The Western Zodiac begins with Aries and reads counterclockwise. Do you think an improved zodiac, which begins with the sign Virgo and reads clockwise would be better since it coincides with the four seasons, four emotions, as well as the visual "movements" of the ecliptic constellations?|||From an astronomical standpoint, no difference at all.
The constellations are merely arbitrary designations made by humans to describe angular concentrations of stellar objects. Every culture has had different names for different clusters, so I don't see how any one can really have precedence over any other. It's all just a kind of mnemonic to describe and catalog stars (and stellar objects).
Also, extreme and tropical latitudes are considered to have only two seasons. The number of emotions are somewhat debatable, and the movements of ecliptic constellations are based more upon location.
Heck, what about the differences in northern and southern hemispheres?
Really, there is no useful way to make a 'system' for describing the constellations, so we are stuck with it all being arbitrary.
Cheers!|||I, personally, feel that it wouldn't matter in the least. However, did you know that there are 13 members within the Zodiac and not just the 12 members as you've noted. What happened to Ophiuchus, the snake handler? Huh?|||It really doesn't make a bit of difference.
Edit: Since I disagreed with Duckie a couple days ago, I'd like to even things up by expressing my support of every point he made here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment