One regressive aspect associated with the Age of Aquarius is that most astrologers treat astrological ages like sun-sign astrology. People tend to focus only on the ages – which is as absurd as only taking the sun-sign into account in horoscopic astrology and ignoring all the other planets, houses aspects and so on. No serious astrologer would only use the sun in their astrological investigation, but this is what happens far too often with the astrological ages.
The astrological ages do provide the necessary framework for investigation, but ages are ultimately based on zodiacal signs, and zodiacal signs have structure. Even many novice astrologers know about decanates (decans) with each sign divided into three. For example, the three decans of Aquarius are Aquarius, Gemini and Libra, but because ages are retrograde, the Libran age decan is the first age–decan encountered in the Age of Aquarius followed by the Gemini and Aquarius age-decans.
Furthermore, for over 2,000 years, astrologers have also divided each zodiacal sign into 12 equal parts called dodecatemoria in Hellenistic astrology and dwadasamsa in Vedic astrology and sometimes referred to as the micro-zodiac. These also are encountered in reverse order, so that the first dodo/dwad in the Age of Aquarius is Capricorn, followed by Sagittarius, Scorpio, Libra and so on concluding with Aquarius.
This process does not end there! While astrologers may have employed decans and even dodos/dwads at various times over the last 2,000 years, apart from some very keen Vedic astrologers and western harmonic astrologers, very little attention has been paid to smaller zodiacal divisions. However, due to the glacial movement of the astrological ages, these smaller divisions have relevance as an age of some 2155 years has three age-decans of some 718 years each, and 12 sub-ages (dodos/dwads) of almost 180 years each. But it does not stop there either.
Research clearly provides confirmation that sub-ages have 12 micro-ages of around 15 years each, and these even have smaller divisions of 12 nano-ages per micro-age of some 15 months each. And of course, sub-ages have sub-age decans, micro-ages have micro-age decans and nano-ages have nano-age decans . Surprisingly, decans seem to have more clout than whole signs in macro-astrology. [see Age of Aquarius for Dummies ]
The upshot of all this is when you hear astrologers discussing the astrological ages, if they are not employing smaller divisions than the whole age – they are mimicking sub-sign astrology in newspapers. This is not serious astrology. The whole blurred cusp debate by most protagonists never introduces smaller divisions than ages, and so remains on the level of sun-sign astrology (i.e. kindergarten astrology). For example, many astrologers believe that there can be many centuries of transition between astrological ages – but what about age-decans? Do they have many centuries of transition? How about a sub-age of some 179 years – do they have centuries of transitions – or decades? Does a 15 year micro-age at the very end or beginning of an age get blurred over centuries?
The whole situation with the astrological ages is laughable as most run-of-the-mill astrologers believe that there are many centuries of blurring between each age, yet in Nicholas Campion’s Book of World Horoscopes, he has pages of dates that research astrologers have tendered for the start of the Age of Aquarius. This farce is due to the fact that mainstream astrology is rejected by science, and so the intellectual integrity associated with astrology has no consistency or uniformity. As a field of study, astrology stretches from the everything-must-be-true end of astrology to a strict academic approach with most astrologers sitting somewhere in the middle.
Usually when I see any mention of the Age of Aquarius without any reference to any sub-periods, I find that 80% or so of the time, it is produced by an everything-must-be-true kind of astrologer. But because most material on the astrological ages is of this ilk, very little clarity exists on the astrological ages in the astrological community. The fantasies associated with the astrological ages have over 2,000 years of momentum, and it is difficult trying to stop a long train at high speed going in the wrong direction – but a paradigm shift is in progress.
One reason the fantasy continues is that it is outside of the realm of possibility by most astrologers that the first astrologer to set up the calibration technique for measuring the astrological ages made a major mistake. I can remember stating this at a Hellenistic astrology conference and immediately the barriers went up – how could I say such a thing about an early Hellenistic astrologer! They were of the opinion that the Hellenistic Greeks virtually invented astrology and were treated almost religiously! The Greeks did invent ‘modern’ horoscopic astrology with an ascendant, but they definitely did not invent astrology!
This ancient mistake is so major that it means that using Hipparcus’ technique, the ages are about 1,100 years ‘late’. Now this may seem extraordinary, but it creates a Catch-22. Because of this massive error, the ages are relatively useless for accurate for accurate correlations and predictions, but they do work OK in a relative sense because of quasi-ages.
The technique that Hipparchus created in the late 2nd century BC was based on the position of the Vernal Point (location of the Sun sitting in a zodiacal constellation at zero degrees tropical Aries around 21st March each year). While this does not correctly or accurately calibrate astrological ages, it does correlate to quasi ages. What this means is that the Pisces quasi age (359 – 2503) does coincide with Hipparchus’ technique, though he thought he had found the Age of Pisces and obviously did not know about quasi-ages. This may be confusing to most astrologers as nearly everyone states that Jesus Christ was born at the beginning of the Pisces age, and even the incorrect method employed by Hipparchus refuses to have the fake Age of Pisces arrive in time for Jesus.
However, this has been no problem for astrologers, as they just changed the goal posts and state that the Pisces age arrived in time for the birth of Jesus without any substantiation from anywhere. There are two main reasons for this – most people place the avatar(s) of their own cultures in an exalted position, and will fiddle the books to achieve this. The other reason is that astrologers could never really use the fake ages effectively, as they are fake, and so it was all a messy business and why bother with the problematic details when everything is a mirage of smoke and mirrors anyway. The Jupiter-Saturn synodic cycle partly filled the void instead.
It seems appropriate that the defining moment of the astrological ages by Hipparchus was erroneous as they have remained pseudo ages for coincidentally the length of an age (c.2150 years) and just remain a shadow or possibility compared to most areas of astrology that have integrity. Who should expect clarity from Pisces? If it was the Virgo age, it would have been a totally different story.
One interesting aspect of this mess associated with the birth of the astrological ages is that Hipparchus’ technique for calibrating the astrological ages is relatively excellent for calibrating quasi-ages. However, the big difference between quasi-ages and ages is that the subdivision of ages into age-decan, sub-ages and so on can never occur with quasi-ages, and must always be sourced back to the true ages. For example, the three age-decan of any age must be derived from the age, not quasi-age. The three sub-age decans cannot be derived from a quasi-age but the real age. However, the quasi-age is excellent for perceiving which sign on the level of ages is the key sign. So while the Age of Aquarius arrived in 1433, the world remains solidly in the Pisces quasi age until the year c.2053. This is why astrologers believe we are on the cusp of the Pisces and Aquarian ages as even a relatively cursory assessment of the world displays the strength of both Pisces and Aquarius archetypes at this point in time.
If anything, due to the nebulous and inexact nature of Pisces, the world remains more medieval than modern, though most people are deluded that we live in a modern world just because we have computers and rockets heading to the moon and Mars. You only have to scratch the surface to see the prevalence of medievalism. Medievalism is more based on faith and belief than facts or knowledge. In the medieval world, anything that takes place that is ‘unpleasant’ or counter to the beliefs of the observer can just be labelled as fake news. The contemporary approach to the astrological ages by most astrologers is an excellent example of medievalism in action. According to our place in the Age of Aquarius (1433 – 3581) – this is to be expected as the first half of the Age of Aquarius (1433 – 2503) corresponds to the peak strength of Pisces in the 26,000 years cycle of the ages as ages behave like waves, not bricks in a wall.
So the next time you come across the astrological ages, and only the astrological ages, without any context of smaller periods within the ages, rest assured you are most likely experiencing the equivalent of an astrologer that can only talk about sun-signs and cannot even produce a horoscope. It is a rarity that any sun-sign prediction I read about myself has any connection to what actually happens in the day, week, month or year ahead – though I must admit, when I read a sun-sign prediction, but substituting my sun with my ascendant sign, the accuracy significantly increases. Nevertheless, no serious astrologer is going to be limited to only their sun-sign or ascendant, and no serious astrologer presenting the astrological ages is going to be limited to only the age unless they are only discussing mega-history, which by its very nature, is vague and obtuse.
It seems appropriate with all the recent claims of fake news, that we should have fake ages.
Demystifying the Aquarian Age 
You must be logged in to post a comment.