The “new zodiac”?

An article is moving around the internet that has stirred up some conversation among  astrologers.  The article talks about how the zodiac really has 13 signs, rather than 12.  This theory is not new, and Robert of Aquarius Papers responds more eloquently than I.

6yearsofsaturn_friedman900My take on this conversation is very much in alignment a teacher of mine called Buz Myers.  He was a feisty, witty Scorpio who always seem to push against the current astrological faculty of the day.  He taught me a lot about cycles, phases, and the relationship between compatible and competing cycles of development.  Regardless of 12 signs, 13 signs, or perhaps 360 signs, one for every single degree of a circle, beginnings and endings still happen in cyclical fashion.  The full moon is always at the midpoint of the cycle, creating the tension of 180 degrees, regardless of what signs/houses are being symbolized.

Robert goes on to quote Dane Rudhar, who I also revere and respect as an astrological philosopher.  Inconsistencies do not negate astrology.  Hrmpf.

Today, the moon is in it’s gibbous phase for everyone.  However, for me, personally,  it is passing through the balsamic phase and it’s time to retreat into the warmth of the California sun.

Om shanti, shanti, shantihi.

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply