Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Astrology
Other Astrology
Research and Development
traditional / modern / contemporary
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Anachiel" data-source="post: 335446" data-attributes="member: 21272"><p>The point is not who did what or who's who. No one is knocking any of the astrologers around. Obviously someone modern has to bring the past alive again. </p><p> </p><p>The point still remains that after the "astrological dark ages" of the West, we would not have an astrology to practice if it was not for traditional astrology. My point at the time was tradition is separate from rote. Tradition keeps the seed or core principle alive while everyone is going mad in one way or another. Tradition preserves the essence. It is not necessarily the have-all-and-be-all.</p><p> </p><p>Also, the point is not which is more valid. They (moderns and traditional) are obviously both valid in their own arena. RebelUranian was making a point that can we just mix-and-match anything at any time and still have a valid system? No, obviously, which is where modern astrology went until recently when the roots of it's practice have begun to be re-discovered and re-examined.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Anachiel, post: 335446, member: 21272"] The point is not who did what or who's who. No one is knocking any of the astrologers around. Obviously someone modern has to bring the past alive again. The point still remains that after the "astrological dark ages" of the West, we would not have an astrology to practice if it was not for traditional astrology. My point at the time was tradition is separate from rote. Tradition keeps the seed or core principle alive while everyone is going mad in one way or another. Tradition preserves the essence. It is not necessarily the have-all-and-be-all. Also, the point is not which is more valid. They (moderns and traditional) are obviously both valid in their own arena. RebelUranian was making a point that can we just mix-and-match anything at any time and still have a valid system? No, obviously, which is where modern astrology went until recently when the roots of it's practice have begun to be re-discovered and re-examined. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Astrology
Other Astrology
Research and Development
traditional / modern / contemporary
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top