modern astrology vs traditional

david starling

Well-known member
Yep, that’s what we’re here for. It’s a learning forum, to learn and discuss! (And to post memes occasionally) :joyful:



The Astro texts I have usually attempt to put historical timelines in accordance to the outer planets, but the problem I encountered with it is that they only focused on the U.S. and cherrypicked aspects of history to emphasize their point.

How would you interpret Neptune in Leo, the roaring 20s, when we’re talking about China or Madagascar?

Also have you used the outer’s historical significations/context to delineate a natal chart before? Interdasting mix of mundane astrology, natal, and personality.

I don't know enough about China or Madagascar. I think you'd have to be immersed in their cultures to see it. Wasn't Mao during Neptune in Scorpio? Hey, guess what Sign Neptune was in when the "Cattle Industry was King"--the cowboy era? And, after that, huge advancements in transportation and communication?:lol:
Anyway, not trying to convince you it's right, just saying without the Outers, it's a moot point. And no, people make the world what it is, and theyre reacting to what's in their Charts. If they're conformist, they might go against their Charts to fit in with current, mundane conditions, but I advise against it--be who you really are!
 

david starling

Well-known member
The planet in the superior position counting from zodiacal houses dominates. And there is a difference between strength (ability to carry out significations as signified by things like dignity, sect, domain, etc.), and fortitude, as in the angular ability to make a blessing or bloody mess all over the chart.



This has been tried, and tried again. If you are looking for an actual number then you have no further to search than here

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig5.html#liltab

Though, I warn you that this table is certifiably lacking in just about every way. There is no "cookie cutter" method to determine the strength and/or ability of a planet. But if you go beyond what is available online and actually study, the answers are there.



In the western tradition, they have this too. And interestingly enough as well as to counter a previous claim by you



Vedic astrology actually evolved from the ancient Greek, i.e. western astrology. The only difference is that while the Hindu astrologers were able to avoid the political wars and religious ideological infighting that plagued the west, make no mistake. Vedic astrology is Western Hellenistic astrology, as applied to the sidereal zodiac which aligned with the tropical around the time the system came into use.



Exactly.

Isn't the Table of Dignities common ground for all Traditionalists?:unsure: I really don't see it as one "versus" the other between Trad and Mod. It's a symbiotic relationship...."Cursed are the peacemakers, for they shall be ignored!":lol:
 
Last edited:

tsmall

Premium Member
Isn't the Table of Dignities common ground for all Traditionalists?:unsure:

No. The table of dignities from skyscript shows the Terms according to Ptolemy. Most neo-traditionalists, and most of the recently recovered authors from the traditional time period, use the Egyptian terms. That said, the table I linked is a rudimentary quick and dirty for trying to discover a planet's strength and/or debility. Any point scoring system, no matter how detailed, operates in a vacuum. Charts do not operate in a vacuum, and this idea of assigning points has led too way to many students getting hung up on non-starters in a chart, overlooking important links, and finally turning off a whole bunch of people who self-identify as modern astrologers.

I really don't see it as one "versus" the other between Trad and Mod. It's a symbiotic relationship...."Cursed are the peacemakers, for they shall be ignored!":lol:

Amen.
 
Last edited:
Top