Astrology

[elderos]

So far I've yet to find a thread on Astrology around here. Astrology holds a very special place in my heart. While I was studying astrophysics in the university, a fellow student in a Medieval Philosophy course introduced me to occultism, Hermeticism, and most notably astrology! The horoscope he gave was too astoundingly accurate and several "events" happened within a very short 2-day window in very intense moments of my life.

Since then (3 years ago) I have been studying the art of astrology heavily. Also, as a student in Astrophysics, the legitimacy of astrology has profound implications when you look at the whole picture. A star isn't just a star! It has a life of its own, the cycles of which a star goes through are intricate and beautiful.

I think current astrologers are thinking too much inside the box. Why does our sun's placement within one of 12, 30 degree zodiacal "sectors" matter? It's a very broad and misleading approach for many people. I say, the truth lies in the constellations themselves. That's right, the individual stars. There is nothing wrong with the zodiac, in fact, I think that metaphysically they are a good general approach. But if one wanted to truly unlock the secrets of the universe, the answer lies in the secrets of the fixed stars.

But, you may ask, HOW are we supposed to know any metaphysical information about the individual fixed stars??

Surprisingly, during the Islamic renaissance of around 800-1300AD Islamic astronomers had compiled metaphysical information on around 290 stars (the brightest stars to our naked eye.) This information was based on ancient sources of the Babylonian Era and whatnot.

Here is a list of the stars! I highly recommend a good read.
http://www.constellationsofwords.com/st ... phabet.htm

The STRANGEST thing I noticed when I started my study in constellation astrology was that one's "star" and all its metaphysical properties was directly proportional to their overall horoscope attributes. That is to say, the star that was closest to the Sun on the date of their birth was, to a degree, almost directly proportional to their overall planet spread, from Mercury to Saturn. As above, so below, right?

Can I explain why this happens? Well, I can theorize all day but there will never be physical proof. When science is meddling with psychology, things tend to get muddy and people get suspicious.

The reason I have such an infatuation with Astrology is that it literally puts Hermeticism to the test. "As above, so below." Just as we go through consciousness change, so do the stars themselves. I cannot stress more than enough to say that the lifetime of a Star is just as dynamic and unpredictable as our own consciousness! The implication of its' process being intricately connected with Earth and its inhabitants is both beautiful and scary.

So I'd like yall's opinions on this thread/topic! And if anyone's willing, I'd love to give an individual horoscope using constellational astrology [happyface]

[Nepthys]

That is an amazingly profound insight, no less because the boundaries between the constellations are seemingly arbitrary (especially considering there's TECHNICALLY a thirteenth constellation for the zodiac) and no two astrologers can seem to agree where exactly the borders fall. To top it off, the dates of each sign are associated with the Tropical Zodiac which was fixed by the Babylonians thousands of years ago, versus the Sidereal Zodiac which represents the real placement of the constellations on the day of your birth (again...disagreement). What you are proposing actually seems to bypass a lot of the debate as far as constellation boundaries and number of constellations since you're looking at individual stars. This also seems to be a way to approaching the way Chinese astrology works, which not only includes the visible planets but various stars and comets in their overall horoscopes.

Because of the internal disagreements and contradictions within mainstream astrology, I have never really given it much thought. I've had a chart done here and there (my birthchart looks like God got drunk and puked it up. lol. Technically virgo. Lots of planets in aries and gemini, so I'm one of the least stable but HORRIBLY, MILITANTLY neurotic virgos you'll ever meet lol) but have never really relied on astrology in the same way I rely on tarot. But if you wanna give it a shot, I'd love to see what your constellation astrology produces.

[elderos]

The argument of Sidereal (Babylonian, Vedic, Arabic) astrology vs. the Tropical (greek and western) astrology is so misunderstood, as there is no argument really whatsoever! It's like trying to compare Physicists and Chemists; they both learn about the exact same processes but in completely different ways. Babylonian astrology was very much akin to focusing on the fixed stars. Vedic is heavily influenced by the moon sign and uses Sidereal (not taking the procession of the equinoxes and seasons into account.) Tropical astrology is fixed on the seasons, but what it comes down to is that their actual interpretations are so different. It's impossible to do someone's Vedic horoscope in terms of Greek mythology.

There are a couple of really cool implications that constellational astrology can carry. It makes me giddy just fantasizing about it.
1. Consider a star's own evolution symbolizes evolution of a "bubble" of consciousness at it's vantage point, lets say Earth.
2. If this is true, location of consciousness and the time at which it is birthed and progresses is very much akin to a giant slow-moving key that is the birth, death, and rebirth of a certain consciousness (earth)
3. Every star is also relative in time to another object (ie, Earth,) the light imput you get from the night sky is ages old.
4. Every star is also relative to the stars you see at night and those you don't see, like a giant cog of experiencing eachother within their own relativistic location in space and time.
5. Supernovas, freaking supernovas. The most randomly occurring astronomical event that can be witnessed in sheer amounts of spectacular and energy. If fixed stars are astronomically significant, shouldn't their explosive deaths be important as well?

All these points are very speculative but also remind me that it's totally ok to walk outside on a clear night and literally marvel at the stars. Modern astronomy and cosmology has *so* many holes. Studying cosmology in the university has only revealed one thing to me: That we don't a single thing about this universe.

[elderos]

sorry for replying to myself but, it just clicked. Here I am talking about all the implications of individual stars with comparison to their own lifetimes and ours, and not doing anything about it. I went outside for a cig, then suddenly realized there is so much I can do right now:

Most, if not all of Astrophysics right now is based on observations of a star's spectrum in different waves of the EM field as well as it's luminosity, and whether it's going away from us, or coming toward us; (red vs. blue star.) The star's mass, point in its cycle, etc, is derived from these three variables through numerous equations and chemistry.

If I really wanted to even begin making metaphysical connections, I need to start with applying those attributes over the Zodiac via graph. Graphing the stars' various properties to the equatorial. With our current knowledge and data this is a piece of cake. But is there a single physicist that is going out of his way to connect some strange esoteric knowledge with modern astronomy and cosmology? No. I can only hope I'm on to something here, but even if I'm not, perhaps the graphs will reveal something I had not ever been seen before. [happyface]