hi,
this is a conversation i want to start on different methods being used in astrology that is coming out of a conversation from earlier on the whole sign houses and MC thread.
i quoted a part of james herschel holden from an interview taken in 2008 that i wanted to share that was off topic but might be of interest to others here..
anachiel responded to my post and i share anachiels post below before i begin to respond to it here.
anachiel seems to be implying that their is a difference between doing something out of tradition and doing something by rote.. this may or may not be the case as i see it..
observation would seem to be the most valuable asset we have when learning more about astrology. we can learn different astrological methods and we can see for ourselves whether they work for us or not. i think this partly explains why their is such diversity in the astro community.. i see astrology as more art then science, but i am always drawn to those who have a more scientific approach in so far as i think astrological ideas need to be put to the test of statistical analysis..
the work of the french couple - michel and francios gauguelin are a good example of this . i think the work they've done was successful in challenging/upending some of the more traditional approaches to astrology, specifically house systems and the idea of angular, succedent and cadent meaning. to quickly summarize - planets in cadent positions were found to have a direct association with the profession of outstanding individuals in there particular area of expertise..
another example of a more modern development in astrology is the work of john addey in the use of and re-introduction to harmonics or what is known as the shodasavargas in vedic astrology.. the navamsa or 9th harmonic chart is an important consideration in vedic astrology and is really a good example of an idea that has existed for some time that is not necessarily all that modern.. i mentioned on another thread how one can do a 3rd harmonic chart and get very similar results offered with the manilius decans.. i suppose there are a number of questions astrologers could ask around these connections.. i do find it isn't so much about how one wants to perceive their involvement in astrology so much as to keep an open mind that is guided by observation as opposed to formulas or rules that are handed down from the past..
the discovery of planets, planetoids and etc over the past few hundred years continues to present challenges to traditional views on astrology.. does one incorporate pluto and asign rulership to scorpio is just one of many examples that need to be addressed.. i suppose this is an example of the distinction i try to address in my title - traditional verses modern which brings me to the 3rd part - contemporary.
while reading the whole sign thread it occurred to me the work of people like steve cossi, michael erlewine in local space astrology had some relation to the conversation in so far using an horizon based system is supposedly quite old, in spite of it's reintroduction to those on the cutting edge of new techniques in astrology.. the work of jim lewis - astrocartography, and martin davis - (astrolocality is a blend of the 2 -acg and ls) are 2 other examples of innovative approaches to astrology that have much to offer those interested in research, or the practice of astrology.
to me the bottom line of all this is this : does one have an open mind to exploring new ideas, or ideas that may be quite old that haven't been explored fully, or does one feel more comfortable identifying with a particular time frame or category of astrological study to the point where they might be more willing to close their mind to equally or possibly more rewarding areas of study? as james holden said or something to this effect - "all i ask is that astrologers consider the use of sign-house or whole signs" to which i would add, the same can be said for the various methods and innovations of others on the cutting edge of contemporary astrology..
i don't believe there are any right or wrong approaches so long as one has an open mind and is willing to base their conclusions on observation as opposed to following a system of rules that says 'this means that' for example.. let experience be a guide..
this is it for now, lol.
james
this is a conversation i want to start on different methods being used in astrology that is coming out of a conversation from earlier on the whole sign houses and MC thread.
i quoted a part of james herschel holden from an interview taken in 2008 that i wanted to share that was off topic but might be of interest to others here..
anachiel responded to my post and i share anachiels post below before i begin to respond to it here.
It's a good point but, what Fiddler on the Roof came to describe was something done by "rote"; an act done out of habit, without meaning or without knowing the meaning, something done without thought.
Generally, acts that require no thought can be done by rote.
Tradition, on the other hand, is a continuing pattern that is handed down generation after generation involving a customary method or manner that is relevant. In other words, it conveys meaning and applies itself in usable form to daily use.
Traditional astrology is very different from astrology done by rote which, I don't think could be done because astrology requires you think. But, I get your general gist.
Mars, per your example, was not originally ascribed to rule anything. It was only through observation that lead to an organized system, passed down through generations (i.e. tradition-a pattern), that all this took form. No, it wasn't a perfect transmission but it had a pattern.
Modern astrologers now say Mars only rules Aries and Pluto now rules Scorpio...they broke with tradition - the pattern- and instead applied the every-body-must-rule-a-sign rote mentality. Not thinking, this, of course, broke down even further when we discovered more bodies than we had signs. Now people want to add more signs to the heavens and perpetuate the same rote mentality.
In short, tradition takes hundreds of years of thinking to develop. You can start acting by rote today.
anachiel seems to be implying that their is a difference between doing something out of tradition and doing something by rote.. this may or may not be the case as i see it..
observation would seem to be the most valuable asset we have when learning more about astrology. we can learn different astrological methods and we can see for ourselves whether they work for us or not. i think this partly explains why their is such diversity in the astro community.. i see astrology as more art then science, but i am always drawn to those who have a more scientific approach in so far as i think astrological ideas need to be put to the test of statistical analysis..
the work of the french couple - michel and francios gauguelin are a good example of this . i think the work they've done was successful in challenging/upending some of the more traditional approaches to astrology, specifically house systems and the idea of angular, succedent and cadent meaning. to quickly summarize - planets in cadent positions were found to have a direct association with the profession of outstanding individuals in there particular area of expertise..
another example of a more modern development in astrology is the work of john addey in the use of and re-introduction to harmonics or what is known as the shodasavargas in vedic astrology.. the navamsa or 9th harmonic chart is an important consideration in vedic astrology and is really a good example of an idea that has existed for some time that is not necessarily all that modern.. i mentioned on another thread how one can do a 3rd harmonic chart and get very similar results offered with the manilius decans.. i suppose there are a number of questions astrologers could ask around these connections.. i do find it isn't so much about how one wants to perceive their involvement in astrology so much as to keep an open mind that is guided by observation as opposed to formulas or rules that are handed down from the past..
the discovery of planets, planetoids and etc over the past few hundred years continues to present challenges to traditional views on astrology.. does one incorporate pluto and asign rulership to scorpio is just one of many examples that need to be addressed.. i suppose this is an example of the distinction i try to address in my title - traditional verses modern which brings me to the 3rd part - contemporary.
while reading the whole sign thread it occurred to me the work of people like steve cossi, michael erlewine in local space astrology had some relation to the conversation in so far using an horizon based system is supposedly quite old, in spite of it's reintroduction to those on the cutting edge of new techniques in astrology.. the work of jim lewis - astrocartography, and martin davis - (astrolocality is a blend of the 2 -acg and ls) are 2 other examples of innovative approaches to astrology that have much to offer those interested in research, or the practice of astrology.
to me the bottom line of all this is this : does one have an open mind to exploring new ideas, or ideas that may be quite old that haven't been explored fully, or does one feel more comfortable identifying with a particular time frame or category of astrological study to the point where they might be more willing to close their mind to equally or possibly more rewarding areas of study? as james holden said or something to this effect - "all i ask is that astrologers consider the use of sign-house or whole signs" to which i would add, the same can be said for the various methods and innovations of others on the cutting edge of contemporary astrology..
i don't believe there are any right or wrong approaches so long as one has an open mind and is willing to base their conclusions on observation as opposed to following a system of rules that says 'this means that' for example.. let experience be a guide..
this is it for now, lol.
james