traditional / modern / contemporary

sandstone

Banned
waybread, thanks for articulating some of my many concerns with traditional astrology and anachiels post.. i am not comfortable with all of modern astrology either, but to me it comes down to what i think is the same throughout.. people are capable of error and fallacy no matter what time they lived on the planet - past or present.. to idealize a particular time or era would seem to want to ignore the fact people are people who do the same brilliant and bone headed things that people typically do, no matter the time frame..

one of the most engaging astrologers of modern time for me, given the wealth of knowledge they shared, or were very central in helping foster is reinhold ebertin.. i think much of his work came out of alfred witte who is largely responsible for uranian astrology.. if i was to identify with only one area of modern astrology with the use of the 90 and 45 degree wheel and dial and the focus on midpoints, this would be it.. it is what i do and what i love to do.. it is unfortunate that many folks new to astrology, or first learning about astrology are unaware of his work...
 
Last edited:

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
waybread, thanks for articulating some of my many concerns with traditional astrology and anachiels post.. i am not comfortable with all of modern astrology either, but to me it comes down to what i think is the same throughout.. people are capable of error and fallacy no matter what time they lived on the planet - past or present.. to idealize a particular time or era would seem to want to ignore the fact people are people who do the same brilliant and bone headed things that people typically do, no matter the time frame..

There were no "good old days." Time is time and it is what you make of it. Of course, one should be very careful when one says that "things are what you make of them" because if you extend that a little we're in the best and worst possible place at the same time for the same reasons and that always leads to bad ideas.
 

Frank

Well-known member
I go for the middle way. I'm more concerned with what works that what is pigeon-holed as a certain type of astrology.

Many people call me a traditional astrologer only because I use the Classical Essential Dignities scheme. Why do I use that scheme? Because I find it works.

I use Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in my charts - but not in the dignity scheme.

I use Hellenistic techniques that I (and my clients) find to be useful.

I use Arabic techniques that I (and my clients) find to be useful.

I use Medieval techniques that I (and my clients) find to be useful.

I use Elizabethan techniques that I (and my clients) find to be useful.

I use Lilly's (and his contemporaries) techniques that I (and my clients) find to be useful.

I use Leo's techniques that I (and my clients) find to be useful.

I use Rudhyar's techniques that I (and my clients) find to be useful.

I use Ebertin's techniques that I (and my clients) find to be useful.

Etc.

A consultation with me is likely to contain techniques from the entire history of astrology to this point. I use what I find to work.

And I do research to find new things that might work better. And things that don't work at all.

Ideas, not Ideology.

Works, not Faith.

Efficacy, not Idolatry.

Competency, not Complacency.

Pedagogy, not Preaching.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Sandstone, I second your "live and let live" approach. The book you mention is edited by Rafael Nasser, Under One Sky. Readers can tell us whether they think Robert Schmidt (Hellenistic) and Robert Hand (medieval) did a better job in a blind chart reading than did the modern astrologers.

As I've expressed elsewhere, so far I do not wish to practice traditional astrology, but I have a lot of interest in the history of astrology. So just a few more points.

1. There was hardly any traditional astrology to practice in the English-speaking world after its demise in the late 18th century (or sooner, by some accounts. A good source is Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, vol 2.) Before 1990, most of the extant traditional works written in Greek and Latin had not been translated into English and some of them were sequestered as rare manuscripts in archives. A few neo-traditional astrologers decided to change this, and I congratulate them, but one of the worst things that happened ca. 1990 was John Frawley's opening attack against modern astrology. Regardless of the merits of some of his criticisms, it just set up a whole dynamic of uncivil discourse and divisiveness.

2. The new traditionalists oftentimes started out in modern astrology (as in, until recently, what else was there?) and found it lacking. However, I am not sure how many of them stopped to tote-up all of the many techniques retained by modern astrology that derive from Antiquity or the Middle Ages. This point was really driven home to me when I read Avelar and Rebeiro's recent (2010) primer on traditional astrology. I had to get well past the first few chapters before I encountered unfamiliar themes or practices; and then known techniques from modern astrology continued to pop up throughout the book.

3. There was no unified "traditional astrology." Not at any point in the past and certainly not prior to its demise. A good example of this are the different house systems, up to and including Placidus, developed by traditional astrologers of yore. Right now I am sleuthing into the origins of astrological house systems, and the idea that there was uniformity in thematic house meanings prior to late antiquity just doesn't hold up. Certain themes appear and reappear, but we can't just prune out all of the other house meanings extant in antiquity.

Which kind of makes me wonder whether some astrologer centuries ago was particularly "courageous" in developing or adopting a new technique for chart interpretation.

4. Astrology has always required of us to be connoisseurs of its different levels of quality. Throughout its history, astrology has attracted poor practitioners of the art. We know this from the criticisms of extant authors about some of the predessors and competitors. (See, for example, Firmicus Maternus's critique of the astrologer Fronto, book II: preface.) In this regard, modern times are no different from the past.
 

Frank

Well-known member
Waybread - I love how easily you name-drop people I consider my friends and pigeon-hole them into your own little categories.

Define "modern astrology" - it defies description just as "traditional astrology" does. There are bad, unskilled astrologers and then there are good, skilled astrologers.

Just as there are all these categories of music that people who don't quite understand what music is for make up. There are two kinds of music: good music and bad music - and that's subjective also.

There are good astrologers and bad astrologers. And that's somewhat subjective also.

There are astrologers I like personally and there are astrologers I don't like personally.

There are astrologers whose work I like and there are astrologers whose work I think is substandard.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. There are astrologers I like personally whose astrology makes me shudder.

There are astrologers I don't like personally whose astrology makes me happy.

(There are also astrologers I don't like and whose astrology I think s ucks too.) :smile:

What I don't like are those who make assertions and can't back up those assertions with data, logic, and experience.
 
Last edited:

Anachiel

Well-known member
picture.php

Neo: I suppose the most obvious question is: how can I trust you?
The Oracle: Bingo. It is a pickle, no doubt about it. Bad news is there's no way you can really know if I'm here to help you or not, so it's really up to you. Just have to make up your own damm mind to either accept what I'm going to tell you, or reject it. Candy?
Neo: ... You already know if I'm going to take it.
The Oracle: Wouldn't be much of an oracle if I didn't.
Neo: But if you already know, how can I make a choice?
The Oracle: Because you didn't come here to make the choice. You've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it. [Neo eventually takes the candy] I thought you'd have figured that out by now.
Neo: Why are you here?
The Oracle: Same reason. I love candy.
-The Matrix


That scene makes me laugh. and, it sums up this (or any) astrological tete-a-tete nicely. Obviously we all have a passion for astrology and really, it all does come down to practise, observation and results. oh, and some good coltish exchanges of ideas and views in the spirit of camaraderie.  :innocent:
 

tsmall

Premium Member
picture.php

Neo: I suppose the most obvious question is: how can I trust you?
The Oracle: Bingo. It is a pickle, no doubt about it. Bad news is there's no way you can really know if I'm here to help you or not, so it's really up to you. Just have to make up your own damm mind to either accept what I'm going to tell you, or reject it. Candy?
Neo: ... You already know if I'm going to take it.
The Oracle: Wouldn't be much of an oracle if I didn't.
Neo: But if you already know, how can I make a choice?
The Oracle: Because you didn't come here to make the choice. You've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it. [Neo eventually takes the candy] I thought you'd have figured that out by now.
Neo: Why are you here?
The Oracle: Same reason. I love candy.
-The Matrix


That scene makes me laugh. and, it sums up this (or any) astrological tete-a-tete nicely. Obviously we all have a passion for astrology and really, it all does come down to practise, observation and results. oh, and some good coltish exchanges of ideas and views in the spirit of camaraderie.  :innocent:


I love this :kissing:
 

waybread

Well-known member
Waybread - I love how easily you name-drop people I consider my friends and pigeon-hole them into your own little categories.

Define "modern astrology" - it defies description just as "traditional astrology" does. There are bad, unskilled astrologers and then there are good, skilled astrologers.

Just as there are all these categories of music that people who don't quite understand what music is for make up. There are two kinds of music: good music and bad music - and that's subjective also.

There are good astrologers and bad astrologers. And that's somewhat subjective also.

There are astrologers I like personally and there are astrologers I don't like personally.

There are astrologers whose work I like and there are astrologers whose work I think is substandard.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. There are astrologers I like personally whose astrology makes me shudder.

There are astrologers I don't like personally whose astrology makes me happy.

(There are also astrologers I don't like and whose astrology I think s ucks too.) :smile:

What I don't like are those who make assertions and can't back up those assertions with data, logic, and experience.

Frank, is it possible you misunderstood me? We are actually saying much the same things. I say it is hard to generalize about both modern and traditional astrology. So do you. I say we need to be connoisseurs of the astrology we read. In different words, so do you.

I have no idea who your friends are whom you feel I have "pigeon-holed" or maligned in some way. Care to elaborate? Then I will happily back up my assertions with "data, logic, and experience." Which I've got.
 

Frank

Well-known member
I have no idea who your friends are whom you feel I have "pigeon-holed" or maligned in some way. Care to elaborate? Then I will happily back up my assertions with "data, logic, and experience." Which I've got.

...Robert Schmidt ... Robert Hand...Nicholas Campion...John Frawley. etc

They are all people who I know personally and respect for their knowledge. Pigeon-holing Rob Hand as a "medievalist" is ridiculous. I've worked side-by-side with Robert Schmidt - he's an academic, not an astrologer. Nick is a great guy and astrologer who I get along with famously. John Frawley was impressed by my methods of integrating Lilly with more contemporary methods - and with my knowledge of Lilly. I even knew the late Olivia Barclay, who was John's teacher - who was the woman who really brought Lilly's work to a modern audience.

I've met and spent much time one-on-one with just about every living astrologer you've ever mentioned here. Have you? Or are you just judging them on the work you've been able to read?
 

waybread

Well-known member
Frank, now I know you misunderstood me!

What I said was that Robert Hand authored the chapter on medieval astrology in the book edited by Rafael Nasser, Under One Sky. This is a fact. I am a big fan of his earlier work in modern astrology and have recommended it to many new astrology learners.

I take my hat off to Robert Schmidt for his translation work and his posted articles on Hellenistic astrology (which I've been devouring.) However, so far as I can determine, he is not an "academic." "Independent scholar" might come closer to the mark. I see things in the way he writes, however, that you wouldn't find a Ph. D. university researcher doing. If you wish more discussion on this point, I will provide it. Since Robert Schmidt is a friend of yours, I am curious. Does he have formal education beyond a BA degree from St. Johns College?

You have read nothing but respect in my posts for the two-volume history of western astrology by Nicholas Campion. I often refer to it. He does have real academic credentials.

John Frawley's early lampoons of modern astrology speak for themselves. I don't know him personally and it is possible that he is a prince of a fellow. But I do not find those lampoons to be either fair or helpful.

Frank, if you re-read my posts you will see that I am not judging any of these astrologers as human beings. Honestly, why would I do that? I don't see how anyone could get that from my posts, unless he too quickly jumped to conclusions. I am judging what these authors wrote that I have read.

That is what scholars do, coincidentally-- not ad hominem attacks.

If you need more "data, logic, and experience" from me based upon these astrologers written works, I will provide it.
 

sandstone

Banned
it ain't '''who''' you know, but ''what'' you know that is what i think most of the folks on this thread are interested in... if someone has an issue with a comment made by a poster, it helps to be ''specific'' too...

waybread, as for the under one sky book, it is hard for astrologers to do a cold reading without any input from the persons whose chart is under examination.. i am going to withhold comment one my observations from reading the book in fairness to all those who graciously provided the read in light of this critical factor to reading charts... it was an interesting read, but one can imagine the results without reading the book.. what you won't get without reading it is more of an insight into how these astrologers actually do read a chart of someone they know nothing about! regards, james
 

Frank

Well-known member
Frank, now I know you misunderstood me!

What I said was that Robert Hand authored the chapter on medieval astrology in the book edited by Rafael Nasser, Under One Sky. This is a fact. I am a big fan of his earlier work in modern astrology and have recommended it to many new astrology learners.

I take my hat off to Robert Schmidt for his translation work and his posted articles on Hellenistic astrology (which I've been devouring.) However, so far as I can determine, he is not an "academic." "Independent scholar" might come closer to the mark. I see things in the way he writes, however, that you wouldn't find a Ph. D. university researcher doing. If you wish more discussion on this point, I will provide it. Since Robert Schmidt is a friend of yours, I am curious. Does he have formal education beyond a BA degree from St. Johns College?

You have read nothing but respect in my posts for the two-volume history of western astrology by Nicholas Campion. I often refer to it. He does have real academic credentials.

John Frawley's early lampoons of modern astrology speak for themselves. I don't know him personally and it is possible that he is a prince of a fellow. But I do not find those lampoons to be either fair or helpful.

Frank, if you re-read my posts you will see that I am not judging any of these astrologers as human beings. Honestly, why would I do that? I don't see how anyone could get that from my posts, unless he too quickly jumped to conclusions. I am judging what these authors wrote that I have read.

That is what scholars do, coincidentally-- not ad hominem attacks.

If you need more "data, logic, and experience" from me based upon these astrologers written works, I will provide it.

A question - have you ever attempted to practice astrology using "traditional" methods?
 

Frank

Well-known member
As far as Robert Schmidt's education goes, ask him. It never came up in our conversations and I'm not quite rude enough to ask a person who has obviously immersed himself in the study of astrology and ancient languages to the extent he has done.
 

Frank

Well-known member
...it is hard for astrologers to do a cold reading without any input from the persons whose chart is under examination.

No, it isn't - if one is a good astrologer.

I haven't met many of my clients in person - so the opportunity of a "cold reading" is non-existent for me. I do all my work ahead of all my natal consults. I do take client feedback of course, but normally I have the chart and a plan and don't try to psychoanalyze my clients during the consultation (consultation, never a "reading" - a "reading' is best reserved for those who use divination methods other than astrology).
 

waybread

Well-known member
Yikes, Frank. Why do I detect a loaded question in your latest post to me?

And may I assume that you are somewhat mollified (though not actually apologetic) about my explanations of what I actually posted about several modern astrologers?

BTW, I don't see why it would be rude to ask a scholar about his academic education. Professors do this routinely, and usually they are happy to say where they got their degrees.

Here is part of my recent post:

....

2. The new traditionalists oftentimes started out in modern astrology (as in, until recently, what else was there?) and found it lacking. However, I am not sure how many of them stopped to tote-up all of the many techniques retained by modern astrology that derive from Antiquity or the Middle Ages. This point was really driven home to me when I read Avelar and Rebeiro's recent (2010) primer on traditional astrology. I had to get well past the first few chapters before I encountered unfamiliar themes or practices; and then known techniques from modern astrology continued to pop up throughout the book.

3. There was no unified "traditional astrology." Not at any point in the past and certainly not prior to its demise. A good example of this are the different house systems, up to and including Placidus, developed by traditional astrologers of yore....
.....

So my answer to you is that "my" eclectic modern astrology includes a bunch of traditional techniques that I find extremely helpful.

How about you?

sandstone, I think all of the astrologers signed on to the Under One Sky project knowing it was to be a "blind" chart reading. They didn't get to read the subject's autobiographical chapter until the book went to press. So maybe an interesting question is whether some techniques lend themselves better to blind chart readings than others. Frankly I thought the Vedic astrologer gave the most accurate reading in comparision to the autobiogarahy, followed by the modern astrologer who focused on asteroids. Go figure.
 
Last edited:

Frank

Well-known member
There is one famous Traditional Astrologer in this forum (one who brags about how good he is and how bad modern astrologers are), and I only saw him make one prediction of the FUTURE. It was 50% probability and he failed.

Bad astrologer, not bad astrology.
 

Frank

Well-known member
Have you analyzed any chart in this forum, Frank? I have never seen you to. You can say you are very good, but I have Saturn in the 9th and don't believe things until I see them.

I normally don't because I subscribe to the notion "Give a person a fish and they'll eat for a day. Teach a person to fish and they'll eat for a lifetime."

However, you can see though the search function that I have delineated some charts here.
 
Top