traditional / modern / contemporary

[sandstone]

did you read the article from hand jupiter a?

are you familiar with the 90 degree wheel/dial?

how much do you know of the differences between midpoints and arabic parts?

[off-topic comment -Moderator]

quote from the link rebel u provided re - post modern.
It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective.

[Rebel Uranian]

Originally Posted by sandstone

thanks for the link rebel u. i will read it..

You don't have to. It's just me citing my sources and not stealing stuff. The quote is enough to read as pertains to "specific meanings" of postmodernism. Postmodernism is easy to prove. Try (and fail) to make an objective perception and then follow logical steps. Of course, you can disprove anything easy too.

[sandstone]

harmonic astrology.

[sandstone]

here's an interesting twist and i think it is relatively new as well.. planetary containment.. this is an idea that was developed by the french astrologer volguine.. let me quote you from the back page of a book from 1980 that i have in my person called planetary containments in the horoscope - authors john sandbach and ronn ballard..

"one of the most monumental errors among astrologers down the course of centuries has been to pay no attention to the general pattern of planets in the chart, and to persist in believing that planets can be in contact or interaction only by means of the five so called major aspects, and by the half dozen so called minor aspects. it is this double heresy, both astrological and astronomical that explains many of errors in interpretation and prediction. let us be thankful for volguine who has at last unearthed one of the fundamental keys of estoric astrology and demonstrated its importance." - michele bustros, translator of the french astrologer volguine. the 'fundamental keys of esoteric astrology' which bustros is referring to are planetary containments.

the planetary patterns that marc edmund jones is a 20 century observation that may have been made previously but i am unaware of it being discussed anywhere previously in writing.. jones work was indeed new and would be considered relatively contemporary too in the larger picture of astrological history.

[dr. farr]

Planetary containment is a very useful tool that is simply too often totally neglected (I myself too often neglect this important factor in delineation!)\
I consider Volguine to be one of the top 20th century practitioners and I am glad to have his few English-translation books. The Sandbach/Ballard book is most valuable (AW readers can easily find it available @ astroamerica.com)

[Rebel Uranian]

I looked up planetary containment but couldn't find much. How exactly does it work and what does it do?

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian

I looked up planetary containment but couldn't find much. How exactly does it work and what does it do?

I second that...

[sandstone]

here are a few examples of planetary containment..

take a look at emily dickinsons chart (dec 10 1830 440am amherst,ma) for an example.. note the 3 planets that come together in her chart but that are not connected via midpoints - venus/sun/mercury..

james joyce would be another example - venus/sun/mercury cluster, but not tied together by midpoints..both are writers of a more artistic poetic bent..

while there may be some other astro rationale for why these individuals are recognized on an international level as poetic writers, it is hard to ignore the cluster of the 3 planets - mercury, venus and sun - together in a small bundle, as not having some bearing on the this..

you can do it with your own chart.. find any three planets - they don't have to be together by sign, house or midpoint pattern, but they need to be together in so far as they are 3 in order like the charts above i mention..
you could just as easily do this with other parts to joyces or dickinsons chart on another part of there chart.. joyces chart has mars/moon/uranus trio that will imply something in keeping with the combination of these 3 planets together even though they are further apart and not in a traditional aspectual relationship.. jupiter/uranus/neptune would be another planetary combo in dickinsons chart..

hopefully that gives a basic introductory understanding on the work of these astrologers.. it is a bit like midpoints without having to have a planet at the midpoint for them to qualify..

[Rebel Uranian]

...So for me one would be Sun/Moon/Saturn? Or Sun/Moon/Uranus? Or neither?

[dr. farr]

Take 3 planets in a row (say Moon @ 15 Capricorn, Saturn @ 29 Pisces, Sun @ 5 Taurus), ie, with no other planets between them: the middle planet (in this case Saturn ) is "contained" between Moon and Sun. There is a "meaning" to Saturn being thus contained by Moon and Sun. Now do this for every set of 3 planets: continuing this example, suppose Mars @ 11 Scorpio, Moon @ 15 Capricorn, Saturn @ 29 Pisces: in this case Moon is contained between Mars and Saturn: and there is a meaning to Moon being contained by Mars and Saturn. This is how containment is determined and evaluated, and of course every planet in a chart is in containment (sandwiched between a planet on either side of it)
The Sandbach/Ballard book (astroamerica.com) describes (gives specific indications for) 990 such containments. This type of delineative analysis can contribute sometimes valuable additional insights into a given chart (particularly valuable in natal and in mundane charts; often also in SR and astro-therapeutic charts)

[Rebel Uranian]

Do Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto count in containment?

[sandstone]

rebel u - you would use sun/uranus saturn.. moon is not in order to the others... you could use uranus/saturn/moon though.. dr. farr is explaining it better then i!

[dr. farr]

Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian

...So for me one would be Sun/Moon/Saturn? Or Sun/Moon/Uranus? Or neither?

Neither: You do have (for example)

Sun/Uranus/Saturn, with Uranus in containment
Uranus/Saturn/Moon, with Saturn in containment
Saturn/Moon/Mars, with Moon in containment

...etc.

[sandstone]

rebel u - that's a question i think you have to answer on your own, based on your experience... one might want to include chiron, eris and any other number of bodies, so there is always a question of where does one draw the line.. hopefully the art of astrology is in finding a system or approach that works for you in a meaningful way..

thanks for explaining that better then i dr. farr.

[dr. farr]

Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian

Do Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto count in containment?

Yes the outers are counted in this technique.
Containment (I believe) is a modern (and I think improved) adaptation of the ancient idea (both Western and Vedic) of beseigement, but without the cut and dried black or white simplistic meaning applied by the ancients, and with more of a depth of analysis of the relationship of the planets involved...

(Sandstone: I think you explained it just fine!)

[JUPITERASC]

The use of the technique "Planets in Containment" does not require the use of signs, houses or aspects and instead, this astrological tool utilizes a series of three-planet combinations to provide an interpretation.

1. list your planets, ASC and MC in Counter-Clockwise order, starting at any point -- although most start their list from the ASC degree. List only the planets and two angles.

2. the interpretation is done using the most Clockwise planet of each successive three-planet combination as the basis or foundation, the middle planet as the focus of how the combination will be expressed, while the most Counter Clockwise Planet planet will provide a direction for the form of expression.

{Moderator Edit to include link to where the information came from} Aeclectic Tarot forum, member dadsnook2000

[waybread]

For sure there are problems with post-modernism-- it can become a kind of intellectual nihilism. But actually a lot of its principles are not shocking because we live with them every day in 2011.

Some of us are old enough to remember "high modernity." Science could do no wrong. Science would cure everything. America sent a man to the moon. The Jetsons. Psychologists defined who was or was not "well-adjusted." Convenience products created in the laboratory and appliances created by engineers liberated Mom from the kitchen. Capitalism was good-- unless you lived in the soviet bloc, then Communism was good. The Church was not the ultimate source of moral authority. We would survive not going to church every Sunday. Progress was good and anything that impeded progress (such as environmental protection) was regressive.

So post-modernity is essentially a stage after all of that, in which anything can be questioned; partly because we no longer understand certain things as "reality" but as cultural creations.

We really don't have a post-modern astrology. If we did, we would have to open to question all of our rules and regulations about the interpretations of planets, signs, houses, aspects-- and human subjects.

This is why "the new traditional astrology" is not post-modern. It has more rules than a novitiate's code of conduct. In many ways, it is reactionary.

[dr. farr]

That's why I am an eclectic, particularly a utilitarian eclectic; I accept only what makes sense to me, as a working hypothetical basis of a whole system model, and then see how well the techniques which appeal TO ME, actually work when I try them out. And I'll mix and match, whatever works in practice, and I'll even add my own twists and turns, if (as they often do) it improves the outcomes. Even the meanings assigned to planets, signs, etc, are (in my mind) open to discrimination, and most of the meanings I have taken as "true", are a mixture taken from several defining sources, ancient, Modernist, Paracelsic, Western and Eastern in origin...

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by waybread

For sure there are problems with post-modernism-- it can become a kind of intellectual nihilism. But actually a lot of its principles are not shocking because we live with them every day in 2011.

Some of us are old enough to remember "high modernity." Science could do no wrong. Science would cure everything. America sent a man to the moon. The Jetsons. Psychologists defined who was or was not "well-adjusted." Convenience products created in the laboratory and appliances created by engineers liberated Mom from the kitchen. Capitalism was good-- unless you lived in the soviet bloc, then Communism was good. The Church was not the ultimate source of moral authority. We would survive not going to church every Sunday. Progress was good and anything that impeded progress (such as environmental protection) was regressive.

So post-modernity is essentially a stage after all of that, in which anything can be questioned; partly because we no longer understand certain things as "reality" but as cultural creations.

We really don't have a post-modern astrology. If we did, we would have to open to question all of our rules and regulations about the interpretations of planets, signs, houses, aspects-- and human subjects.

This is why "the new traditional astrology" is not post-modern. It has more rules than a novitiate's code of conduct. In many ways, it is reactionary.

Hear hear! In my novice way, I see questioning everything as being important. Why does traditional astrology work? Is it diviniation within a "closed system?" Why does modern astrolgy igonore (mostly) the signs and focus on the aspects/houses? And yet still be able to define (regarding natal astrology) the issues a native will experience? That is why I, for one (and Lord knows that I have been wrong so many times....) think it is important for every astrologer to try to understand as much as possible about the craft, and then find his/her own path (or medium/crayon?) to interpreting what the heavens are trying to tell us.

[sandstone]

thanks for explaining that clearly waybread.. i see what you mean and i agree with you regarding hands post modern description for astrology.. i think reactionary is a good word to describe some of the views i continue to read in the traditionalist camp.. at the same time i continue to immerse myself in reading hellenistic and medieval astrology literature as their is so much exciting material available today that i find a source of fascination..

tsmall, i like to question everything too! i believe astrology needs to be understood in an artistic context to get the most out of it..

lastly, i would like to think that i share with dr. farr a more eclectic approach to it all, while continuing to be open to all of what astrology today has to offer.. thanks for all your comments..

[waybread]

Good for you, tsmall. To me, it's called "critical thinking" or "keeping an open mind."

When I first started learning astrology ca. 1990, there just wasn't much traditional astrology available. Only a few works had been translated into English via Classics professors, and there was no core of neo-traditional astrologers. I thought much of what I read in modern astrology was of a pretty low intellectual order. Thankfully I came across the early books by Robert Hand, Stephen Arroyo, and Steven Forrest, which made me feel that intelligent, thoughtful people could actually find something of value in astrology. I am actually thankful that I didn't start with C.E.O. Carter because I find his approach too constrained by early 20th century gender roles to suit my taste.

Thanks, sandstone. The more I read of Hellenistic astrology (my current interest) the less I think I want to practice it. However, I also have a huge interest in understanding how, when, and why astrology developed in ancient times.

[sandstone]

the winter solstice is almost here.. there was a pagan celebration that took place on this date called saturnalia..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

are the solstice or equinox times based on a relationship between the constellations and planet earth or are they based on a relationship between the sun and the earth?

as i have said previously there are a few relationships going on in the grand universe we are a part of... to acknowledge one while ignoring the other while going on to preach for only one, are the actions of a zealot or fanatic..

the tropical 'zodiac' is not based on a zodiac! unfortunately the names used are the same as the 12 constellations in the sidereal zodiac.. now whether this development was based on the fact that the zodiac lined up more closely with this sun/earth relationship of solstices and equinoxes a few thousand years ago remains an ongoing question..

those interested in furthering the development and value of astrology need to understand these distinctions in order to better assist in any type of astrological education they might like to offer others, whether it be on an astro forum such as this or not.. otherwise what happens is there are a lot of IMO's flying, but they 'appear' not grounded in an honest or sincere inquiry..

[sandstone]

waybread,
one of the areas of distinction that is made strong in hellenistic astrology to which i really relate is the idea that the sun would be stronger in a day chart, or the moon in a night chart.. this is called planetary sect and i think it has a lot of value.. i am just finishing up joseph cranes book : astrological roots : the hellenistic legacy... i think it is a great book and crane does a good job or articulating many aspects of the approach.. i am not sure about the predictive techniques in use, but ironically crane goes on in the last chapter to focus in on ascendant arc directions which is something i have been working with for the past few years independent of his mention of them.. this was a nice discovery near the end of his book..

it was hands booklet on planetary sect that got me to thinking about whether a chart was a day or night chart more aggressively.. i think the distinction has great relevance and i note that i hadn't heard about it before reading hands booklet, for all the astro books i had read over the years in the 70, 80's and 90's!

i think understanding planetary sect is of great value..

[Rebel Uranian]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

Yes the outers are counted in this technique.
Containment (I believe) is a modern (and I think improved) adaptation of the ancient idea (both Western and Vedic) of beseigement, but without the cut and dried black or white simplistic meaning applied by the ancients, and with more of a depth of analysis of the relationship of the planets involved...

(Sandstone: I think you explained it just fine!)

After I read more but before you or sandstone posted your posts I knew I was wrong. Which containment patterns are the most meaningful? Sun/Uranus/Saturn seems pretty meaningful to me since the Sun is a luminary and Saturn is my chart ruler... But if someone had something like Neptune/Uranus/Pluto that seems pretty meaningless...

[dr. farr]

All depends (regarding importance) upon the totality of factors in any given chart; to me, the only factor which makes a given planet relatively "meaningless" IN A GIVEN CHART, is if it is "blocked" (in a pitted degree) Almost no Traditionalist, Hellenist (and of course NO Modernist) practitioners even consider pitted degrees, but IF the concept is valid (which I am personally pretty sure it is), then this factor would make a very significant difference in chart delineation (if the chart contains one or more pitted planets)...