Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:41, 22 March 2008

Astrology Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AstrologyWikipedia:WikiProject AstrologyTemplate:WikiProject Astrologyastrology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I am fascinated to see the dates given here ... the ages, as I have come to understand them, apparently don't follow the astronomy exactly. I have learned that the age of Pisces was initiated with the “Christ” Jesus, the fish, and probably not with his birth, or perhaps not even his baptism or death, perhaps simply his entire being here on the physical Earth. The era of Pisces was closed with the “Mahatma” Gandhi (1914 ce). From my own analysis I surmise that the age of Aries, the ram, was initiated with Abram (Abraham) when he was given the ram to sacrifice to God (ca.1990 bce). Before that was the age of Taurus, and of coarse the common element of worship was the Bull or golden calf, a representation of the Ba’alim.

As this is one of my current research projects, I plan on having more exact information, and references, in the near future.

Great leaders of humanity (as you mentioned; that came from time to time in different regions to different races, in the whole an westward movement as it can be studied through history) seem to appear previously to the world entrance in the Age that they announce/bring (during what may be called the 'Orb of Influence' of the new age to come); as a baby slowly evolves in the mother's uterus before his birth/entrance into the world. --GalaazV 20:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Age of Pisces and Age of Aquarius

Gathered all data from the articles into these one since there was not much data to mantain separate articles. The previous articles redirect to this one. On the other hand, the user can read how calculations about astrological ages in astrology are made.

There are now a number of circular links in the article. Age of Pisces and Age of Aquarius links on the page go back to this article. Please clean them up kthxbye :-) --RevWaldo 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated the article

To include all the ages that I could find through research. I am certainly no astrology expert so if you have knowlege do include it. --Drewry 06:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello; I will aid with my limited knowledge on this field. As there seems not to exist, yet, a public clearly authority source in astrological ages we should include and explain all sourced perspectives available, at least the main ones. Starting with the graphic now in the article, it presents a specific perspective that may induce readers to assume it is the official perspective, however there is no 'official' perspective at this time. There are perspectives from astronomy, branch of science, or from astrology or esotericism; so I will remove it. However, the grafic from the same page would be a very good alternative as it just presents the constellations in the sideral zodiac and it has a very neutral description; however it seems to be under copywright :(.

Hey, you know I thought about using that one, but I thought maybe it was too tiny. If need be I can make a graphic myself. -- Drewry 04:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be very welcome if you could do a graphic like that one and with the same central description. However it would be needed to rotate the picture in order to put " Aries | Pisces " on the top (where now is Capricorn | Sagittarius, exactly in that the same position). Above the " | " between (Aries and Pisces) them please put "0º" (it is to show the first point of Aries; in order to later make the comparison with a picture of the aries-pisces constellation transition in the space).

Change of plans, pls. donnot rotate the image , it would bring more confusion. May you enlarge it and then add the following changes?:

• An outside layer with the degrees, starting in Aries (between aries and pisces) with " 0º (360º) " then between Aries and Taurus 30º and so on till 330º between Aquarius and Pisces. Then a big circular " ------> " in clockwise direction saying "Vernal equinox precessional backward motion (ca. 25 800 years, Great Sideral Year) originates the 12 Astrological Ages."
• An inside layer, just above the central description, divided in twelve houses, numbered 1 to 12, starting in Aries (1) and ending in Pisces (12). In between the 12th and 1st house the description "Vernal equinox (the Sun passes from south to north; zeropoint) each 20/21 March". Then an inner circular " <----- " in counter-clockwise direction with the description "The path of the Sun across the 12 constellations of the Zodiac during a full year (ca. 365 days)." --Viriathus 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we start our exposition of the Ages with the last six Ages before the 0º of Aries (half of the ages), meaning starting with Virgo. The idea is to put in a concise way several timefrimes available to each age from different authors and astrologers and to give a brief description of what happen between the period of the Age in our history/civilization evolution (linking to the related articles in Misplaced Pages). I will add also some description from the esotericim field. You may at will add or suggest any thing you may consider relevant. Is it Ok this plan? --Viriathus 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates seem to contradict each other

Under Astrological aspects, the text states, without any provisos

The last time the starting-point of the sidereal zodiac agreed with the tropical zodiac occurred in AD 498. A year after these points were in exact agreement, the Sun crossed the equator about fifty seconds of space into the constellation Pisces. ... It will thus be about 600 years before it actually crosses the celestial equator in the constellation Aquarius.

In other words, this means that the current astrological Age of Pisces began around the 5th century... it will be about 2600 when it actually finishes moving backwards through all the 30 degrees of Pisces and enters the constellation Aquarius.

Under Age of Pisces, the text states

The current astrological Age of Pisces, following the Age of Aries, began in AD 1, since that was the last time that, astronomically, the vernal equinox occurred in the first point of the constellation Aries. Other timeframes of the Age of Pisces include: AD 1 - AD 2150, AD 1 - AD 2000, and BC 300 - 1900 AD, and AD 498 - AD 2600.

Also, the diagram at the top seems to go with the AD 1 - AD 2150 dates. So which is it? And why is there such huge variation where it says "other timeframes include..."? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue of revising and updating the all article is being discussed above, I will help as the Ages are not a simple matter of an astronomical and mathematical division of time, they are from the domain of astrology: related concepts to it have also to be explain in a clear way and, at least, the main MPOV views have to be inserted in a logical way, It will take some time to go through all the steps. --Viriathus 00:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

added external link and some insight (below) into why we don't know where we are within the present age

I divided the 'links' section into 2 categories: internal Wiki links and external links (as most articles do)

addendum - I also removed the 'redirect notice' designed for people (5 or 6 of them in the world) who wanted to but could not remember the name of a 1970 song (Aquarius/Let_the_Sunshine_In) mentioning the Age of Aquarius. The predominant placement of the notice, which was ridiculous, trivialized the importance of this article. A search for Age of Aquarius as it should, redirects to this article.

I also added an external link that underscores a highly problematic issue dealing with the determination of the start and end of present and past astrological ages. (This link can be put somewhere else, I hesitated to put copy (text) from the link into the article because of copyright issues).

In brief, here is the problematic issue.

Our western calendar totally ignores precession, and every one of the many changes in The Gregorian Calendar radically shifted the Vernal Equinox (Sun enters 0 degrees Aries). The sun moves approximately 1 degree each day, however, for each day that the calendar was adjusted, the adjustment resulted in changing the precessional equation by 72 years for each day added or subtracted! Additionally, in The Gregorian Calendar we have Christ being born before Christ or in BC, which is a (type of) calendar paradox.

The problem is also magnified because of the controversy regarding the approximate date of the birth of Christ. So, as a result, we have a huge window of time that includes many commentators' radically differing opinions regarding the date of the start of the present Astrological Age of Pisces. (Please note that this foggy notion regarding the start of the age is an aspect of Neptune, the Ruler of Pisces).

There should also be (opinion) some comment in the article discussing the difference between the tropical (calendar) and sidereal (what's really happening) zodiac; presently (after accounting for calendar errors) there is about 27 degrees difference. The tropical zodiac is designed to match the calendar with the seasons and to prevent 'calendar drift'; the calendar presumes that the Sun enters 0 degrees Aries on every Vernal Equinox. The sidereal zodiac is the actual location of the planets, sun and moon, in real time. It is the difference (in degrees) between the tropical and sidereal that measures precession (1 degree = 72 years).

The errors in The Gregorian Calendar (some of which seem intentional) ] have wreaked havoc in attempting to determine the precise beginning of the present astrological age (and, therefore, previous ages as they are all determined by 30 degree precessional movement and not actual astronomical determinations). In fact, I have determined that under the present scheme of our calendar (leap days, remaining drift) that we will never get out of the age of Pisces. The added link is important in getting a handle on why there are problems regarding where we are within the present age and is included in a body of work that has been nominated repeatedly for a Templeton Prize in Religion. John Charles Webb 05:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: The material is self-verifying because it is simply a matter of arithmetic (after you get clear of the chaos and confusion).

additional assistance - My research project, "The Jupiter Project" ] has determined that we entered the leading cusp of the Aquarian Age in 1929 and that the precessing Sun will enter the Sign of Aquarius (30th degree) on the Vernal Equinox of 2155; thus starting the Aquarian Age. Aquarius is ruled by Saturn and Uranus and its hallmark is "illuminated idea". Aquarius also rules things that move through the air like aviation, television, telegraph, telephone and wireless communications (11th house - groups), computers, electricity, a new spiritual cosmology based upon knowledge (knowing) instead of faith, revolutionary change that produces liberation from outdated systems and methods, space travel, scientific innovations, co-operation instead of competition (like Misplaced Pages), and generally an end to the utter pathos of the Piscean Age.

In contrast, The Age of Pisces has been an age of relative suffering, conflict, competition and pathos, (See, Dark Ages) punctuated by brief periods of enlightenment, (See, Age of Enlightenment) followed by two world wars, the production of weapons of mass destruction, plagues, holocosts, and one dollar fees for not rewinding rented VHS tapes. Also, world history books devoid of any humorous historical events fully document the madness. So, for any serious student of astrology who is curious about the Neptune ruled 12th house of Pisces and 'secret enemies and self-undoing' (astrological jargon) just take a gander at the last 2000 years.

I hope that some of this is useful in understanding why a 3rd millennium technological civilization does not have a clue regarding where it is that we are, presently, within the astrological age. My apologies for a lack of brevity, however, this account is a summary of 7 years of research. John Charles Webb 08:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Just a brief line. Because there is currently this foggy situation, the article contains interpretations from different authors, some of whom had also years of research (or perhaps some centuries..., but that would be my POV here). Neverhteless, here goes also another study (a p e r s p e c t i v e with some supporting publications), that I had found earlier and inserted into the article Historical Jesus regarding Jesus birth, that may aid on your research:

Based in Josephus' Antiquities it has been traditionally inferred that Herod died at the end of March, or early April of 4 BC. However, modern scholarship has deepened our understanding of Josephus' manuscripts and present evidences corroborating the date of Herod's death as 1 BC. The primary one is that a printer typesetting of the manuscript Antiquities made a mistake in the year 1544. According to some scholars, every single Josephus manuscript, held by the British Library in London and the American Library of Congress, dating from before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC . Knowing this, and since Herod according to the Gospels supposedly died shortly after Jesus' birth, a recent research study, gathering different available sources and acknowledged by leading scholars of the scientific and theological community, presents 3 to 2 BC as the probable time of Jesus' birth .

1. David W. Beyer, Josephus Re-Examined: Unraveling the Twenty-Second Year of Tiberius, in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II, edited by E. Jerry Vardaman (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998) ISBN 0-86554-582-0
2. Ernest L. Martin, The Star That Astonished the World (Second Edition; Portland, Oregon: ASK Publications, 1996) ISBN 0-94-5657-87-0
3. Larson, Frederick A., Prof., Star of Bethlehem

brief reply to alleged error in transcription

The comment (above) does not mention one verifiable /or accepted source. In fact, the earlier dates (1 BC) for the speculated birth of Christ have been rejected (actually never even considered) by scholars. Bethlehemstar.net is a site that has embraced the interpretation of Ernest L. Martin who found a series of 'conjunctions' which occurred in 1 BC and specluated that that these relatively routine conjunctions were 'The Star of Bethlehem' and of sufficient importance to attract the attention of The Magi. The alleged transcription errors of 1544 appear to be fabrications. Can you please supply a diffinitive on-line source that is not POV? One cannot use Martin's work quoting from Beyer's book to prove the accuracy of the 1 BC date. 4 BC is the date that authoritative sources (virtually all other encyclopedias) use. Even the Misplaced Pages article on King Herod lacks authoritative support for the slight speculative reference to the 1 BC date . Certainly the alleged 'transcription error' was not putting a '4' in place of a '1' as the dating system used at that time (1544) was pre-Gregorian Calendar. I can also find no mention of alleged transcription errors contained in any encyclopedic source what-so-ever outside of Martin's and Beyer's book. All references to the 1 BC date use murky citations to create the illusion of authority. The 1 BC date is not from scholars. At the very best it (1 BC) is unfounded speculation based upon an unsupported distortion (alleged transcription errors) of historical accounts. Logically, the use (above) of the term 'some scholars' means 'at least one' which is hardly definitive. Martin's work also includes a logical fallacy. It presumes that the words 'lunar eclipse' have a greater significance if the eclipse was a visible (from Judea) total lunar eclipse. The Martin / Beyer stuff is POV and is falsly based upon the notion that recorded history is innacurate because of possible 'typographical errors' from 1544! Historical accounts disprove Martin's and Beyer's theories. So, their solution was to make history wrong by ignoring definitive accounts and focusing upon an unsupported 'inference'. I am criticizing the method, not your comments, aside from the seeming false and unverifiable citations taken from the works in question. It is illogical to draw conclusions from 'inferences'. As such, both works have been dismissed as mere speculation based upon 'inference'. Their methods are not the scholarly methods used to arrive at probable truth; they both did a swan dive into 'inference'. Both your comment and the bethlehemstar.net article employ 'citations' that have little or nothing, what-so-ever, to do with the materials for which the citations were used (eyewash); both incorrectly use 'authorities' to create the illusion of academic support. When you check the authorities they offer no support for how they were used (smoke and mirrors). I know that this issue (checking source materials) is not germane to 'astrological ages' but it is germane to Misplaced Pages editors verifying the additions to articles that use citations that do not support the reason for which they were cited. Like citing Herod's presumed eclispe of January 9th and having a link to January_9 or the British Library or to the Library of Congress, as above, as 'support' for some ridiculous statement. This is not scholarly, it is mis-direction. Can you please tell me what you mean by this? (quote) "According to some scholars, every single Josephus manuscript, held by the British Library in London and the American library of Congress, dating from before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC' (end quote). The important part is some scholars - some equals at least 1. That sentence says nothing encyclopedic. (finis) John Charles Webb 11:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a clarification to the page Historical Jesus. Beyer seems to have viewed only secondary manuscripts, not the ones actually used by scholars.Rbreen 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation, I have removed the reference to Beyer completely. Martin has simply misread the facts. The documents Beyer viewed were early printed works, not manuscripts (neither the British Library nor the Library of Congress own significant Josephus manuscripts). All the volumes he viewed have now been superseded by the work of scholars such as William Whiston, who produced a highly regarded edition of Josephus in 1737 which confirms (he even specifies this in a note) the year 4 AD for Herod's death.Rbreen 12:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no problem to i n t e g r a t e the explanation you propose, in a not too complicated way between the tropical and sideral zodiac; and also your research dates and findings, as another p e r s p e c t i v e , into the already created sections for each Age. I think the basic idea is to create here an article to give a clear picture to users about existence of the Ages and how they seem to create and affect periods in human activity-evolution. The main intention is to create a support ground for further study by the reader herself/himself. Thanks --88.214.136.14 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

reply - The article incorrectly states, "In astrology, each age is leaded (sic) by the Zodiacal sign in which the vernal equinox in northern hemisphere occurs", end quote. The Gregorian Calendar has determined that EVERY vernal equinox the sun enters 0 degrees Aries. Additionally the article states, "In astrology, an astrological age is defined by the constellation in which the Sun appears at the vernal equinox", end quote. This quote is partially inaccurate. It should state that "an astrological age is defined by the constellation in which the Sun ACTUALLY appears at the vernal equinox". This 'explanation' requires a brief explanation of the tropical and sidereal zodiacs. (One other place in the article briefly and accurately mentions the sidereal juxtaposition of the sun).

I think that any explanation of Astrological Ages should include some information about how ages are determined. It seems quite necessary for an encyclopedia entry. Otherwise, it seems, (opinion) that the article is a triviality. Regarding the quote, (immediately above this reply) Quote - "I think the basic idea is to create here an article to give a clear picture to users about existence of the Ages and how they seem to create and affect periods in human activity-evolution." end quote. We have only two ages that we can discuss with historical authority and both seem to require a discussion or reference (link) to the relevant astrological archetypes. 1) The present Age of Pisces ( 5 BC to 2155 AD) and the immediately preceeding age 2) The Age of Aries which was the Great Age of The Egyptian Empire. (2165 BC to 5 BC) I am without any desire to include my research in the article, despite the genuinely kind offer. (Thank you). John Charles Webb 11:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception is NOT Virgin Birth.

In the statement

"At the dawn of the Piscean age, Jesus was conceived in the womb of his mother, the Virgin Mary; birth from an Immaculate Conception, which has been interpreted in Catholicism as the doctrine of faith Virgin Birth: the Saviour born from a Virgin (Virgo)."

I removed the part about Immaculate Conception. The term Immaculate Conception does not refer to the conception of Jesus in the womb of a virgin, Mary. It refers to the doctrine that Mary was, by special grace, preserved free of the stain of original sin from the first moment of her conception. Both are doctrines of faith of the Catholic Church. Note that it matters not at all whether you, I, or anybody else believes either doctrine or not. The term simply refers to one doctrine and not the other. It's a very common misunderstanding, even among Catholics. Note that the Misplaced Pages article on Immaculate Conception gets it right. 140.147.160.78 14:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Age of Leo

I don't know much about the astrological matters on this page, but the entry for the The Age Of Leo seems a bit, er, unclear, if you'll excuse my presumption. I'll try to edit it a bit for clarity, but I'm not sure that the material presented really has much to do with the title itself. Is there anyone who can provide more information? Datsun Eleven 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Age of Cancer

The claim that settled life replaced nomadism worldwide at this time is not correct. Nomadic pastoralism developed in parallel with the development of arable agriculture and settled life. There are still some hunter gatherers around today.

The neolithic revolution and the development of arable farming and settlements didn't happen simultaneously everywhere. Agriculture began earliest in the Indus valley, the middle east, Egypt and parts of the far east and from there spread over many centuries. The British isles didn't adopt farming until around 4000BC and agriculture evolved in the Americas even later. It would however be reasonably accurate to say that agriculture and settlements began to spread in the age of cancer.Pignut 11:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)pignut

Prominense of Names with the "Ram sound" in Aries

While the number of names containing the sound of the ram during this period is noted: Ra, Ram, Rama, Brahman, Abram, Abraham, Amon Ra, and Ramesses I.

I'm not sure what to do with this, I'm not going to remove it because I can't even discern what the purpose of it is. Is it talking about the sound a ram makes or the word "ram" itself? Either way, I have to say it's pretty absurd, and I don't mean to offend whoever wrote it or came up with it, but the word "ram" didn't even exist at this time, it's an English word. Further, I'm sure if we really wanted to get into it, we could come up with just as many names from any other historical era that have that sound, or anything other sound, in them. Just my 2 cents through. B.Mearns, KSC 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Names with the "Ram sound" in Aries

I agree that the Ram idea seems a tad random, but I've linked the Ra word to its own page, which shows its use as naming the Sun God of the Egyptians (and the New Zealand Maori, strangely enough. The ancestors of the NZ Maori originally came from the present-day Taiwan, which might have had links to Egypt?) I suspect that the use of the word Ra is onomatopoeia, being a simple single-syllabled exclamation that one might utter when seeing the Sun suddenly appearing after a storm. Also, see the references on that page linking Ra with monotheism. As for Ram, it might be onomatopoeic too, similar to our "bang". A battering ram might produce a different sound from, say, a hammer fall, because the weight of the ram mass must be supported during its run up to the target, and the rolling movement would produce the "rrrr" sound. The last sound would emulate the continued ringing or vibration that follows an impact. Just a few ideas that might justify the contributor's inclusion of the short item, and I'm leaving it basically as it is for others to ponder.Fractain 22:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Age of Cancer

Pignut said that "The claim that settled life replaced nomadism worldwide at this time is not correct. Nomadic pastoralism developed in parallel with the development of arable agriculture and settled life. There are still some hunter gatherers around today."

I agree, but my take on astrological ages is the same as my take on evolution, whether it be biological, social, technological or whatever. Each step of evolution involves a mutation of an earlier form, which is then tested by its immediate environment for survival or destruction. Each mutation happens at one particular location in time/space only, with the opportunity for its form to reproduce and spread as and when the environment permits. It may well never reach universal adoption.

I see these astrological signifiers as representing emergent "cutting edge" moments, reflective of the first adoption of the new form anywhere. (There is conceivably a way to pin-point the actual location on Earth where these mutations occur, with enough scrutiny of astrological indicators; the gradual westward drift of emerging civilisations might provide a clue on where to begin that study). Religiously-minded contributors might be fascinated by the visit of the Wise Men to Jerusalem and then Bethlehem, as an example of astrologers pin-pointing the arrival of a new Form. :) Fractain 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'phenomenon' and 'movement' In Aquarian Age: Popular Culture

Can someone please clarify the distinction that is being made here? Can a valid, encyclopedic, distinction be made? --Publunch 17:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the contributor, in the use of those words, was declaring the sense of 'phenomenon' in terms of 'natural event of a large scale', as distinct from the sense of 'movement' in terms of group action focussed on social issues. Interest in Aquarian Age, with its New Age implications, appeared, as a social phenomenon, as a general unfocussed groundswell of the disenchantment of youth against what they saw as the stupidity of war. It only developed into focussed group activity, or movements, at a later time. Fractain 22:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article is long and rambling. I know Astrology isn't a Science as such, but this article deals with quantifiable elements, so it doesn't need to be as messy as it is. It could certainly benefit from timelines and tables. Perhaps the various ages or months could be summarized and linked to individual articles. -- Logotu 21:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on how long it is, but its heading structure does need to be revamped and significantly shortened. There is no need for sectioning beyond 4.x, Timeframes and Overview can be deleted, and anything below them can be bolded headers. They do not contain enough information, and are too repetitive to have them as separate sub-sections. If this isn't done soon, I'll be bold and simply do it myself. - RoyBoy 05:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a bolded header

The text for the section goes below.

Cleanup of timeframes/Aquarius

20-Feb-2008: I did several cleanup actions, by using an external text editor to deal with the gargantuan mass of text:

• I reduced the Table-of-Contents 25% by converting the Timeframes subheaders to italicized bullets "Zodiacal 30 degrees" and "Constellation boundary year" because even bolded was too glaring.
• The common "Age of Aquarius" had been hacked away, so I added a bolded reference +link from the top lede section.
• The 2nd internal "Age of Aquarius" was fixed to link to the yada-yada "Great Month of Aquarius" because all those older "Age of Aries" headers were gone. I noted "Age of Aquarius" in the rambling section.
• I widened the yada-yada Table-of-Contents (TOC) using section-breaks "{{-}}" and wrapping the Introduction beside the TOC using Template:LeftTOCwrap, and then narrowing/moving the 2nd massive image with the diatribe caption below the TOC.

• Unassessed astrology articles
• Unknown-importance astrology articles
• WikiProject Astrology articles