Modern Astrology IS "Traditional"

[david starling]

ALL astrology is "traditional". The statement has been made that "Traditional Astrology" can be practiced without the need for Modern Astrology , but "Modern Astrology" can't be practiced without input from the ancient teachings. In other words, Modern Astrology is ROOTED in tradition, meaning it IS "traditional".
Definitions are important, the more accurate the better. The accurate definition of what has been cconfusingly named "Traditional Astrology", is, "Ancient Technique Astrology". Since there are many Ancient Technique Astrologers who include SOME input from Modern Astronomy that was unknown to the Ancients, there's a subset, which should be called "Exclusively Ancient Technique Astrology", in which NO input from Modern Astronomy is acceptable.
For example, in this community, waybread practices "Ancient Technique Astrology", as just defined, whereas Oddity practices the subset, "Exclusively Ancient Technique Astrology". BOTH employ the Ancient techniques in their readings, so both are ANCIENT TECHNIQUE ASTROLOGERS.
I say, dump the confusing label "Traditional Astrology" as it's currently being used!

 

[muchacho]

Yes, exact definitions are important. However, to me the main difference between modern and traditional astrology is not about using or not using the outers or special aspects, it's about using or not using the table of essential dignities. That's the actual difference. It's a whole different mindset.

 

[david starling]

Yes, exact definitions are important. However, to me the main difference between modern and traditional astrology is not about using or not using the outers or special aspects, it's about using or not using the table of essential dignities. That's the actual difference. It's a whole different mindset.

The Table of Essential Dignities is an Ancient Technique. Ancient Technique Astrologers do employ quite a few techniques not used by most Western, contemporary Astrologers. But, Astrology is still Astrology whether they're used for not, and ALL Astrology is a continuation of the Tradition. It's really about whether the positions of the Sun, Moon, and Planets relative to each other, and to other measured points, have a real bearing on our mundane and spiritual lives.

 

[david starling]

Yes, exact definitions are important. However, to me the main difference between modern and traditional astrology is not about using or not using the outers or special aspects, it's about using or not using the table of essential dignities. That's the actual difference. It's a whole different mindset.

Muchacho, how would you describe the difference in mindset?

 

[petosiris]

Muchacho, how would you describe the difference in mindset?

It is like the difference between being concerned with fairness, equality and cooperation and that of having an afflicted Sun which diminishes fortune.

 

[david starling]

It is like the difference between being concerned with fairness, equality and cooperation and that of having an afflicted Sun which diminishes fortune.

You're being kind of hard on Ancient Technique Astrology. Sure, it's gloomy, pessimistic, and judgemental, but I wouldn't call it "afflicted", or say it somehow "diminishes fortune".

 

[petosiris]

You're being kind of hard on Ancient Technique Astrology. Sure, it's gloomy, pessimistic, and judgemental, but I wouldn't call it "afflicted", or say it somehow "diminishes fortune".

''A distinction is made among those who encounter this art: some are true, some insubstantial, some incomprehending. It is like this: several ceramic amphoras receive one crop of expensive wine from one farm. After a time, some of the amphoras give the wine back perfect, filled with flavor and enjoyment for those who entrusted the wine to their keeping. Other amphoras, however, allow the measure of the wine's volume to diminish, are not able to contain the new wine, and allow it to foam over - these amphoras did not alter the flavor or cause the savor of the wine crop to disappear, but they do cheat <the vintner> in both respects, for the taste does not last any time nor does it keep its real nature, but immediately changes.'' - Valens, V. Anthologia. Translated by Mark Riley.

It is up to you to decide who are true, and who are insubstantial.

 

[conspiracy theorist]

Yes, exact definitions are important. However, to me the main difference between modern and traditional astrology is not about using or not using the outers or special aspects, it's about using or not using the table of essential dignities. That's the actual difference. It's a whole different mindset.

Older parts of the tradition don't make recourse to the table of essential dignities and debilities.

It's refreshing to see a thread that is not created by Rahu in the Hot Topic Area.

 

[petosiris]

the taste does not last any time nor does it keep its real nature, but immediately changes

Prophetic words right there!

 

[petosiris]

Older parts of the tradition don't make recourse to the table of essential dignities and debilities.

It's refreshing to see a thread that is not created by Rahu in the Hot Topic Area.

Yes, there are no tables in the Hellenistic tradition.

 

[david starling]

Yes, exact definitions are important. However, to me the main difference between modern and traditional astrology is not about using or not using the outers or special aspects, it's about using or not using the table of essential dignities. That's the actual difference. It's a whole different mindset.

There are vegetarians and vegans. They agree on not eating meat, but vegetarians will eat animal products (eggs and dairy). So, vegan is a subset of vegetarian, since a vegan diet excludes not only animals as food, but animal products as well. The "meat" of the analogy to Astrology is the FULL use of the three outermost planets, according them them full rulership status and major Chart-influence. Ancient Technique Astrologers are the vegetarians, who won't fully incorporate the outermost planets, but will occasionally use them as auxiliary placements. Exclusively Ancient Technique Astrologers are the vegans of the analogy, those who won't use them at all.
Modern Astrologers are the omnivores of the analogy.

 

[petosiris]

There are vegetarians and vegans. They agree on not eating meat, but vegetarians will eat animal products (eggs and dairy). So, vegan is a subset of vegetarian, since a vegan diet excludes not only animals as food, but animal products as well. The "meat" of the analogy to Astrology is the FULL use of the three outermost planets, according them them full rulership status and major Chart-influence. Ancient Technique Astrologers are the vegetarians, who won't fully incorporate the outermost planets, but will occasionally use them as auxiliary placements. Exclusively Ancient Technique Astrologers are the vegans of the analogy, those who won't use them at all.
Modern Astrologers are the omnivores of the analogy.

I don´t like vegans, I prefer to be a modern astrologer.

 

[david starling]

I don´t like vegans, I prefer to be a modern astrologer.

The irony is, I'm a Modern Astrologer AND a vegetarian.
Petosiris, you'll be happy to know that it's just an analogy. You really don't have to go vegan if you practice Exclusively Ancient Technique Astrology.
I'm surprised to learn that Hellenistic Astrologers don't use Ptolemy's Tables.

 

[aquarius7000]

Yes, exact definitions are important. However, to me the main difference between modern and traditional astrology is not about using or not using the outers or special aspects, it's about using or not using the table of essential dignities. That's the actual difference. It's a whole different mindset.

Good point. And, of course, you can only appropriately use the table of dignities, if you understand why a particular planet is dignified or debilitated in a particular sign. You can choose to believe in what you want as long as there is sense behind what you believe and you don't parrot what others say (in cookbooks, etc), but are actually able to understand the why's and wherefore's.

As to the use out outers, well, that becomes particularly 'modern' when the outers are used as rulers of signs. Also a sign of modernity to be noticed with at least some is to user these outers as rulers, but without being able to explain why. Mostly, they will simply say that Pluto is the higher octave of Mars, and since Mars already rules Aries, so let us assign Pluto as the ruler of Scorpio. Either they are not able to explain why Pluto should rule Scorpio, or they attribute what they associate Pluto with automatically over to Scorpio. So, Pluto is dark and the don of the underworld and now let us say that that is what the sign of Sco is all about. One foolishness then leads to another and you will see some starting threads with "I feel more Scorpionic/Plutonic...'I am attracted to all dark things in life and so my Asc. must be in Sco'.

 

[david starling]

The 12 Signs keep their Ancient names, Elements, and Modalities for most Modern Astrologers. Most of the rulerships are from the Ancients as well. Most Modern Astrologers use the Ptolemaic Aspects, also, although many place more importance on the geometry of an angle than on whether an Aspect is out-of-Sign or not. Tremendous variety amongst Modern Astrologers. Ancient Technique Astrologers are far more cohesive in their methodology, especially, Exclusively Ancient Technique Astrologers.

 

[david starling]

If it's correct that ALL Ancient Astrologers used sequestered Signs with no blending of adjacent Signs at the Cusps, that would be a MAJOR difference between Modern, and Ancient Technique Astrology. Possibly as major as the unequivocal use of the 3 outermost Planets, but, it's not talked about at all, compared to that.

 

[david starling]

Yes, there are no tables in the Hellenistic tradition.

Since there are no tables used in Hellenistic Astrology, that major objection to incorporating the 3 outermost Planets doesn't apply. Of course, the "naked-eye visibility" factor still would , if that's an axiom of Hellenism.

 

[david starling]

The incorporation of the 3 outermost Planets is vital to my own, personal version of Modern Astrology. Yes, Modern Astrologers are free to practice their own, personal versions without criticism from other Modern Astrologers, although agreement may be lacking also.

 

[JUPITERASC]

I'm surprised to learn that Hellenistic Astrologers don't use Ptolemy's Tables.

That's because obviously then, you have not read Hellenistic astrologers writings
while at the same time continue voicing your opinions on Hellenistic astrologers

 

[david starling]

That's because obviously then, you have not read Hellenistic astrologers writings
while at the same time continue voicing your opinions on Hellenistic astrologers

But Ptolemy was Roman, and Petosiris said Hellenistic was Greco-Roman. I don't know enough about specifically Hellenistic Astrology TO
"voice opinions" about it.