't "Sidereal Astrology" anymore than than all use of midpoints on a 90° dial is Cosmobiology - the Ebertin school is entitled to its own definitions and integrity - or anymore than plugging TNPs into a chart automatically makes it Uranian astrology.
One of the firmest lines we draw is not confusing Sidereal Astrology with Hindu ("vedic") astrology. Yes, India uses a sidereal (aprecessional) zodiac - many to choose from, in fact. But they don't use the same zodiac we do (which undercuts various things, emphatically in mundane astrology) and their general methodology is barely recognizable compared to ours - nearly every fundamental being different. While isolated Hindu astrology techniques and structures seem worthy of further exploration (Fagan's exploration of the Navamsa that led to uncovering the Novien, the continuing suspicion that there is something important about the Dasa-Bhukti system, the continuing curiosity about whether the zodiac is objectively segmented into the Nakshatras, etc.), these can be investigated independently of embracing an entire system that is mostly unrecognizable compared to what we are doing.
I have great respect for people like James Braha who have worked to make those ancient systems more accessible (and James, Virgo that he is, has always been incredibly sensible in his approach). Nonetheless, Sidereal astrology has much more in common with Tropical astrology (especially those Tropical astrologers who neglect or barely rely on houses, are constrained in their use of aspects, and base sign interpretations more on observation than theory) than it does with any approach to Hindu astrology. In fact, if the Ebertins had used the Sidereal zodiac (instead of mostly using no zodiac at all), few important things would distinguish us.
So... that's what we mean by Sidereal in contrast to sidereal.
Other than the physical existence of the planets, there is no single astrological fact that we know with greater certainty than where the boundaries of the zodiac fall; and yet, the majority of astrologers are oblivious to this or neglectful of this. I could think very badly of them or I could, instead, recognize that the persuasive evidence hasn't been presented to them in a way that remains available to most people and is comprehensible. I hope to correct that before I die, and still have no expectation of the vast astrological masses converting to this most fundamental fact during my lifetime. Nonetheless, I have to give it my best. If that line (of recognizing the correct zodiac) is crossed, we might be ready to stop talking about "different kinds of astrology" and just start talking about astrology. Until then, though, we have to keep labelling solar returns as Sidereal Solar Returns, have to keep talking about the zodiac in ways that wrongly imply there are alternatives, and all the rest.
Within this, though we need to maintain collegiality in the best spirit of science (not necessarily the way it always works out "in the streets" of academia), maintaining respectful human contact coexisting with willingness to disagree impersonally. It is one thing for me to say that all evidence available to me decisively shows that the Tropical zodiac doesn't exist in nature at all and that the Sidereal zodiac, as defined by the Synetic Vernal Point, is most definitely an objective, natural reality known within a variance of 1"-2"; it would be another (and less useful) thing for me to disparage Tropical astrologers per se. That would merely alienate us from the people we want to reach and deny the science of astrology a baptism of passionate engagement.
BTW I'm certain that the astrology we will practice in 50 years is not astrology as we practice now. I have some intimations of which way that is going, but, by definition, I mostly don't have a clue. (It might even have something to do with micro-harmonics; or it might not.) Similarly, what we are doing today (and how we are doing it) is almost unrecognizable compared to how astrology was generally done 50 years ago.
You found the most important thread on the site for basic definitions. (The history of the Points of Agreement is listed in that thread: I recovered an old starting point that Gary Duncan helped the founders of ROSA put together, brought it up to date, and offered it as an evolving community consensus document.) It is useful to say clearly what we are and what we aren't, with enormous room in the middle.
This, of course, is a fundamental "useful tension" of science. There isn't at all universal agreement among scientists on millions of different things, and professional scientists are constantly competing with each other and fighting the boundaries to distinguish themselves and uncover new things, or better articulations of old, somewhat settled things. Nonetheless, at any given moment, wide (approaching universal) agreement exists on certain core principles that comprise the body of, say, what should be taught in science text books. This is never with the idea that it is the be-all and end-all or the final word - just that, at the moment, it is the word.
Probably it is my Virgo mindset: I adore the idea that, at a given moment, we have a coherent working definition that is our best articulation to date and which frees us completely to investigate outside that model - as long as we strive to keep the two distinct: Stable working model defined in its own terms, new investigation published in its own place. - I always try to make my level of uncertainty clear when writing about anything outside the current paradigm.
JSAD touched possibly the most important point: distinguishing sidereal from Sidereal. For clarity, I began capitalizing Sidereal - using it as a proper noun - to mean the coherent system called "Sidereal Astrology." The first line in the Points of Agreement makes clear that this is explicitly the system forged by Fagan and Bradley with the help of their first generation co-workers. One of the next lines of the Points makes clear that the system didn't calcify or die with them, but is living, breathing, and growing - has already gone past them, just as they wouldn't be stuck in the same place, if they were alive and thriving today, that they were in the 1970s.
Many other things can be called sidereal in the (common noun) sense of aprecessional. For example, using the Tropical zodiac and adjusting for precession before calculating a return or transits, is sidereal (aprecessional). It isn't, however, Sidereal. It isn't "Sidereal Astrology" anymore than than all use of midpoints on a 90° dial is Cosmobiology - the Ebertin school is entitled to its own definitions and integrity - or anymore than plugging TNPs into a chart automatically makes it Uranian astrology.
One of the firmest lines we draw is not confusing Sidereal Astrology with Hindu ("vedic") astrology. Yes, India uses a sidereal (aprecessional) zodiac - many to choose from, in fact. But they don't use the same zodiac we do (which undercuts various things, emphatically in mundane astrology) and their general methodology is barely recognizable compared to ours - nearly every fundamental being different. While isolated Hindu astrology techniques and structures seem worthy of further exploration (Fagan's exploration of the Navamsa that led to uncovering the Novien, the continuing suspicion that there is something important about the Dasa-Bhukti system, the continuing curiosity about whether the zodiac is objectively segmented into the Nakshatras, etc.), these can be investigated independently of embracing an entire system that is mostly unrecognizable compared to what we are doing.
I have great respect for people like James Braha who have worked to make those ancient systems more accessible (and James, Virgo that he is, has always been incredibly sensible in his approach). Nonetheless, Sidereal astrology has much more in common with Tropical astrology (especially those Tropical astrologers who neglect or barely rely on houses, are constrained in their use of aspects, and base sign interpretations more on observation than theory) than it does with any approach to Hindu astrology. In fact, if the Ebertins had used the Sidereal zodiac (instead of mostly using no zodiac at all), few important things would distinguish us.
So... that's what we mean by Sidereal in contrast to sidereal.
Other than the physical existence of the planets, there is no single astrological fact that we know with greater certainty than where the boundaries of the zodiac fall; and yet, the majority of astrologers are oblivious to this or neglectful of this. I could think very badly of them or I could, instead, recognize that the persuasive evidence hasn't been presented to them in a way that remains available to most people and is comprehensible. I hope to correct that before I die, and still have no expectation of the vast astrological masses converting to this most fundamental fact during my lifetime. Nonetheless, I have to give it my best. If that line (of recognizing the correct zodiac) is crossed, we might be ready to stop talking about "different kinds of astrology" and just start talking about astrology. Until then, though, we have to keep labelling solar returns as Sidereal Solar Returns, have to keep talking about the zodiac in ways that wrongly imply there are alternatives, and all the rest.
Within this, though we need to maintain collegiality in the best spirit of science (not necessarily the way it always works out "in the streets" of academia), maintaining respectful human contact coexisting with willingness to disagree impersonally. It is one thing for me to say that all evidence available to me decisively shows that the Tropical zodiac doesn't exist in nature at all and that the Sidereal zodiac, as defined by the Synetic Vernal Point, is most definitely an objective, natural reality known within a variance of 1"-2"; it would be another (and less useful) thing for me to disparage Tropical astrologers per se. That would merely alienate us from the people we want to reach and deny the science of astrology a baptism of passionate engagement.
BTW I'm certain that the astrology we will practice in 50 years is not astrology as we practice now. I have some intimations of which way that is going, but, by definition, I mostly don't have a clue. (It might even have something to do with micro-harmonics; or it might not.) Similarly, what we are doing today (and how we are doing it) is almost unrecognizable compared to how astrology was generally done 50 years ago.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com
www.jeshelman.com
-
ODdOnLifeItself
- Constellation Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:04 am
Re: What constitutes Sidereal Astrology
Thanks for the well thought out reply. It was interesting and informative!
Additionally, thank you for (from my perspective) seeing me as a seeker of knowledge/wisdom and potential teacher (for some), not some stick in the mud that just doesn't get it. If it's explained, I will get it. That has been my universal experience.
The difference between Sidereal and sidereal underscores and explains your original statement so that I can see it as true.
Though linchi isn't practicing Sidereal astrology (I want to capitalize astrology as well, for some reason, but I almost always do that in reverence anyway), I do think that his studies have a high potential of impacting it significantly in the future. As a simple example, Jim, if his assertion that the Suns of people who are deeply-related are always in harmonic sync with each other (ie. null-orb astrology, practically), it gives an amazing tool for analysis of any given relationship (where there might be doubts) and because of the nature of high-ordered harmonics, could lead to a method of one-event rectification with extremely high accuracy.
I only lament that his potential influence doesn't only hang on the magnitude of usability or overall importance of his findings, but also on the level of others' willingness to study it, confirm it, and potentially adopt elements of it. [something that has an analogy in your trying to make the Fagan-Bradley zodiacal-orientation framework something that all astrologers find value in, though often meeting resistance or downright negation]
Re: Hindu/Vedic vs. Sidereal astrology
Yes, I can see how the two aren't really even fundamentally related. Linchi's work is one hundred times closer to Sidereal astrology than Vedic, though technically not being either.
Re: Respectful contact
Yes, we can always agree or disagree, but important is that we all get along in a civilized manner, despite our relevant differences.
Here's to a constantly-improving astrology, I think we can all get behind that, at least as a concept. Cheers.
Additionally, thank you for (from my perspective) seeing me as a seeker of knowledge/wisdom and potential teacher (for some), not some stick in the mud that just doesn't get it. If it's explained, I will get it. That has been my universal experience.
The difference between Sidereal and sidereal underscores and explains your original statement so that I can see it as true.
Though linchi isn't practicing Sidereal astrology (I want to capitalize astrology as well, for some reason, but I almost always do that in reverence anyway), I do think that his studies have a high potential of impacting it significantly in the future. As a simple example, Jim, if his assertion that the Suns of people who are deeply-related are always in harmonic sync with each other (ie. null-orb astrology, practically), it gives an amazing tool for analysis of any given relationship (where there might be doubts) and because of the nature of high-ordered harmonics, could lead to a method of one-event rectification with extremely high accuracy.
I only lament that his potential influence doesn't only hang on the magnitude of usability or overall importance of his findings, but also on the level of others' willingness to study it, confirm it, and potentially adopt elements of it. [something that has an analogy in your trying to make the Fagan-Bradley zodiacal-orientation framework something that all astrologers find value in, though often meeting resistance or downright negation]
Re: Hindu/Vedic vs. Sidereal astrology
Yes, I can see how the two aren't really even fundamentally related. Linchi's work is one hundred times closer to Sidereal astrology than Vedic, though technically not being either.
Re: Respectful contact
Yes, we can always agree or disagree, but important is that we all get along in a civilized manner, despite our relevant differences.
Here's to a constantly-improving astrology, I think we can all get behind that, at least as a concept. Cheers.
Re: What constitutes Sidereal Astrology
I learned Sidereal Astrology from Fagan's/Firebrace book "Primer of Sidereal Astrology." Other than a longer discourse on Sidereal Mundane Astrology and possibly Mundane aspects, I can't think of a better way than this book which explains what "constitutes" the basics of Sidereal Astrology. I include Sidereal Mundane Astrology, because without Bradley's discourse into Sidereal Mundane Astrology, Bradley would never have developed the Synetic Vernal Point which in turn would never have calculated the Fagan/*Allen Sidereal Zodiac. In other words the equal 12 30-degree divisions of the Sidereal Zodiac viewed in the night skies.
* Allen being Donald Bradley.
* Allen being Donald Bradley.
-
mikestar13
- Sidereal Field Agent
- Posts: 943
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm
Re: What constitutes Sidereal Astrology
I started learning Sidereal astrology from the pages of American Astrology magazine, the the primer was one of the first books I bought (the very first was the book of Fagan's Solunars column). Of course I had Jim's New Instant Astrologer and I bought Interpreting Solar Returns the month it was published.
I would consider these works, and additional works by Ken Bowser to be the core writings of Fagan/Bradley Sidereal astrology.
ODdOnLifeItself, I want to commend your last post to this thread. It manifest a significantly more teachable spirit than I've seen previously, and gives me hope you may yet become a valued member of the Solunars community, which I must admit is contrary to my initial impression of you. I would be happy indeed if you prove my initial assessment wrong.
I would consider these works, and additional works by Ken Bowser to be the core writings of Fagan/Bradley Sidereal astrology.
ODdOnLifeItself, I want to commend your last post to this thread. It manifest a significantly more teachable spirit than I've seen previously, and gives me hope you may yet become a valued member of the Solunars community, which I must admit is contrary to my initial impression of you. I would be happy indeed if you prove my initial assessment wrong.
Time matters
-
Jupiter Sets at Dawn
- Irish Member
- Posts: 3522
- Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 7:03 pm
Re: What constitutes Sidereal Astrology
I would add Donald Bradley (Garth Allen) in his book on Lunar Returns and his articles in American Astrology as another foundation of Sidereal thought. We also have issues of Firebrace's Spica for perusing here on this forum.
I agree with Mike. You're showing a better attitude than previously. I'm still a little concerned because I knew you had come here intending to teach, and despite several tries from me and others, you still hadn't grasped this isn't Indian/Hindu/whatever astrology or anything close but kept trying. I hope you prove my initial assessment wrong as well.
I agree with Mike. You're showing a better attitude than previously. I'm still a little concerned because I knew you had come here intending to teach, and despite several tries from me and others, you still hadn't grasped this isn't Indian/Hindu/whatever astrology or anything close but kept trying. I hope you prove my initial assessment wrong as well.
-
ODdOnLifeItself
- Constellation Member
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:04 am
Re: What constitutes Sidereal Astrology
Thanks for the nice comments. 
I'm still me, so only perspectives have changed. Still, I can understand what you are saying. (the spirit of the posts are more embracing)
As I was attempting to discuss a couple of things that I have invested a lot of time studying and have seen universal confirmation in, I likely came across too teacher-studentish and I apologize for that. I'd like to update the word "teach" (JSAD) with "share," because it's closer to what I feel is actually happening. When the topic was age harmonics (studied in-depth for more than a decade) or linchi's work (studied only months, but looked at by using his methods with MY charts), it basically had to be that way, as most (no criticism meant) are relative novices IN THOSE METHODS. In every single chart that I've been confident the birthtime is extremely tight, the age harmonics have been (even eerily) right on target. [Example: Malcolm X's house is firebombed right as a Mars-IC aspect forms? His Father dies in a streetcar incident as Mars conjoins the MC? His Mom is declared insane as Uranus opposes the Midheaven? For a technique that someone might call highly questionable that hadn't studied the technique in-depth, there's nothing questionable about the symbolism and synchronicity of events...and we (Isaac and I) have seen this in HUNDREDS of charts for THOUSANDS of analyzed events.]
My overall opinion is that if a group of people are using techniques X,Y, and Z, it can't be a negative (ie. not much damage could be done) to at least expose them to techniques P,Q,R, and S if those have been found functional/useful.
To perhaps calm the room, let me state unequivocally, that I have no desire in the least to change Sidereal Astrology. I don't have a dog in that race.
However, showing things that I've found to work, to other astrologers that I don't think are as familiar with those techniques, has a much higher potential for a positive outcome than a negative one. (not that I might not also receive the ire of those who see blasphemy) lol
I'm still me, so only perspectives have changed. Still, I can understand what you are saying. (the spirit of the posts are more embracing)
As I was attempting to discuss a couple of things that I have invested a lot of time studying and have seen universal confirmation in, I likely came across too teacher-studentish and I apologize for that. I'd like to update the word "teach" (JSAD) with "share," because it's closer to what I feel is actually happening. When the topic was age harmonics (studied in-depth for more than a decade) or linchi's work (studied only months, but looked at by using his methods with MY charts), it basically had to be that way, as most (no criticism meant) are relative novices IN THOSE METHODS. In every single chart that I've been confident the birthtime is extremely tight, the age harmonics have been (even eerily) right on target. [Example: Malcolm X's house is firebombed right as a Mars-IC aspect forms? His Father dies in a streetcar incident as Mars conjoins the MC? His Mom is declared insane as Uranus opposes the Midheaven? For a technique that someone might call highly questionable that hadn't studied the technique in-depth, there's nothing questionable about the symbolism and synchronicity of events...and we (Isaac and I) have seen this in HUNDREDS of charts for THOUSANDS of analyzed events.]
My overall opinion is that if a group of people are using techniques X,Y, and Z, it can't be a negative (ie. not much damage could be done) to at least expose them to techniques P,Q,R, and S if those have been found functional/useful.
To perhaps calm the room, let me state unequivocally, that I have no desire in the least to change Sidereal Astrology. I don't have a dog in that race.
However, showing things that I've found to work, to other astrologers that I don't think are as familiar with those techniques, has a much higher potential for a positive outcome than a negative one. (not that I might not also receive the ire of those who see blasphemy) lol