Earth, The Final Frontier
In my youth, back when dead tree books were all the rage, I probably had two shelves of astrology books. I probably had more than one by some author whose name I no longer recall who, IIRC, billed herself as not only an astrologer but some kind of mystic or spiritual person or some such.
At least at the moment, I no longer remember ANYTHING at all about anything she said about astrology except this ONE thing: She said we should start putting Earth in astrological charts because when humans start living on Mars we will include Earth in astrological charts for people born on Mars.
And her PROPOSAL for where we should place the Earth is that it should be 180 degrees away from the Sun. It should be OPPOSITE the Sun in all charts of Earth-born humans.
Color me shocked and appalled. How she ever became a professional astrologer, I don't know.[1]
Astrology is a geocentric model of our solar system. It views the relationships of everything in the chart through a lens of how it appears from our position here on Earth.
That's the entire reason there are, for example, Retrogrades in astrology: Because from the point of view of the Earth-bound human, sometimes planets APPEAR to slide BACKWARDS.
No planet EVER actually travels backwards. They ALL travel the same direction all the time: Forwards.
But they also all travel different distances around the Sun at different speeds and this causes them to sometimes APPEAR to slow down, stop, turn around and slide BACKWARDS in the sky in relation to the Earth.
If you place the Earth 180 degrees from the Sun in an astrological chart, what you are doing is putting it in the sign it SHOULD look like it is in from the point of view of the Sun. It stops being a geocentric model. It becomes this model that is MOSTLY geocentric with this one hairball weirdness of viewing Earth as if you were standing on the Sun.
AND it's DUMB as all hell because the EARTH is already very much represented in astrological charts. [2] In fact, it's like HALF the information in the chart.
The Earth is represented by The House System, which is a second set of slices of the pie going around the chart and layered over the signs which adds additional info to the chart.
Exactly how to best represent the position of Earth in the astrological chart even via The House System is still not really satisfactorily worked out as there are more than a dozen house systems. Some of them vary the sizes of the house depending upon how far you are from the equator and some of them use an equal house model where all houses are exactly 30 degrees.
Last I checked, they all agree on only FOUR points: The start -- or cusp -- of the First House, Seventh House, the Imum Coeli and Medium Coeli and SOME place the Imum Coeli at the start of the Fourth House and the Medium Coeli at the start of the Tenth House and some don't.
The First House cusp is also called The Ascendent or Rising Sign. It is the point on the horizon rising, like morning, in your chart. The Seventh House cusp -- also called The Descendent -- is 180 degrees away. It is the setting point on the other horizon.
The Imum Coeli or I.C. is the lowest point in the chart. It sits at the BOTTOM of the circle used to draft a chart and in SOME unequal house systems is ALSO the start of the Fourth House.
The Midheaven or Medium Coeli (M.C.) is the highest point in the sky at the time the chart represents and in SOME house systems ALSO represents the start of the Tenth House cusp. House systems that have unequal houses basically are accounting for your distance from the equator. If I recall correctly, if you are born ON the equator, even an unequal house system SHOULD give you houses that are ALL thirty degrees.
And, also, we CLEARLY need to be EXPLICITLY teaching people that "The Ascendant is basically the Earth in the chart." Because -- Hello! -- if we were doing this, no one would be going "We should list EARTH in astrological charts to lay the groundwork for future Martian-born humans whose highest priority is understanding their natal chart (and not, like, SURVIVAL on Mars)."
So in my PROFESSIONAL OPINION[4], when we get to Mars and start making babies there and want desperately to cast their horoscopes, the Ascendant is the de facto position for MARS in the chart and there is no problem in including the position of Earth in a Martian-born human chart.
Other than the detail that we still need to work out rulership and such.[5]
There is no governing body deciding who is any good at this. There are no tests to pass. There are no universities issuing degrees in astrology.
[2] At least the Earth is already represented in the chart in the Western variety of astrology with which I am most familiar. I have no idea what, say, Chinese or Middle Eastern (etc) astrology really do.
[3] We don't give Earth a rulership BUT as far as I know, no one demoted Pluto and kicked it out of the astrological party when astronomer-types decided to take its planet card away and start calling it a Dwarf Planet instead. No, it STILL has rulership and blah blah blah.
Meanwhile, I tongue-in-cheek tend to refer to it as "a heavenly body formerly known as a planet" when I write about astrology.
[4] YES, people have ACTUALLY paid me to cast charts for them. Given the lack of a governing body, blah blah blah, I guess that makes ME a professional astrologer.
[5] I propose TAURUS as the sign that Earth rules. But that, my friend, is a post for another time.
At least at the moment, I no longer remember ANYTHING at all about anything she said about astrology except this ONE thing: She said we should start putting Earth in astrological charts because when humans start living on Mars we will include Earth in astrological charts for people born on Mars.
And her PROPOSAL for where we should place the Earth is that it should be 180 degrees away from the Sun. It should be OPPOSITE the Sun in all charts of Earth-born humans.
Color me shocked and appalled. How she ever became a professional astrologer, I don't know.[1]
Astrology is a geocentric model of our solar system. It views the relationships of everything in the chart through a lens of how it appears from our position here on Earth.
That's the entire reason there are, for example, Retrogrades in astrology: Because from the point of view of the Earth-bound human, sometimes planets APPEAR to slide BACKWARDS.
No planet EVER actually travels backwards. They ALL travel the same direction all the time: Forwards.
But they also all travel different distances around the Sun at different speeds and this causes them to sometimes APPEAR to slow down, stop, turn around and slide BACKWARDS in the sky in relation to the Earth.
If you place the Earth 180 degrees from the Sun in an astrological chart, what you are doing is putting it in the sign it SHOULD look like it is in from the point of view of the Sun. It stops being a geocentric model. It becomes this model that is MOSTLY geocentric with this one hairball weirdness of viewing Earth as if you were standing on the Sun.
AND it's DUMB as all hell because the EARTH is already very much represented in astrological charts. [2] In fact, it's like HALF the information in the chart.
The Earth is represented by The House System, which is a second set of slices of the pie going around the chart and layered over the signs which adds additional info to the chart.
Exactly how to best represent the position of Earth in the astrological chart even via The House System is still not really satisfactorily worked out as there are more than a dozen house systems. Some of them vary the sizes of the house depending upon how far you are from the equator and some of them use an equal house model where all houses are exactly 30 degrees.
Last I checked, they all agree on only FOUR points: The start -- or cusp -- of the First House, Seventh House, the Imum Coeli and Medium Coeli and SOME place the Imum Coeli at the start of the Fourth House and the Medium Coeli at the start of the Tenth House and some don't.
The First House cusp is also called The Ascendent or Rising Sign. It is the point on the horizon rising, like morning, in your chart. The Seventh House cusp -- also called The Descendent -- is 180 degrees away. It is the setting point on the other horizon.
The Imum Coeli or I.C. is the lowest point in the chart. It sits at the BOTTOM of the circle used to draft a chart and in SOME unequal house systems is ALSO the start of the Fourth House.
The Midheaven or Medium Coeli (M.C.) is the highest point in the sky at the time the chart represents and in SOME house systems ALSO represents the start of the Tenth House cusp. House systems that have unequal houses basically are accounting for your distance from the equator. If I recall correctly, if you are born ON the equator, even an unequal house system SHOULD give you houses that are ALL thirty degrees.
The Midheaven and the tenth house basically represent the same thing. They both focus on career success, but one emphasizes direction (Midheaven) while the other focuses on achievements and reputation regarding career.I actually agree that we need to be more inclusive of the EARTH in astrology. For example, the Earth is not one of the planets assigned a rulership. It is left out.[3]
And, also, we CLEARLY need to be EXPLICITLY teaching people that "The Ascendant is basically the Earth in the chart." Because -- Hello! -- if we were doing this, no one would be going "We should list EARTH in astrological charts to lay the groundwork for future Martian-born humans whose highest priority is understanding their natal chart (and not, like, SURVIVAL on Mars)."
So in my PROFESSIONAL OPINION[4], when we get to Mars and start making babies there and want desperately to cast their horoscopes, the Ascendant is the de facto position for MARS in the chart and there is no problem in including the position of Earth in a Martian-born human chart.
Other than the detail that we still need to work out rulership and such.[5]
Footnotes
[1] I actually do KNOW how she became a "professional" astrologer: She managed to get people to PAY HER to cast charts. That's it!There is no governing body deciding who is any good at this. There are no tests to pass. There are no universities issuing degrees in astrology.
[2] At least the Earth is already represented in the chart in the Western variety of astrology with which I am most familiar. I have no idea what, say, Chinese or Middle Eastern (etc) astrology really do.
[3] We don't give Earth a rulership BUT as far as I know, no one demoted Pluto and kicked it out of the astrological party when astronomer-types decided to take its planet card away and start calling it a Dwarf Planet instead. No, it STILL has rulership and blah blah blah.
Meanwhile, I tongue-in-cheek tend to refer to it as "a heavenly body formerly known as a planet" when I write about astrology.
[4] YES, people have ACTUALLY paid me to cast charts for them. Given the lack of a governing body, blah blah blah, I guess that makes ME a professional astrologer.
[5] I propose TAURUS as the sign that Earth rules. But that, my friend, is a post for another time.
