traditional / modern / contemporary
- Thread starter sandstone
- Start date
Rebel Uranian
Well-known member
rebel u quote "Trine and opposition both have the same weight at a given orb."
what kind of weight are you speaking of?
rebel u and jup asc, does traditional astrology mean not using the outer planets of uranus, nep and pluto to the both of you? curious to know.. thanks..
rebel u quote - "Ever heard of Nietzsche? The guy was raw Saturn." would you care to explain this in astrological terms, or is it just an opinion based on having read him while not looking at his chart? i am curious.. thanks.
what kind of weight are you speaking of?
rebel u and jup asc, does traditional astrology mean not using the outer planets of uranus, nep and pluto to the both of you? curious to know.. thanks..
rebel u quote - "Ever heard of Nietzsche? The guy was raw Saturn." would you care to explain this in astrological terms, or is it just an opinion based on having read him while not looking at his chart? i am curious.. thanks.
Last edited:
Rebel Uranian
Well-known member
"Weight" = amount of influence. I got it from the table of scoring. Basically:
Conjunction - 5 (same as domicile in a sign)
Trine or opposition - 4
Sextile or square - 3 (that's right, squares are weaker than oppositions)
Conjunction - 5 (same as domicile in a sign)
Trine or opposition - 4
Sextile or square - 3 (that's right, squares are weaker than oppositions)
yes, it does jup asc, but it doesn't answer my question in a direct manner.. my question from above : "does traditional astrology mean not using the outer planets of uranus, nep and pluto to the both of you? curious to know.. thanks.."
if you could answer directly as opposed to sharing links to other threads, i would find it more helpful... thanks..
if you could answer directly as opposed to sharing links to other threads, i would find it more helpful... thanks..
and if dr farr happens to pass by, perhaps he can be so kind to offer an example from a question i posed to him here from a few days ago too.. thanks..
Sandstone:
Yes, most of our Traditionalist friends do not use the outers; same with Vedic astrology (although jyotish actually counts 9 "planets", they gave very extensive attention to Rahu and Ketu, ie, the NN and SN of the Moon; plus they also use "hypothetical planets" Mandi and Gulika, as well; I think that in a way the Vedics "make up" for the 3 outers with the delineative atention they give these other-what they call-"shadow planets")
I myself do not use the outers in horary (because I have found that I don't need to use them), but for all other purposes I would be at a loss if I were not able to bring into account the outers.
Yes, most of our Traditionalist friends do not use the outers; same with Vedic astrology (although jyotish actually counts 9 "planets", they gave very extensive attention to Rahu and Ketu, ie, the NN and SN of the Moon; plus they also use "hypothetical planets" Mandi and Gulika, as well; I think that in a way the Vedics "make up" for the 3 outers with the delineative atention they give these other-what they call-"shadow planets")
I myself do not use the outers in horary (because I have found that I don't need to use them), but for all other purposes I would be at a loss if I were not able to bring into account the outers.
Rebel Uranian
Well-known member
Why do we use Pluto and not Eris? Eris is bigger than Pluto.
Rebel Uranian
Well-known member
Wait, there was a question directed to me? I thought there were a couple to Jup and dr. farr but that was it. I'm looking and still can't find one.
Edit: Was it the one about what the weight of an aspect meant?
Edit: Was it the one about what the weight of an aspect meant?
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
[deleted personal comment - Moderator]
The "naked eye" argument against using the "outers" has been used a lot, and I just don't buy it. Traditional astrologers adopted the instrumentation of their day as it became available: armillary spheres, astrolabes, perapegmas, and ultimately telescopes (which came into use long prior to the emergence of modern astrology.) They also switched from direct observation of the heavens to using an ephemeris and tables as soon as these became available. (I just read an interesting article on this: Daryn Lehoux, "Observation and prediction in ancient astrology," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34 (2004): 227-246.) They used mathematical calculations, not direct observation, for much of their work.
Interestingly, the outer planets and some of the asteroids were mathematically predicted before they were actually observed, due to otherwise-unexplainable orbits of their nearest known neighbour. Mathematical prediction goes back to the Babylonians.
"Powerful telescopes" is kind of relative. Uranus sometimes is visible with the naked eye, let alone with the telescopes of backyard star-gazers. Actually, Pluto was discovered through telescope photographs of the night sky. It showed up as a tiny dot of light-- but one that moved.
So "naked eye" astrology in any kind of pure form went out with the Babylonians, and prior to the development of Hellenistic astrology.
Not to mention all kinds of invisible or highly abstract placements in traditional horoscopes: dividing lines between signs, most of the house cusps, "lots" or Arabic parts, degrees artifically based upon a 360-degree circle, dwads, and lunar nodes.
What does seem to make a difference is a whole corpus of work on the traditional planets that just never extended beyond Saturn: terms, faces, exaltations, joys, for example. So it is kind of like driving a car with a given number of seatbelts and seats in it. It just doesn't work too well to cram in unanticipated extra passengers.
Modern astrology in the English-speaking world really didn't get its start till the late 19th century, 100 years after the discovery of Uranus. It grew out of the tail end of the Romantic movement, with particular roots in the theosophical movement. (Nicholas Campion's 2nd volume of his history of western astrology is a good source on the origins of modern astrology.)
I use Pluto because I think it has tremendous influence in a natal horoscope. Pluto square sun people, in my experience, usually have real control issues in inter-personal relationships. Ditto for Neptune: often (not always) when it squares a personal planet, the person has issues with drugs or alcohol. Uranus can be a great liberator in ways that traditional astrologers couldn't conceive because their societies were more conservative than ours.
It takes some time and research to determine what a newly discovered heavenly body does in a horoscope. I think we are there with the outers, Chiron (athough not in the New Age sense of its earlier authors), and Black Moon Lilith. I don't think we are there yet with the trans-Plutonians.
The "naked eye" argument against using the "outers" has been used a lot, and I just don't buy it. Traditional astrologers adopted the instrumentation of their day as it became available: armillary spheres, astrolabes, perapegmas, and ultimately telescopes (which came into use long prior to the emergence of modern astrology.) They also switched from direct observation of the heavens to using an ephemeris and tables as soon as these became available. (I just read an interesting article on this: Daryn Lehoux, "Observation and prediction in ancient astrology," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34 (2004): 227-246.) They used mathematical calculations, not direct observation, for much of their work.
Interestingly, the outer planets and some of the asteroids were mathematically predicted before they were actually observed, due to otherwise-unexplainable orbits of their nearest known neighbour. Mathematical prediction goes back to the Babylonians.
"Powerful telescopes" is kind of relative. Uranus sometimes is visible with the naked eye, let alone with the telescopes of backyard star-gazers. Actually, Pluto was discovered through telescope photographs of the night sky. It showed up as a tiny dot of light-- but one that moved.
So "naked eye" astrology in any kind of pure form went out with the Babylonians, and prior to the development of Hellenistic astrology.
Not to mention all kinds of invisible or highly abstract placements in traditional horoscopes: dividing lines between signs, most of the house cusps, "lots" or Arabic parts, degrees artifically based upon a 360-degree circle, dwads, and lunar nodes.
What does seem to make a difference is a whole corpus of work on the traditional planets that just never extended beyond Saturn: terms, faces, exaltations, joys, for example. So it is kind of like driving a car with a given number of seatbelts and seats in it. It just doesn't work too well to cram in unanticipated extra passengers.
Modern astrology in the English-speaking world really didn't get its start till the late 19th century, 100 years after the discovery of Uranus. It grew out of the tail end of the Romantic movement, with particular roots in the theosophical movement. (Nicholas Campion's 2nd volume of his history of western astrology is a good source on the origins of modern astrology.)
I use Pluto because I think it has tremendous influence in a natal horoscope. Pluto square sun people, in my experience, usually have real control issues in inter-personal relationships. Ditto for Neptune: often (not always) when it squares a personal planet, the person has issues with drugs or alcohol. Uranus can be a great liberator in ways that traditional astrologers couldn't conceive because their societies were more conservative than ours.
It takes some time and research to determine what a newly discovered heavenly body does in a horoscope. I think we are there with the outers, Chiron (athough not in the New Age sense of its earlier authors), and Black Moon Lilith. I don't think we are there yet with the trans-Plutonians.
Last edited by a moderator:
rebel u, here are my questions to you from 6:49pm time stamp on my screen here so from earlier
"rebel u and jup asc, does traditional astrology mean not using the outer planets of uranus, nep and pluto to the both of you? curious to know.. thanks..
rebel u quote - "Ever heard of Nietzsche? The guy was raw Saturn." would you care to explain this in astrological terms, or is it just an opinion based on having read him while not looking at his chart? i am curious.. thanks.
here is the 6:56pm post in response to one of your posts too..
who gets to decide the weigh values rebel u? is it arbitrarily set by someone specific and if so, who? thanks..
"rebel u and jup asc, does traditional astrology mean not using the outer planets of uranus, nep and pluto to the both of you? curious to know.. thanks..
rebel u quote - "Ever heard of Nietzsche? The guy was raw Saturn." would you care to explain this in astrological terms, or is it just an opinion based on having read him while not looking at his chart? i am curious.. thanks.
here is the 6:56pm post in response to one of your posts too..
who gets to decide the weigh values rebel u? is it arbitrarily set by someone specific and if so, who? thanks..
jup asc - oh, i read it(the thread you pasted), but as i've said to you already, it didn't answer my question directly and my observation on your reluctance to answer tells me a few things aside from your talent of cutting and pasting and highlighting in blue..
i asked dr farr a question and he either missed it or consciously chooses to ignore it or leave it for another time... people will offer different responses and people will read into these interaction any number of ways.. if someone wants to practice traditional astrology and not include the planets, uranus, neptune and pluto - i don't care! you can let your *** hang out of the window driving down sunset blvd too and i could care less, if you know what i mean!!
[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]
i asked dr farr a question and he either missed it or consciously chooses to ignore it or leave it for another time... people will offer different responses and people will read into these interaction any number of ways.. if someone wants to practice traditional astrology and not include the planets, uranus, neptune and pluto - i don't care! you can let your *** hang out of the window driving down sunset blvd too and i could care less, if you know what i mean!!
[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]
Last edited by a moderator:
...
waybread
Well-known member
JA, I addressed your factual errors in my previous post. I can also copy and paste. It is one thing to express opinions, but the past happened a certain way. We can never know or understand it completely, but neither is the past entirely an imaginative work unless we are simply writing historical fiction.
In addition to sandstone's request for your feedback, it would be good of you to incorporate or respond to the following counter-points. I think they would moderate your views.
In addition to sandstone's request for your feedback, it would be good of you to incorporate or respond to the following counter-points. I think they would moderate your views.
One notable difference, too is that "modern" astrology, as we know it, really sort of stemmed from the 1700s and the Age of Enlightenment - as it was. Everything at that time took a sort of swing toward a scientific, "rational", practical and mechanistic perspective. This meant that if it wasn't scientifically explanable or rational then it wasn't valid. if it could not be held, dropped, proved, demonstrated and touched then, it wasn't real. I suppose Voltaire tried to bridge this developing rift between the natural and deific and the scientific and rational but it was a heavy tide to contend against.
So, as new things were discovered, astrologers felt that in order to protect the integrity of astrology, the new scientific ideas and discoveries had to somehow be grafted on to the foundations of astrology (i.e. Uranus, a new planet now needs a sign to rule- shouldn't ALL planets have signs to rule?).
Of course the more the solar system grew the more astrology made room for it all and slowly, the wheel became more disfigured as we go along.
So, now we have the 'modern' approach which is simply adding things into a chart and guessing how to read them. There is no particular form or method to do this. It is just done. Some people pick 'these' things and others pick 'those' things. The truly courageous just add everything to a chart and then, in retrospect, make it work with known outcomes.
Modern astrology has value but no practice or discipline and is relatively new in light of the history of astrology as well. Even Sun-sign astrology is not astrology but simply an invention popularized during the WWII time period but, other than that, has little historical bearing.
Traditional astrology with all it varying methods is, now, becoming used like modern astrology is. You see people who say they are traditional astrologers taking Hellenistic methods and mixing them with modern house systems adding Arabic parts and then, say, quoting Lilly. It's just a hodge-podge after so much of this.
So, what is the difference? Well, true traditional astrology adheres to a set of rules in a specific context. Something modern people in general rue. It also has a philosophy or structure like seven planets rule the twelve signs and do so for the following reasons...etc. etc.
On the other hand see Uranian astrology. Very modern. Now that will freak out even the most open-minded modern astrologer. Yet, it works! But, only when traditionally used in its own context and set of rules that it developed under. You can't just take the trans-neptunians and use them the same way out of the Uranian system and get the fine results or anything truly useful or predictive.
I guess, in short, what I see, is that there is a system and a method or discipline that has to give form to whatever is being used rather than discarded in favor of a free-for-all. Astrology seems to break down in that sort of formless void.
So, as new things were discovered, astrologers felt that in order to protect the integrity of astrology, the new scientific ideas and discoveries had to somehow be grafted on to the foundations of astrology (i.e. Uranus, a new planet now needs a sign to rule- shouldn't ALL planets have signs to rule?).
Of course the more the solar system grew the more astrology made room for it all and slowly, the wheel became more disfigured as we go along.
So, now we have the 'modern' approach which is simply adding things into a chart and guessing how to read them. There is no particular form or method to do this. It is just done. Some people pick 'these' things and others pick 'those' things. The truly courageous just add everything to a chart and then, in retrospect, make it work with known outcomes.
Modern astrology has value but no practice or discipline and is relatively new in light of the history of astrology as well. Even Sun-sign astrology is not astrology but simply an invention popularized during the WWII time period but, other than that, has little historical bearing.
Traditional astrology with all it varying methods is, now, becoming used like modern astrology is. You see people who say they are traditional astrologers taking Hellenistic methods and mixing them with modern house systems adding Arabic parts and then, say, quoting Lilly. It's just a hodge-podge after so much of this.
So, what is the difference? Well, true traditional astrology adheres to a set of rules in a specific context. Something modern people in general rue. It also has a philosophy or structure like seven planets rule the twelve signs and do so for the following reasons...etc. etc.
On the other hand see Uranian astrology. Very modern. Now that will freak out even the most open-minded modern astrologer. Yet, it works! But, only when traditionally used in its own context and set of rules that it developed under. You can't just take the trans-neptunians and use them the same way out of the Uranian system and get the fine results or anything truly useful or predictive.
I guess, in short, what I see, is that there is a system and a method or discipline that has to give form to whatever is being used rather than discarded in favor of a free-for-all. Astrology seems to break down in that sort of formless void.
dr farr - thanks..
jup asc - clearly you have tried to answer me, so thanks for that.. i was looking for a 'yes or no' - do you use the outer planets? and i take it your answer is no.. thanks.
one's astrology will need to be based on observation, not theory..
there is a book called 'under one sky' that i read about a year ago which has a mystery chart that is read by about 10 astrologers, all from different areas of specialty in astrology, traditional, modern, uranian and etc. etc. some here might enjoy reading it..
what happens to a theory when new information comes along to challenge it?
i don't think methods were so fixed and rigid down into the past either.. any system we have today from the past doesn't clearly reflect the controversies or different ways of deciphering the information as i see it.. some of the astrologers from the deep past might have used arabic parts more prominently, some might have considered the relevance of certain stars more strongly then others.. the idea that traditional astrology has a clearly laid out system where astrologers from the past all agreed that it was the way and the only way reminds me of the type of thinking that permeates orthodox religion of the past... "the one and only way" type of thinking certain does have an appeal to those looking for a method, but more then the method one adopts, it needs to be built up on a greater examination of life, thru reading and considering astro charts over the course of time.. it can't be theoretical only... this is why i like asking for examples of a particular method applied.. it is where an observer either agrees with the analysis or not, but where the practicioner lays it on the line with the value they feel they can offer using there particular brand of astrology..
thanks for the comments everyone. i apologize if i went over the moderators line in some of my comments from earlier.......
jup asc - clearly you have tried to answer me, so thanks for that.. i was looking for a 'yes or no' - do you use the outer planets? and i take it your answer is no.. thanks.
one's astrology will need to be based on observation, not theory..
there is a book called 'under one sky' that i read about a year ago which has a mystery chart that is read by about 10 astrologers, all from different areas of specialty in astrology, traditional, modern, uranian and etc. etc. some here might enjoy reading it..
what happens to a theory when new information comes along to challenge it?
i don't think methods were so fixed and rigid down into the past either.. any system we have today from the past doesn't clearly reflect the controversies or different ways of deciphering the information as i see it.. some of the astrologers from the deep past might have used arabic parts more prominently, some might have considered the relevance of certain stars more strongly then others.. the idea that traditional astrology has a clearly laid out system where astrologers from the past all agreed that it was the way and the only way reminds me of the type of thinking that permeates orthodox religion of the past... "the one and only way" type of thinking certain does have an appeal to those looking for a method, but more then the method one adopts, it needs to be built up on a greater examination of life, thru reading and considering astro charts over the course of time.. it can't be theoretical only... this is why i like asking for examples of a particular method applied.. it is where an observer either agrees with the analysis or not, but where the practicioner lays it on the line with the value they feel they can offer using there particular brand of astrology..
thanks for the comments everyone. i apologize if i went over the moderators line in some of my comments from earlier.......
waybread
Well-known member
Anachiel, you raise some good points.
If we really investigate the history of astrology (as Nicholas Campion did in his 2-volume history of astrology) we find two parallel currents. One, as you indicate, was a concern to make astrology more rational and scientific, according to scientific cultures of the day. But another major influence opposed the scientific perspective: the theosophical movement which stemmed from an essentially Romantic era belief in a world "beyond the veil", resurrecting ancient religions, mediumship, and a more experiential and impressionistic approach to life. Here we find people like Helena Blavatsky, who was not an astrologer but who inspired the new generation, the Theosophical Society, and the Golden Dawn. Dane Rudhyar came right out of this tradition.
The field of psychology in the early 20th century seemed ready-made for the "new astrology." Its own empirical standards at the time were far lower than they are today, hence the theories of Carl Jung (with his own interest in astrology) and Sigmund Freud.
Also, I have to say that both the old traditional and modern astrology contain/ed both rational thinking and ideas that are just as goofy--and probably as pernicious-- as they come. I mean can anyone here take seriously the sensationalist, Chicken Little mentality that pervades a lot of Hellenistic astrology?
I think your statement applies to some but not all astrologers on either side of the division: (quote) "So, now we have the 'modern' approach which is simply adding things into a chart and guessing how to read them. There is no particular form or method to do this. It is just done. Some people pick 'these' things and others pick 'those' things. The truly courageous just add everything to a chart and then, in retrospect, make it work with known outcomes."
Where I used to live, "courageous" is a passive way of saying "fool-hardy."
This put-down really overlooks the work of several modern astrologers who tried very hard to systematize astrology (I don't care for their approaches, but C.E.O. Carter, Alan Leo, and Noel Tyl come to mind.) It also overlooks the lack of system that I frankly find in Vettius Valens and Dorotheus, who seemed to have a real "kitchen sink" approach to compiling techniques.
To say that "modern astrology has no practice or discipline" ignores the "all-over-the-map" attributes that I am currently finding in Hellenistic astrology, the more deeply I get into it. I just browsed through the Greek magical papyri (University of Chicago Press edition) and it is pretty shocking to read what neo-traditionalists have pruned out of this particular branch of the astrological family tree.
People should practice what they want to practice without inventing astrological pasts or presents as foils against which to promote their own astrological preferences.
If we really investigate the history of astrology (as Nicholas Campion did in his 2-volume history of astrology) we find two parallel currents. One, as you indicate, was a concern to make astrology more rational and scientific, according to scientific cultures of the day. But another major influence opposed the scientific perspective: the theosophical movement which stemmed from an essentially Romantic era belief in a world "beyond the veil", resurrecting ancient religions, mediumship, and a more experiential and impressionistic approach to life. Here we find people like Helena Blavatsky, who was not an astrologer but who inspired the new generation, the Theosophical Society, and the Golden Dawn. Dane Rudhyar came right out of this tradition.
The field of psychology in the early 20th century seemed ready-made for the "new astrology." Its own empirical standards at the time were far lower than they are today, hence the theories of Carl Jung (with his own interest in astrology) and Sigmund Freud.
Also, I have to say that both the old traditional and modern astrology contain/ed both rational thinking and ideas that are just as goofy--and probably as pernicious-- as they come. I mean can anyone here take seriously the sensationalist, Chicken Little mentality that pervades a lot of Hellenistic astrology?
I think your statement applies to some but not all astrologers on either side of the division: (quote) "So, now we have the 'modern' approach which is simply adding things into a chart and guessing how to read them. There is no particular form or method to do this. It is just done. Some people pick 'these' things and others pick 'those' things. The truly courageous just add everything to a chart and then, in retrospect, make it work with known outcomes."
Where I used to live, "courageous" is a passive way of saying "fool-hardy."
This put-down really overlooks the work of several modern astrologers who tried very hard to systematize astrology (I don't care for their approaches, but C.E.O. Carter, Alan Leo, and Noel Tyl come to mind.) It also overlooks the lack of system that I frankly find in Vettius Valens and Dorotheus, who seemed to have a real "kitchen sink" approach to compiling techniques.
To say that "modern astrology has no practice or discipline" ignores the "all-over-the-map" attributes that I am currently finding in Hellenistic astrology, the more deeply I get into it. I just browsed through the Greek magical papyri (University of Chicago Press edition) and it is pretty shocking to read what neo-traditionalists have pruned out of this particular branch of the astrological family tree.
People should practice what they want to practice without inventing astrological pasts or presents as foils against which to promote their own astrological preferences.