First of all, I'm just a dude. I'm in no way trained in astrology, I haven't studied with anyone who practices professionally, and I don't profess to read charts. Secondly, what I will defend here is not the three sentence blurb near the funnies in the newspaper nor the typical ambiguous and vague interpretations you'll find on many a blog. That said, I've spent quite a few years trying my very best to figure the bases of these interpretations and attempting to demystify a lot of the garbage I've found on the Internet and elsewhere. Many of these so called soft-sciences suffer the ails of subjectivity, and that causes the proliferation of many misconceptions and outright false ideas. In the past few days there have been some articles (Your Zodiac Sign May Have Changed, New Zodiac sign dates: Don't switch your horoscope yet) that have professed a set of "new" zodiac dates. The misconceptions they've inspired are what has inspired me to write this out.
The typical view of astrology may very well be as a set of superstitions or an irrational and false hoo-ha. Many are justified in this view for a myriad of reasons. Typically a horoscope makes a few vague pronouncements that might jog the memory of the reader and seem superficially to jive with some of the recent events in their lives. The ambiguity of good horoscope writing isn't really that far off from the vagaries of good poetry or fiction writing, these things leave gaps for the individual to fill in themselves and that is a lot of the fun. However, to dismiss astrology as a nonscience and a set of practices with no basis in reality and only an interest in profit is both uninformed and irresponsible. Many of the greatest promulgators of modern astronomy and science built their ideas and systems on the discoveries of ancient astrologers. In fact, before the modern era there was scarcely a distinction to be made between the two disciplines.
Unbeknownst to many, there are a tremendous amount of systems, words, and bases of understanding that we rely upon daily that have their basis in astrological observation. In fact, our entire conception of time, the division of our days into hours, the division of our year into months, the division of our months into weeks all have a basis in astrological consideration. The word "month" shares a root with the word "moon." A very simple consideration of the very apparent moon cycle shows the correlation between the near-30-day lunar cycle and our typical month. The division of the year into 12 months is basically a division into 12 lunar periods, or 12 complete lunar cycles. The relations don't stop there. The naming of the days of our week are also derived from this astrological/astronomical consideration. Now, without the modern aids of calendars, digital clocks and the like, it is easy to see why human beings needed to depend upon something as regular as a moon cycle to make predictions about future events. This does not just mean a personal "love forecast." Before modern amenities of weather forecasting and our intensive understanding of the solar cycle, the symbology of the cycles of luminaries are all we had to orient ourselves in time.
Beyond the obvious calendric considerations involved with cycles of luminaries, there are obvious effects of celestial bodies on our planet. The sun's cycle around the zodiac is what defines our seasons and, very literally, allows the cyclic reproduction of animals and vegetation that we depend upon. The effects of the sun's cycle and its relation to the Earth's situation are what make it chilly in the northern hemisphere right now. The correlates don't stop there. The 30-day lunar cycle has quite empirical effects on the Earth. The gravitational pull of this body defines our tides, and if this isn't enough evidence for you to be convinced that a luminary has a tangible effect on life "below," then just look at the numerous plants and animals that tune themselves to the lunar cycle.
Here is the point where we make an extrapolation. While we may not individually feel the gravitational pull of the moon, there are observable changes in the environment around us that demonstrate its effects. The moon is merely one in a system of several, and many much, much larger, luminaries that have very measurable gravitational and resonant effects on our planet and everything that resides upon it. Each of the luminaries that astrology typically concerns itself with (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and sometimes others), goes through a cycle analogous to that of the moon. Each has a synod, or meeting, from our perspective with the Sun (we call this New Moon in the lunar cycle); each has a period of opposition (we call this Full Moon); and each goes through all the infinitesimal stages between in their cycles. At no point is the gravitational or harmonic effects of these planets "turned off" or not applied to our planet. They are ALWAYS effecting us in a dynamic way.
Much of the issue I've taken with the recent articles proclaiming a "new" set of zodiac dates is just that claim of novelty. There are many different schools of astrology, or systems used as a basis for interpreting the positions of the planets. What many fail to note is that, though most horoscopes are interpretations riddled with vagaries, these interpretations are based on the actual positions of the planets. When an astrologer pulls your natal chart and does a reading, they are looking at the scientific, astronomical position of luminaries at the moment of your birth. These facts are just as solid as the pounds and ounces the doctor records on your birth certificate and have a similar import. What astrologers do is study the positions, situations of planets in their cycles and how they relate to a certain time. When a lunar cycle reaches Full Moon, there is the popular feeling that energies are heightened, that behaviors may seem exaggerated. In fact, the words "lunatic" and "lunacy" are quite obviously derived from Luna, or moon. Astrologers apply this popular wisdom to cycles that are less practical on human terms, but are by no means less telling.
The "new" zodiacal dates these articles attempt to propose are really not new at all. Their argument is that our Western astrological systems are not aligned with the constellations themselves, but when these articles proclaim "new" dates, they are merely making a distinction between astrological systems. The basis of the Western astrological system is tropical. This means that the system we are all typically familiar with is set or calibrated according to the seasons. In this system, for example, the first degree of Aries begins the first day of spring, or the day of the vernal equinox. In the same manner summer begins on the summer solstice, or the first degree of Cancer, and so on. Over 2,000 years ago the Greeks, and then Ptolemy shortly afterward, made a conscious decision to define the signs of the zodiac (each a 30-degree section of the 360-degree circle of our orbit) based on the equinoxes. This is different from the sidereal astrological system which holds fast to the actual positions of the constellations. Because of a phenomenon termed the precession of the equinoxes, the actual position of the constellations moves one degree every 72 years. About 2,500 years ago, the constellations as we now define them were aligned exactly with the vernal points. Due to precession this alignment is no longer true and this is the source of the discrepancy between tropical and sidereal systems. This discrepancy of systems is what these articles report, not a literal "new" set of dates.
As I said in the beginning, I have no formal training in any of this. I didn't go to school for astronomy, I haven't studied with any professionals and I've rarely used even a telescope. But the reverence I have for my ancestors and the great women and men of the past forces me personally to respect their views and positions. A dismissal of years of tradition from the very people who allowed my existence via procreation seems both irresponsible and at base disrespectful. While there are many faults in the popular conception of astrology and many out there who use its discontinuity as a basis for profit, there are many aspects of our contemporary lives that find a precedent in astrological/astronomical consideration. In my view, an unfortunate repercussion of the at-heart sincere desire of the Enlightenment is a too-soon dismissal of traditional ideas. An emphasis on building your own understanding via observation and research is a great quality, but I try to be sure not to dismiss all previous ideas so easily. We each owe our existence to all previous generations in a myriad of ways, and the assumption that we, now, in the mere fraction of a lifetime we've been thus far afforded, have substantially better ideas about how to interpret the cosmos seems entirely vain. A practice of humility in the face of the other has been passed down since time immemorial. We in the modern age must remind ourselves that this humility must not only apply to the present, but extend equally into the future and the past. Thanks for listening and much love always.
No comments:
Post a Comment