More Clay Reed's AA articles
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:21 am
Being a Siderealist, let me say, I do not post the following to create any kind of controversy. I am only trying to possibly learn something I don’t fully understand, which may or may not be important. Right or Wrong, I am always ‘pushing the envelope’ for possible personal learning purposes.
Clay Reed posted in the March 1992 AA issue, titled: The Tropical/Sidereal Solution—Part 2, something that intrigues me. I don’t know if this post will fully explain Clay’s full article, but I will attempt to state what I think he is trying to convey to Siderealists.
I think Clay is saying Siderealists have overlooked something very important pertaining to Parans with the Tropical Declination Zodiac, but again, I don't have enough knowledge to fully understand what Clay sees with his work.
Clay writes:
Clay’s conclusion on the above matter:
To be continued from a “wilder” theory by Clay, which I think is good food for thought about sign rulership pertaining to the Sidereal/Tropical issue.
Clay Reed posted in the March 1992 AA issue, titled: The Tropical/Sidereal Solution—Part 2, something that intrigues me. I don’t know if this post will fully explain Clay’s full article, but I will attempt to state what I think he is trying to convey to Siderealists.
I think Clay is saying Siderealists have overlooked something very important pertaining to Parans with the Tropical Declination Zodiac, but again, I don't have enough knowledge to fully understand what Clay sees with his work.
Clay writes:
Then Clay goes into a discourse about the importance of parans and how they are recognized on ACG/CCG maps.I come not to bury the Tropical zodiac, but to praise it! Not the phony and absurd “Tropical longitude zodiac,” however, but rather the true Tropical declination zodiac. After their Tropical-to- Sidereal conversions, Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley (late great writers for American Astrology magazine) never failed to ridicule the notion of a Tropical zodiac. For all their scholarship and erudition, though, they completely missed the fact that the Tropical coordinate, declination, provides a meaningful interpretative function which has no Sidereal equivalent. This mistake, I believe, is attributable to the fact that Astro*Carto*Graphy and Cyclo*Carto*Graphy were not fully developed during Fagan’s or Bradley’s lifetime. Though Bradley drew up several proto A*C*G maps (none of which were for natal charts), he saw at most a handful of such charts, and certainly no C*C*G maps at all. Had Fagan and Bradley been thoroughly exposed to these maps, they would have certainly modified their dogmatic assertion that all Tropical zodiacs are, ipso facto, meaningless.
Clay’s conclusion on the above matter:
So, my conclusion is that celestial longitude should be divided relative to Sidereal coordinates; and the Tropical zodiac signs should be based on declination, which, in essence, they are. Finally, Fagan and Bradley were incorrect in two significant respects: 1) A Tropical zodiac does in fact make sense, because a Sidereal zodiac cannot measure the global “paran” function; and 2) both a Sidereal and Tropical zodiac could be relevant and meaningful simultaneously.
To be continued from a “wilder” theory by Clay, which I think is good food for thought about sign rulership pertaining to the Sidereal/Tropical issue.