david starling
Well-known member
don't misrepresent - I quoted Oddity
highlighted the relevant comment made by Oddity
"Quite"--your own response to the misrepresentative comment made by Oddity.
don't misrepresent - I quoted Oddity
highlighted the relevant comment made by Oddity
I don't think "overlap" is the right word here when comparing traditional western with modern western astrology. If we ignore the use of the outers, then traditional and modern basically belong to the same body of knowledge. So in a sense, modern astrology is just cherry-picking certain concepts and techniques (maybe 10%) of what's actually available in the western astrological tradition. And I think this cherry-picking is what neo-trads mostly criticize because it seems arbitrary and out of context. Modern gives astrology also a different focus (more psychological, stressing free will, evolution).
Now, where I think the word "overlap" applies though is when we are comparing traditional western with vedic. Different bodies of knowledge but still many similarities.
Also, while vedic seems to give a rather monolithic or complete impression, traditional western astrology is still in the process of becoming and reorganizing. Traditional western astrology was something different 30 years ago than what it is today. Vedic is exactly the same.
Personally, I find it fascinating to witness how traditional western shows more and more similarities with vedic over time and how concepts and techniques that were known only in vedic until recently now have been uncovered (usually in a very simple version) in some of the newly discovered/translated texts.
No one knows how to calculate the essential or accidental dignities for the outers or their planetary years. Which means they are basically useless. In traditional western you can at least use them in the way you would use specific fixed stars.Looking at the rules for the Modern board, it appears to allow Western modern siderealism. In the Traditional rules, [Western] siderealism IS described as modern, and Vedic, which is [Eastern] Traditional, has it's own board apart from the [Western] Traditional board.
The real factor is the discussion of Outermosts. A nono in [Western] Trad, and fine and dandy in [Western] Mod. Not sure about them in the Vedic section.
If traditional means reading charts the way they did in the old days then this means excluding the outers. It's just that simple. Now, if that automatically makes you a traditional astrologers or if the ancients excluded the outers because they didn't know they existed because they couldn't see them or because they are not really relevant are entirely different discussion. IMO, it doesn't necessarily make you a traditional astrologer by default. And the naked eye theory is bogus anyway since Uranus can be seen with the naked eye. If I remember correctly, at times Uranus is even brighter than Mercury.Then why do so many [Western] Traditionalists use them for auxiliary points? Are you saying that they're "not really Tradtional" by your definition?
No one knows how to calculate the essential or accidental dignities for the outers or their planetary years. Which means they are basically useless. In traditional western you can at least use them in the way you would use specific fixed stars.
And the naked eye theory is bogus anyway since Uranus can be seen with the naked eye. If I remember correctly, at times Uranus is even brighter than Mercury.
Mercury can be up to a few hundred times brighter than Uranus, and it usually is, and I am not even exaggerating.
How many times brighter is the Sun compared to Mercury?
How bright is the Sun under the horizon david?
The Sun's always shining somewhere.
I'd say you are deliberately missing my point. And I'm not even exaggerating.Mercury can be up to a few hundred times brighter than Uranus, and it usually is, and I am not even exaggerating.
I'd say you are deliberately missing my point. And I'm not even exaggerating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude#Table_of_notable_celestial_objectsExplain to me like I am five.
Correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitude_(astronomy)
The Sun is 10000000000 times brighter than bright Mercury and the bright Mercury is 631 times brighter than the brightest Uranus. Anyways thousands of years of the brightest minds in astronomy have not spotted Uranus, even those with telescopes could not figure that it is a planet for almost two centuries.
If the god Uranus was important as you say, it would have shown itself to the diviners and scientists thousands of years ago.
The wheels of the gods turn slowly.
It is foreign to traditional astrology.
The assault on Ouranos by Cronus begat Aphrodite. In the Latin, it's
The assault on Caelus by Saturn begat Venus.
No principles, no practical meanings, no examples. Mod-schlock example.