Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs
There is a particular specious take on astrology that goes, “The zodiac signs don’t even line up with the constellations anymore! How could it possibly work?”
Interestingly, this take is shared by clueless skeptics and what I might call supremacist sidereal astrologers.
Why?
For those unfamiliar with the issue, the tropical zodiac (used predominately in “Western” astrology) is fixed to the Sun’s positions at the solstices and equinoxes. Due to axial precession, these move slowly westward relative to the stars from Earth’s POV.
At the time the tropical zodiac was formalized, its 12 signs were named for the constellations that fell in them. It has now been long enough that those constellations have slipped by about 23°.
The sidereal zodiac, by contrast, tracks the stars and slips relative to seasons.
(If you want more technical details on how zodiacs work, read this amazing post by Ryhan Butler from which I have lifted a couple images and hope that is acceptable in the interest of Good Astrology.)
Now, from the point of view of just humbly doing astrology, this is fine.
It’s a trade-off, obviously. Do you want to use a zodiac that tracks the seasons — the Earth system — or one that tracks the stars — the galactic system?
It just depends how you want to view things.
The key is that astrological TECHNIQUES that use a zodiac are based on dividing the plane of the solar system into 12 equal 30° places and observing the patterns described by that arrangement as the planets move through it.
They work from either POV.
You can even use BOTH if you want, in order to see things from multiple points of view!
Wouldn’t that be a cool, open-minded way to be?
Unfortunately, it do not always be like that.
The underlying issue is this: astronomically speaking, the constellations are not equal sizes. There aren’t even only 12 of them in the ecliptic.
It’s almost as though zodiacs are for a different job than star maps!
However, because the signs remain named after constellations, lazy skeptics have decided that this SHOCKING revelation actually INVALIDATES ASTROLOGY.
Notably, there are many loud internet users of the sidereal zodiac that say this invalidates tropical astrology only.
Now, as you have already seen, there’s a wee issue with the sidereal supremacist critique, which is that… the sidereal zodiac doesn’t line up with the constellations either. It just points kinda roughly at them.
That objection doesn’t make it all the way to its own conclusion.
If your issue is “astrology only works if the planets are actually in front of the constellations whose names are in the signs,” you must use a “constellational” zodiac, with unequal signs and the 13th sign, Ophiuchus ⛎. Which, of course, breaks astrology.
(In fact, it’s possible to draw EVEN MORE than 13 ecliptic constellations, as some civilizations did, because constellations are CULTURE, not astronomy!)
What I mean by that is, “astrology” — really, the many astrologies that use zodiacs — rely on the 12 equal divisions for their techniques of measuring the movement of planets in a circle around the Earth.
I mean, you can do a FEW with a janked up 13-sign zodiac, but why?
A zodiac is an INSTRUMENT, a WORKSPACE for doing a particular kind of work.
You think 360° is some, like, metaphysical reality? No. You can’t measure space without some artificial waypoints. That’s how GEOMETRY works, and astrology uses geometry.
Yes, even sidereal astrology.
So how do sidereal supremacists and lazy skeptics of ALL astrology end up making the same argument?
It’s scientism. Metaphysical overconfidence.
They have both DECIDED that astrology’s mechanism of action MUST be some kind of physical space-beams shooting out of constellations.
Why do you think that, though?
Like, is there any reason to believe astrology is CONTROLLED by the constellations besides the fact that the signs are named after them?
Constellations aren’t even THERE. Like not just in an unequal zodiac way. Like the stars are RANDOMLY placed.
This isn’t even a good definition of what “works” means.
Space-beams, if they exist, would be how some mechanism describable by physics works.
Astrology is a thing HUMANS do with our MINDS while looking at physical things. It “works” because WE’RE DOING IT.
If you have pre-decided that the way the universe works (in your mind) precludes the possibility that some ONGOING HUMAN ACTIVITY is meaningful, you have rendered yourself INCAPABLE of understanding it.
That is bad science.
You can’t claim science and do that.
The scientific approach to understanding astrology would be to assume you DON’T KNOW the physical mechanisms involved and instead examine what people mean when they say “it works.”
Because — I assure you — it does.
