Embedded Files
Abstract
This study explores the untapped potential of combining Western and Chinese zodiacs, specifically focusing on the influence of Year, Sun and Moon signs, to understand group dynamics and individual temperaments within the context of famous rock bands. By adopting a novel color-based model and analyzing the shared and opposing signs among band members, the study reveals patterns of dominant energies and potential conflicts within these groups. The findings highlight the complex interplay between individual personalities and collective dynamics, offering new insights into the understanding of human behavior and interpersonal relationships. While further research is needed to validate these observations and address potential biases, this study proposes a fresh perspective on integrating the two zodiac traditions and encourages a nuanced approach to studying the human psyche through the lens of the zodiac.
I. Introduction
“‘Enceladus [one of Saturn’s moons], that’s just a tiny ball of ice the size of Texas. We’ll fly by once, we’ll take some pictures, we’ll say we’ve been there, done that.’ And then we flew by, and it was, ‘Oh, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Now we have to rewrite all of the textbooks about planetary science.’”
—Curt Niebur (NASA Scientist, commenting on the Cassini probe)
If there is anything to be gleaned from the above quote, it is the same thing that screenwriter William Goldman theorized 30+ years ago, in his assessment of the film industry at the time: “Nobody knows anything.” While a different field than film, science is not entirely exempt from this statement either, as was proven by Niebur’s statement. It’s not to be taken literally, but it just goes to show that, despite any good intentions or breadth of expertise, inevitably there will always be an opportunity to learn something new. So then we could probably assess that science is still a long way off from encompassing knowledge of the patterns of the human psyche, and understanding why certain people gravitate toward each other, and at the same time are repelled by others. One subject has claimed to provide such insight, but when analyzed by the scientific community, the results have always been questionable. But what if another, more agreeable method of analyzing the subject in question were possible, and what if something might be possible in terms of understanding what seems to evade scientists and psychologists alike.
The subject at hand is non other than the zodiac: possibly one of the most misunderstood concepts of all time. While astrology is rooted in theoretical ideas, the zodiac is in fact an elaborate timepiece. Mind you, the two are not synonymous, although they are commonly confused as such. The zodiac has been used to mark passages of time, most notably the seasons, whereas astrology is theory which attempts to derive meaning from those units of time (aka zodiac signs). However, although the zodiac has been known for thousands of years, it is, at the time of writing, yet to be accepted by the scientific community. But if scientists began to rely to “real” data on a given sign for defining what it is really about, by assessing the mental states of real people, instead of relying on books which rehash old and ambiguous theories about the signs, then perhaps much needed change might be possible. Instead of attempting to define each sign with rigid constructs, why not track the people with particular combinations and see which patterns unfold? In other words, let the life stories of real people be the definitive evidence of the zodiac signs in question.
Some time ago, since the time of Ptolemy and Hipparchus, the idea of precession of the equinoxes had already been accepted, meaning to say that it was agreed upon by then authorities on the matter that the zodiac was not so much influenced by distant stars, those much further away from the planets in our solar system (which constituted the constellations from which those strange names originated), but rather influenced by time (with additional consideration of geographical location, and its subsequent time zone). This agreement was essentially intended to distinguish between sidereal and tropical astrology (“sidereal” attributing planetary influence to the constellations themselves, while “tropical” implied the overriding influence of time).
But even after resolving that dilemma, another emerges: why does the Chinese zodiac have a corresponding sign for each year, whereas the Western zodiac does not? Well, it seems there’s no definitive answer as to why the West did not retain the yearly zodiac cycle that the Chinese did. However, several factors may have contributed to this:
Different cultural emphasis: The Mesopotamian, and later the Western zodiac focused more on individual birth charts based on a specific date and time, with the sun, moon, and planets playing a more prominent role. The Chinese zodiac, on the other hand, emphasized broader cycles and interactions between elements, with the 12-year cycle holding more significance for society and the individual’s place within it.
Separate development: Western and Chinese schools of thought likely evolved independently after initial contact and exchange of ideas. This led to distinct systems with different priorities and applications.
Loss of knowledge: Over time, some knowledge from Mesopotamia may have been lost or fragmented during transmission to Greece and Rome. Cultural and political shifts could have further contributed to the emphasis on certain aspects of the zodiac over others.
Influence of astronomy: As Western astronomy progressed, the focus shifted towards precise planetary calculations and scientific inquiry. This might have led to a decline in interest in the broader cyclical aspects of the zodiac, like the 12-year cycle.
Regarding the possibility of the Chinese borrowing knowledge from Mesopotamia, there’s evidence of cultural exchange between the two regions, but the exact nature and extent of influence remain unclear. It's possible that the Chinese adopted some ideas and adapted them to their own cultural context, resulting in a unique system with shared roots but distinct features. The elements as recognized by the Chinese shed some light on this problem, for the Chinese reason that since sixty divided by twelve equals five, there must be five zodiacal elements. However, the truth of the matter is discovered when one attempts to divide twelve by five, and the result is 2.4 (a decimal number). On the other hand, the Western zodiac accepts that there are four elements, because twelve divided by four equals 3 (an integer). On the basis of twelve being easily divisible by four, the Western elements may hold more credibility. The sexagenary cycle that the Chinese observed is simply the zodiac repeating itself five times, with the help of the same four elements (which can be understood through the triplicities, where there are three corresponding signs per element). Another misconception is that the planet Jupiter is what determines the year sign, but this is not true. It is the new moon that ushers in the start of spring that marks the beginning of the new year. While not the same as the moon sign, which can change based on a given day, it’s plausible that the year sign, which is at least influenced by the moon, can hint at one’s emotional inclination. Again, not the same as the position of the moon within the ecliptic, but potentially similar.
How many people today, or even from ancient times for that matter, can relate to a creature which can’t be observed and analyzed in the real world, like the sea-goat? Most people, in their desire to find meaning, just analyze a mountain goat, a creature from reality, and draw conclusions based on these observations. Just as the symbols have proven, human imagination is not always reliable, so that means the sea-goat is, at least in my opinion, an inappropriate example for the sign of Capricorn. The Rooster, stemming from the Chinese zodiac, may be a more noteworthy example, since it is a creature from reality, but even then it does not hold the same universal potential that a color, like Violet, can, for what may seem noble to one person, may be perceived by another as insignificant, or even worse, insulting. The zodiac would appear to comprise weird names, designating each sign of the zodiac, along with anachronistic symbolism. When combined, the results seem to invite more confusion than clarity. For example, Capricorn is recognized as the tenth sign of the Western zodiac, and symbolized by the “sea goat,” while the Chinese zodiac recognizes the Rooster as the tenth sign of its order. If both are the tenth signs in each zodiac, logic would suggest they are the same. However, the official consensus, for whatever reason, is that Sagittarius (the ninth sign in the Western zodiac) is the equivalent of the Rat (the first in the Chinese zodiac). As a result, this alignment throws off the correct order, keeping the two zodiacs from properly merging as they should have a long time ago. Instead, tradition keeps the names as they are without revealing their true nature, but where semantics fail, numbers prevail.
According to theory (aka astrology), when the Sun and Moon are in the same sign, this can represent a certain kind of authenticity. The Sun sign is said to represent how you want to act (ego), while the Moon sign represents how you need to feel (emotions). If the Sun and Moon are posited in the same sign, this means the ego and emotions are aligned, and the native’s wants and needs are the same. Also, since the lunar year is determined by the new moon, then perhaps the emotional tie of the Moon could mean that the year you are born also determines, or may determine, how you need to feel. There is also an important offset for the lunar year that needs to be considered, which means taking into account the new moon of Aries as the one to kick off the new year (which the Mesopotamians held for a long time), and not the new moon of Aquarius (as the Chinese assume, or rather attribute to a misunderstanding regarding the true start of Spring). Anyone who wishes to truly understand the zodiac should always consider the year sign, then the sun sign (which changes every month), and finally the moon sign (which changes every two or so days). It would be foolish to try to pin the influence of the zodiac down to one particular sign, for unless the same sign is being repeated across all three divisions of time, then the person is a dynamic individual, representing a unique combination of signs.
Hypothesis: Combining the Western and Chinese zodiacs, while looking only at the influence of the Year, Sun and Moon signs, may hold untapped potential in regard to gleaning a greater understanding of the human psyche, specifically as it pertains to groups of people, and the dynamics of each particular group in question.
II. Literature Review
The only noteworthy attempt to fuse the Western and Chinese zodiacs was the work of author Suzanne White, in her book The New Astrology, originally published in 1986. While it represents the first significant study in the deeper meaning implied by offering readings, or profiles, for all 144 Year/Sun sign combination readings, it still falls short in one area: the book’s fatal flaw is that it still views the zodiacs as two separate entities, rather than interpretations of the same one.
As for the scientific community, there have been several notable studies that have attempted to assess the viability of the zodiac, as well as astrology. They include, but are not limited to:
The Mars Study (1955): This study suggested a statistical correlation between the birth dates of athletes and the position of Mars in the sky at the time of their birth. Conducted by French psychologist and statistician Michel Gauquelin, he analyzed the birth charts of thousands of successful athletes and found that Mars was more likely to be in certain positions in the sky at the time of their birth than would be expected by chance. However, critics of the “Mars effect” argue that it is simply a statistical artifact or the result of biased data selection.
The Mayo, White, and Eysenck Study (1978): This study investigated the relationship between zodiac signs and extraversion/introversion. While some correlations were found, the results were not statistically significant and failed to provide strong evidence for claims of the zodiac’s validity.
The Carlson Study (1985): This widely cited study published in Nature aimed to test the accuracy of natal chart interpretations. Astrologers were asked to match birth charts to personality profiles, but the results did not support the claims of astrology. However, this study has been criticized for methodological flaws and potential biases.
The Timm Study (1990): This study examined the correlation between astrological signs and career choices. The results did not reveal any significant relationships, suggesting that astrological signs do not influence career preferences.
The “Good Science of Astrology” Study (2018): This study by Kenneth McRitchie proposed a new approach to astrological research, focusing on identifying “eminence effects” or significant correlations within large data-sets. While this approach has been met with some interest, it remains controversial and requires further validation.
It's important to note that the scientific community remains largely skeptical of astrology due to the lack of robust evidence and a plausible mechanism to explain its claims. While some studies have shown intriguing correlations, the overall consensus is that the zodiac, and astrology for that matter, lacks scientific validity. Some possible reasons why science has yet to embrace the zodiac include:
Confirmation Bias: Scientists might dismiss evidence supporting the zodiac due to preconceived notions about its lack of scientific basis. This bias can lead to cherry-picking data that aligns with their existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence.
Reductionism: Scientists often favor reductionist approaches, breaking down complex phenomena into simpler components. The zodiac, however, deals with interconnectedness and holistic interpretations, which might be overlooked or dismissed as unscientific.
Mechanism Bias: The scientific community generally requires a clear mechanism to explain how a phenomenon works. The zodiac, or rather the modern understanding of it, lacks a widely accepted mechanism, leading to skepticism and rejection.
Cultural Bias: Western scientific traditions often prioritize empirical evidence and measurable data. The zodiac, with its roots in ancient traditions and symbolism, might be perceived as incompatible with these standards.
If a compelling case could be made for the influence of the sun and moon on human affairs, however, it would be more readily accepted by the scientific community compared to claims involving other planets. This is because of:
Established Influence: The sun and moon have well-documented effects on Earth, such as tides, seasons, and circadian rhythms. This provides a foundation for exploring potential links to human behavior and events.
Observable Patterns: Lunar cycles are associated with various natural phenomena, like animal behavior and plant growth. Examining correlations with human patterns could be more feasible than with distant planets.
Scientific Plausibility: The sun's electromagnetic radiation and the moon's gravitational pull offer potential mechanisms for influencing biological processes, providing a basis for further investigation.
III. Methodology
For this study, we will be looking at the shared potential of the Year, Sun and Moon signs of individuals within groups, to see which patterns unfold. The groups themselves will be a selection of famous rock bands, since they are beloved from people of all disciplines and walks of life, and their influence can be observed through publicly available information. There will, however, be one significant catch to the way the zodiac signs are identified: they will be replaced with the color wheel, offering a visual representation previously lacking, and with dominant signs, and their opposing counterparts, highlighted to make sense of energetic differences within the collective relationships of these groups.
Most people view the world in black and white, when in fact there is a whole array of color which, more often than not, is completely disregarded. Black and white, while commonly regarded as colors, are actually representations of one spectrum in opposition to the other, the light and the dark. And within each spectrum are several permutations. If we attempt to align the zodiac with the color wheel, with Violet designating the tenth sign, for the simple fact that the Winter season (as represented in the Western zodiac, at least) is the darkest in terms of observable light in the day, and the color Violet has the shortest wave-length, then we come up with this order:
This alignment reinvents the zodiac, giving new meaning to each sign, and also demonstrating the chain effect, with one color extending across three signs (e.g. “GY,” “Y,” and “YO” all feature Yellow in some capacity). The adoption of a new model, as proposed with the color wheel, could represent a unique solution to resolving differences between the Western and Chinese schools of thought which remain more divided now than ever.
With that said, there are potential biases, which may hinder this study, and its results:
The Lunar Year’s Validity: In spite of being adjusted, according to ancient tradition which originated with the Mesopotamians, the lunar year’s offset might be rendered irrelevant if the Chinese got the years wrong to begin with. Since we don’t have records of what years the Mesopotamians attributed the zodiac signs to, we’re left at the mercy of the Chinese. The only reason we attribute 2024, for example, as the year of the Dragon is owing to a planetary manifestation on (or around) March 5, 1953 BCE. Astronomers from 1993 were able to go “back in time,” and observe a planetary alignment, which may have marked the start of the Chinese calendar (as well as the annual zodiac), beginning with the Rat. However, the date seems to identify the new moon in Pisces as the catalyst for this start, rather than the new moon in Aries (which would have occurred in either late March or early April of that year). Even then, questions linger if there were any other planetary alignments (specifically occurring in a zodiac sign, not a constellation) around this time, well after March 5, to indicate the start of the zodiacal cycle.
Western Theory’s Validity: This study assumes that the West’s theory of the zodiac is valid, while the Chinese school of thought is to be questioned. For example: seasons in the Southern Hemisphere are reversed compared to the Northern Hemisphere. When it’s winter in the Northern Hemisphere (where the association of Capricorn, for example, with cold weather originates), it’s summer in South America. Someone born under the influence of the sign of Capricorn in South America would experience their birth season as a time of warmth and activity, potentially influencing their personality to be more outgoing and energetic. A person born under this sign in South America, during their summer season, could exhibit traits that contradict the Capricorn stereotype, which is dominant in the West.
Identifying “Twins”: This study may also fall short when it comes to zodiacal “twins,” people who are identical in terms of Sun/Moon sign combinations, yet are not biological twins. Even biological twins are never carbon copies, yet always manage to exhibit distinct traits that set them apart. Likewise, although two people may be “twins” in terms of shared Sun/Moon combinations, they may exhibit distinct traits while sharing fundamental similarities.
Shared Signs in Common: There is also the bias that people who share signs in common, on the Sun/Moon level, are more likely to share a relationship, or even a harmonious one for that matter, which could very well be wrong. There are various examples of relationships between people who share nothing in common on the Sun/Moon level, yet a relationship exists. Other planets may be at play in the dynamics of these relationships, which are not being considered in my analysis. Or, it could be that values are shared, forming a common bond in the relationship. Values and signs may need to be evaluated together, since someone’s beliefs can be important to the way they live their life, and I feel this may explain why even though some relationships may not line up in terms of “compatible” signs, some affinity is still felt.
Definitive Answers: This study may not provide all the answers to why some relationships work and some don’t, but some answers may be available for greater insight which was previously lacking. Human beings are complex creatures, and while I cannot expect to address all concerns with my relatively simple method of analysis, something may still be possible.
IV. Results
What better way to introduce the results of this study than with one of the most famous groups of all time: The Beatles. From first glance of this chart, which displays the traditional zodiac sign names on the left, and the newer, colorized variants on the right, it would look as though Ringo Starr were the dominant (aka leader) member of the group. Although it’s definitely possible that Ringo was a big part of the band’s energy, he was not the group’s leader. The leadership of the band seems to have been divided between John Lennon and Paul McCartney, with Paul having a slight edge in the group’s later years. The only person who does not contribute to the band’s dominant energy is George Harrison, although he shared the sign “OR” in common with Paul and John. The reason why the opposite sign of the band’s dominant energy was highlighted was to illustrate how energy opposition could have manifested. In a BBC interview, from October 11, 2021, Paul McCartney revealed that the reason why the Beatles broke up was: “That was our Johnny… I am not the person who instigated the split.” In theory, John Lennon could be said to have been a conflicted individual, due to the opposition between his Year and Moon signs. If the Year sign is also determined by the moon, one could say that he was a sort of contradiction when it came to expressing himself emotionally. On the other hand, one could also make the case that John was still an integral part of the Beatles, regardless of any potential inner conflict. Whether or not John felt the opposition more acutely than George is uncertain. George did not contribute to the band’s dominant sign, and as such may have experienced feelings of alienation, while John did contribute to the band’s dominance, but also opposed it in some way. I thought it might be interesting to mention Paul’s remarks from the BBC interview, to potentially backup what the figure demonstrates visually. Mind you, the band’s dissolution remains a hotly debated topic, even in the 50+ years after it happened. But the colors in this visual seem to present a side of the story that mirrors Paul’s claim.
While not nearly as famous as The Beatles, Pink Floyd remains one of the most successful acts in the history of music, and for good reason. Their music has resonated with innumerable listeners, and continues to sell well after the “golden” line-up dissolved all those years ago. While there is no opposing sign present in any of the signs of the band members from this period in the group’s history, the potential leadership of Roger Waters, unlike the example of Ringo Starr, can be validated. It is quite known that Roger was a dominating force in the band’s history, even during the Syd Barrett days. David Gilmour, on the other hand, may not have represented as focused of an energy as Roger, who also composed the lyrics for some of their best songs, but David still shared the sign “B” in common with the other three members. He did not contribute to the band’s dominant sign, “R,” but he still remained an integral part of the band’s sound and presence. So then why did this line-up end in the manner it did? By the time it broke up, and Richard Wright left the band, Roger’s vision with The Wall was in full force. The year after the line-ups rupture, a film adaptation of the album was produced. This data reveals that considering the sign shared in common between David, Rick, and Nick, the opposition to “O” (Roger’s Sun sign) is formed, and although Roger subsequently left after Rick, he was arguably Pink Floyd’s most effective leader, however difficult he may have been to work with.
Led Zeppelin’s dominant figure was Jimmy Page, the group was his brainchild. But the data we have, similar to the example of the Beatles, suggests it was actually John Paul Jones, the band’s bassist. Quite possibly a force to be reckoned with, the opposition to “Y” was quite strong, and yet it’s possible Jimmy Page’s feeling opposed could have been softened due to the fact that he was also contributing to the band’s dominant energy. Although John Bonham and Robert Plant do not contribute to the dominance of “V,” they still share two signs in common, “BG” and “B,” and as such were perhaps the most compatible members of the band. John Paul Jones probably hated “Y,” even if he didn’t know it. Jimmy Page apparently identified with his Sun sign, Capricorn, so much, that he painted a symbol (“Zoso”) for the sign’s ruling planet Saturn on one of his amplifiers. However, the reason why the band split up is less obvious than in the prior two examples. It was not because Jimmy Page could no longer bear the weight of John Paul Jones, but rather due to the death of John Bonham, who was another driving force behind the band. If Jimmy Page was Led Zeppelin’s brain, John Bonham was its sense of time, and after the drummer was found dead following a battle with alcoholism, the band decided to put an end to things, citing the immense influence on Bonham on the group’s music, and its inability to continue in the wake of his passing.
As cited in the figure’s caption, ZZ Top was one of the oldest bands to have existed. I’m not referring to the life of the name itself, but rather the line-up featuring the original members, which persisted for 50+ years, a seeming rarity in rock circles. All three of the prior examples did not last for even 15 years, yet this one outlived them all. And we can observe that all three of the members did in fact contribute to the band’s dominant sign, “G.” Even though an opposition is formed, and perhaps most apparent between Dusty Hill and Billy Gibbons, Billy was also contributing to the band’s dominance, so in this sense he may have felt the opposition less than someone who just had “R” as one of their signs. The reason why this line-up ended was in part due to old age, when Dusty Hill passed away at 72, after complications from chronic bursitis.
V. Discussion
Revisiting the results from the study, it would seem that in all of the four examples, there was a dominant energy, held by two or more of the group’s members. Some examples were more pronounced than others, but no two outcomes were alike. The example of the Beatles would seem to be the most self-explanatory, while the example of Led Zeppelin was quite the opposite. Regardless, the data holds the potential to present new implications for scientific inquiry, and the relationship between science and the zodiac, which has been strained in recent years. If more groups were assessed, using the same criteria, more patterns might emerge, suggesting new ways of making sense of individual inclinations within the group.
VI. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study has explored the potential of combining Western and Chinese zodiacs, specifically focusing on the influence of Year, Sun and Moon signs, to understand group dynamics and individual temperaments within the context of famous rock bands. The results, though preliminary, present intriguing patterns that warrant further investigation. While the concept of a dominant energy within a group was observed across all four examples, each band displayed unique outcomes, highlighting the complex interplay of individual personalities and collective dynamics. The adoption of a color-based model, as proposed in this study, could offer a novel approach to bridging the gap between Western and Chinese zodiac traditions, potentially leading to a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior and personality. Despite its limitations and potential biases, this research contributes to the ongoing conversation about the relationship between the zodiac and science. By focusing on observable patterns and potential correlations between zodiac signs and human behavior, it offers a fresh perspective that may encourage the scientific community to reconsider the validity of zodiacal influences. While further research is needed to validate the findings and address the complexities of human personality, this study lays the groundwork for a more nuanced and integrated approach to understanding the human psyche through the lens of the zodiac.
Figure 2.4: ZZ Top, one of the oldest bands, in terms of its line-up’s longevity.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse