Modern Astrology IS "Traditional"

P

petosiris

Banned
muchacho said:
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.
Click to expand...

Historical and textual evidence suggests otherwise, but who cares. Let's put Neptune and Pluto in our charts as ''supplementary'' points.
 
M

muchacho

Well-known member
david starling said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
M

muchacho

Well-known member
david starling said:
Then why do so many [Western] Traditionalists use them for auxiliary points? Are you saying that they're "not really Tradtional" by your definition?
Click to expand...
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.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
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.
Click to expand...

Mercury can be up to a few hundred times brighter than Uranus, and it usually is, and I am not even exaggerating.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
The Sun's always shining somewhere. :cool:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
P

petosiris

Banned
muchacho said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude#Table_of_notable_celestial_objects
Click to expand...

And that table shows you that Mercury is a few hundred times (up to more than a thousand without exaggeration) brighter than Uranus. Or are you comparing the minimum brightness which only occurs for a few days with the maximum apparent magnitude possible for Uranus?

But the apparent magnitude of the star is only part of naked eye astronomy. Observation of Mercury is complicated because of its proximity to the Sun. Yet, Mercury was easily observed and had a complete planetary model by its observations shortly before dawn and after sunset a few hundred years before the Common Era. Uranus was not discovered until 1781.

I don't generally work with fixed stars of the sixth magnitude. In any case, the faint star Uranus does not necessitate a placement in charts compared to some bright stars like Regulus or Spica.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
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.
Click to expand...

The wheels of the gods turn slowly.
 
Top