SteveS wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 8:09 am
Thanks Jim, it was difficult for me to understand exactly what the author was doing with his methodology
That's utterly fair and understandable. Almost nobody would understand what he was saying. (I hadn't read it in decades and reread most of it this morning - I
barely understood it without going forward and backward a lot.) You have to understand the methods he uses (the Topocentric house system) and his view of the theory behind it. You then have to trace word for word his astronomical arguments and follow the logic.
I have to admit up front that I'm not a fan of Polich's writings. Even allowing some leeway because his articles are translations from Spanish, he always seems to use sloppy logic at best. Nonetheless, I long ago read his book on the whole system (though I can't promise my retention is perfect at this point; in fact, I'm sure it's not) and I can follow (slowly, tediously what he says at the front). I remember the first time I read this article (when the issue came out) being dazzled by the Sputnik thing until I actually went back and forced myself to understand what he was saying.
So... first... allowing him the most leeway... we have to start by remembering that the Aquarius Age is that period of time when the vernal point is in Aquarius. The only meaningful "Aquarius" is Siderereal Aquarius. Barring a shift in Earth's axis, there is no doubt at all when the vernal point will be in Sidereal Aquarius. It's a certainty. - In fact, it's what Polich calls the
astronomical definition of the Age of Aquarius.
Anyone can define any other sort of "era" they want but if it is not EXACTLY the time the vernal equinox is in Aquarius, it's not the thing that has always been called "Aquarian Age." If you want to define it differently, just call it something else and don't confuse people. Tropical astrologers have always had a problem defining the Aquarius Age because they first need an "Aquarius" that is something other than the Tropical Aquarius they recognize
So... giving Polich maximum benefit of the doubt... he is pursuing something else that is NOT what has always been meant by the Aquarian Age. Fine. For the moment I'll call it the Polich Era.
BTW, if I were to
carefully address this article, it would take me days, or maybe weeks, to inch my way through. (I'm not going to do that, of course.) I mention this just because a lot of what I'll say below is simplistic. I tried to find key "trigger points."
The first thing I should mention, then, is that Poli h made numerous factual errors in his astronomical statements in the early pages. They're just wrong. It would take an entire morning to list them and say why they're wrong. He just doesn't have correct information and concepts about many areas of astronomy on which he writes. This is unfortunate for the case he is making: He actually doesn't need much of this to make his case so it has the impression of just being a smoke screen of unrelated (wrong) facts.
Part of his argument that I think probably IS relevant, though, is that he insists on the legitimacy of the Tropical zodiac. I dispute this completely: There is no legitimacy of any kind to the Tropical zodiac as a zodiac. -- This insistence sets up his conclusion that there was something magical in 220 AD when "the two zodiacs matched." There are not two zodiacs, and they didn't "match"; rather, the Tropical zodiac that was barely thought through at the time started from one or another place near the start of the real (i.e., Sidereal Aries) and, therefore, was given its name. - Unless you accept that there are two zodiacs working independently, that they preexisted the last two thousand years in some way that makes their "convergence" (sic) in 220 magical and special, then one of Polich's basic premises fails and his whole argument fails.
As an aside, he makes the astonishing claim that the Sidereal zodiac refers only to inorganic things, and only the Tropical zodiac refers to organic (living) things (like humans). His argument for the Polich Era (his pseudo-Aquarius Age) is that Garth Allen correctly identified the one that pertains to inorganic phenomena on Earth but we need find the
other one that refers to people.
(Stopping to catch my breath.)
I was going to write out a summary of his thesis. I'm certain I can't do this in a short space (and might leave out something important.) I'll settle for this: It has nothing AT ALL to do with any equinoctial point being in anything that anyone calls Aquarius.
but I figured Firebrace would not have published this article if he had not checked the math used for the methodology.
Roy liked to publish new ideas and give them a chance to find life. He published a lot of stuff he wasn't sure about himself. If you read Roy's editorial a few pages earlier, he essentially says that i this case. At the end of that, he says:
I must say, however, that on one point I find myself in disagreement with Polich. He favours two zodiacs and gives his reasons for this. Personally, as my readers know, I can find no reason for advocating two zodiacs, one is enough for me, and ihat one is the sidereal. However, if I claim freedom for myself in choice of zodiacs I must and do give freedom to others to use the zodiac of their choice.
It is obvious to me the so-called age of Aquarius has been going on (started) for years in full force, and this article is the only one that I have read that explains why it started before the actual beginning of the Precessional Age of Aquarius which begins at 30 degrees Aquarius in 2376 AD according to the great Sidereal work done by Fagan/Bradley.
It's not obvious to me as it is to you. Despite the brief hint during the mid-to-late '60s that we might be moving into such a space, as an Aquarian I think that little about the world in which we live is Aquarian in values and orientation at all, while the way we go about things remains painfully Piscian.
Anyway, this is part of the beauty of
Spica. It was always on the edge, toying with new things while standing firmly as a creative voice of Sideral astrology.
