Hmmm…I just read an interesting article about whether the Zodiacal Signs evolve or not. In this article, “How Do The Zodiacal Signs Evolve?“, a certified astrologer from the Academy of Medieval Astrology of Robert Zoller in London states that it does, and our zodiac systems should reflect this.
He states that we have not updated the Zodiac system since Ptolemy first devised it back in 2 AD. Since then, things have changed…the Precession has changed when equinoxes and solstices happen. We no longer have the vernal equinox in 0 degrees of Aries.
Since the time of Ptolemy around the 2nd AD, the modern astrology is “frozen” outdated in the tropical zodiac, created by him, when in his time, 2000 years ago, the vernal equinox was in the 0 degrees of Aries.
I’ve already written here about how important is to take into consideration the fact that according to the precession and the changes of the equinoxes and the solstices the lives of the zodiacal signs change as well.
It turns out that the vernal equinox is now at 5 degrees of Pisces. Hmmm…yeah, that should mean something. What exactly though? And should it affect a longstanding system that has been in effect for millennia?
I am a firm believer in the astrological implications of a person’s birth chart, calculated by the planets and stars that were in the heavens at the time of a person’s birth. I do believe that these large celestial bodies do have an impact on our lives. It may only be a subtle influence, but I have found that my study of astrology has led me to be very accurate in judging people when I know what influences are impacting their lives.
It has provided some very valuable insight on how to deal with people, especially the difficult ones. It really helps to know that a Leo has to be the center of attention or they get cranky, that Aries is the baby of the zodiac and thinks the world revolves around them, that Scorpios are really secretive and you’ll NEVER discover any of their secrets. So…you don’t try to steal a Leo’s thunder, you overlook the crazy selfishness of an Aries (they’re not really selfish, they just see the world only from their own perspective), and you just stop pestering a Scorpio about something they don’t want to talk about. And yes, if you continue, you can count on Scorpio having a fit on you! LOL
In any case, I have always learned that some signs are fixed, some are cardinal, and some are mutable. This relates to how flexible or not they are in their dealings with the world. It seems that we are still working on the premise that the cardinal signs are the points of the equinoxes and the solstices, which back in Ptolemy’s day were as follows: Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn. Today they are Pisces, Virgo, Gemini and Sagittarius.
- vernal equinox is in the 5th degree of Pisces,
- spring solstice is located in the 5th degree of Gemini,
- autumn equinox is in the 5th degree Virgo
- winter solstice is the 5th degree of Sagittarius.
Hmmm…that is very interesting, and not something I had ever considered. Does this change everything? According to this author, it only changes the “quality” of the sign, and affects your ascendant.
Where in the horoscope these signs give their meaning? On the ascendant and in angular homes, and not according to the position of the Sun in the horoscope.
So how does this affect the different signs? This would mean all the signs are now assigned different qualities:
The cardinal signs are now Pisces, Virgo, Gemini and Sagittarius. NOT Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn.
The fixed signs are now Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn. NOT Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius.
The mutable signs are now Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius. NOT Pisces, Virgo, Gemini and Sagittarius.
Hmmm…I dunno about this. I am a Scorpio with a Taurus ascendant, and yes, I find I am very fixed and rather inflexible in my ways. If this new idea this man suggests is true, this changes my ascendent, and really means that all along both my sun and ascendant were in mutable signs…well, I dunno about that. I don’t identify with the mutable qualities. And it’s more than just what I have come to think about my personal signs after decades of studying a specific system…they resonated with me because they did explain why I was the way I am. I don’t think it’s a matter of just rethinking my stance on life in a more mutable way…I dunno what to think. I hate to think that I only thought I was a certain way because I had read it was that way and I incorporated it into my worldview.
Thinking further on this, I don’t see why the fact that a certain sign is now rising in different places and times on our planet really has any bearing on what that sign and it’s attendant planets have on our lives. The zodiac signs are star systems we have identified as specific configurations in the heavens, and those configurations actually haven’t changed. Our planet has changed so we see them differently now (as opposed to 2000 yrs ago when Ptolemy devised this system) but their relative position in the sky does not actually have any bearing on the original star systems. They are still where they have always been. So nothing has really changed, as far as how those celestial bodies are impacting us on a subtle level. It’s like saying the sun doesn’t affect us during an eclipse when we can’t see it IMO.
Thus, I think I have to disagree with this author and “certified astrologer” about changing the qualities of each of the zodiac signs. I don’t think they need to “evolve”, although it is interesting to note that they have changed their relative positions. I’m not sure what impact the fact that the signs rise at different times than in the past has on the whole astrological system to be honest. But I don’t feel like we need to overhaul the system at this point, because it still works fine. I think it supersedes any rather superficial changes in our perception of these stationary star systems that the zodiac signs actually represent. I think the system still works the same way, and the insights gleaned over the millennia are as valid today as they were back in Ptolemy’s time.