Friday, January 14, 2011

New Astrological Signs

My brother, my wife, and now some of my blog readers have asked me about the news of the zodiac being out of tilt and there now being a new 13th zodiac sign. For the sake of non-astrologer readers, here's the skinny:

The 13-sign zodiac idea isn't anything particularly was first "popularized" (among some astrologers) back in the mid-90s. I'm not particularly certain why it's grabbing headlines right now. It is one of many schools of thought/study on astrology (astrologers differ on a lot of things...the study of the stars and their meanings has been around for thousands of years and a lot of those meanings are open to differing opinions on interpretation).

The facts of the matter are these:

1) Because of the tilt of the Earth's axis, the progression of the stars through the sky change over time. Right now, even without a "13th sign" the position of the stars over the Earth's sky have changed enough from the times of the ancient Greeks that the true CONSTELLATION over your head at the time of your birth is probably about one sign off from the SIGN that your astrologer tells you is "yours." For example, my birthday was November 13th...while traditionally this means I'm a Scorpio, the actual constellation the Sun was in when I was born was the sign of Libra.

2) The signs of the zodiac (the 12 "constellations" used in astrology) have long been associated with particular dates on the Gregorian calendar based on a fixed zodiac. I should say, "long been associated with WESTERN astrology," the kind normally used in Europe and the Americas and descended from Greek and Middle Eastern tradition.

3) Most professional astrologers are aware that the true constellations are off from the "traditional fixed zodiac." In general they don't care (kind of like that whole "Pluto's not a planet" thing didn't really take with a lot of astrologers). Part of this is due to inertia...we learn to do astrology in a particular way and adaptation is not the strong suit of folks who practice a discipline requiring years of study and practice.

But part of it is due to the nature of the beast. Astrology is a way of understanding, analyzing, and deciphering human psychology using a symbolic language. At least, that's the way I was taught to think of it. People have theories on why it works, but in the end few care why, only that it does work. The theories can't really be proven (at least not in such a way that it will satisfy skeptics anyway), and so we work with the tools we have, hopefully in aid of helping humans better understand themselves and their lives.

And for that, the important thing is to find a symbolic language that works for your own (i.e. the astrologer's) mind. For me, I use a Porphyry house system in astrology, though the more popular house systems are Placidus and (probably) Koch. Walter Berg, who's the real mind behind the 13-sign astrology system, uses his true sidereal zodiac. Whatever we choose, it works for us, helping with our understanding of ourselves and others.

It's like the tarot the end, the pictures on the cards are not nearly as important as what they mean symbolically to the reader's subconscious. Astrology is just more of an exact science (with its rulers, dispositors, houses, and aspects) allowing for more fine-tuned symbolic interpretation.

So yeah, I guess I'm technically a Libra. But part of the Libran personality is Libra's need to interact with others in order to learn about itself (using others as a mirror for self-understanding). And generally, I don't give a shit about that kind of thing...which makes me much more of a Scorpionic personality. I have my Libra days (when I'm feeling creative and artsy, blogging or writing) but as far as my symbolic personality, Scorpio seems to be a better fit...emotionally needy, introverted, mean-spirited at times, kind of a drama queen, etc....
; )


  1. Isn't it a lot earlier than the '90s? I first remember reading something about that back in the '70s in either Fate Magazine or Sybil Leek's My Life in Astrology. Plus, I believe there are a couple other alternative zodiac schemes floating around; I seem to recall that there's a 16-sign zodiac system...

    My reaction to the news story was thus "ho hum". Not only had I heard it before and thought it was pretty much common knowledge to anyone who's read a reasonable amount about astrology, but the news got the whole "Age of ____" thing wrong. The whole concept of the Age of Aquarius was based on the idea that the precession of the equinoxes shifted every 2,000 years ago.

  2. Thanks JB. I was getting worried there, since my birthday is November 14 and as you say "Scorpio seems to be a better fit...emotionally needy, introverted, mean-spirited at times, kind of a drama queen, etc....". Most people who know me would nod their heads vigorously at that description.

  3. @ Taly: *I* wasn't studying the subject seriously until the 90s myself, so I couldn't say, but it wouldn't surprise me if Berg's work was based on earlier writings (certainly the "13th sign" has been around for centuries!). I agree the news was a little "ho-hum," but I felt it my duty to tell my blog readers: Don't Panic.
    : )

    @ Spawn: That's 'cause it's all "life or death," right? Drama it're allowed!
    ; )