JUPITERASC
Well-known member
[This is a new thread created from posts on a stickied thread. The stickied thread is only for redirecting people who come to the Traditional Astrology forum and make non-traditional posts. Out of that list of rules grew a debate... so the debate is now its own thread. - Moderator]
and has previously raised the topic of Olivia Barclay
HOWEVER
as Paul_ clearly highlighted at that time prior to closing his account
Barclay wrote at a time prior to the availability of translations now available
such as for example from traditional astrologer BENJAMIN DYKES https://www.bendykes.com/
Today, translations of original astrological ancient works are widely available
For example http://www.projecthindsight.com/products/index.html
that modern outers are INVISIBLE to naked eye observation in local skies
UNLESS one uses a powerful expensive aid to vision such as a telescope
and that is why modern outers remained un-observed until 1781
when one of the modern outers was noticed
but even then that modern outer was only seen due to the use of a telescope
and
although one of the modern outers IS visible to naked eye viewing
it is so rarely observable with the naked eye that it is only observable
given very clear local skies with none of the light pollution common in towns and cities
as well as ideal weather conditions
in contrast
the seven VISIBLE planets clearly observed by ancient astrologers
aka the seven visible classical planets
are Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn
WITH REFERENCE TO ASTEROIDS
certainly there are plenty to choose from
since there are one thousand five hundred asteroids
good luck with using any number of asteroids
on our forum one member stated he uses a mere 700 asteroids
i.e.
Clearly then
our forum allows discussion on a varied spectrum of astrological shades of opinion
ON AN APPROPRIATE FORUM for their discussion
and
in order to accommodate the vast spectrum of astrological opinion
our forum offers multiple boards
HOWEVER
our traditional board
quite rightly excluses modern outers and asteroids
WB is not a traditional astrologerOsamenor, I hope you will consider the following modifications to your sticky. I write them based on my participation in Skyscript's traditional astrology forum, and also my observations of the history of astrology, as well as astrologers' opinions on-line and in-print.
1. Some astrologers do use the modern outers, but as supplementary data points, not as sign rulers or as fitting into the schemes of essential dignities and debilities.
A good example is Olivia Barclay, Horary Astrology Rediscovered. She was the primary interpreter of William Lilly in her day. She had a huge impact on reintroducing horary into what was then "modern psychological astrology," yet her book shows multiple examples of using modern outers.
and has previously raised the topic of Olivia Barclay
HOWEVER
as Paul_ clearly highlighted at that time prior to closing his account
Barclay wrote at a time prior to the availability of translations now available
such as for example from traditional astrologer BENJAMIN DYKES https://www.bendykes.com/
Clearly Barclay lacked the information we now haveWe know that KHZ and Barclay are relying on other sources
and are not inventing anything
- we know this
as they are using very specific terms which have their roots in the tradition
(like, say, 'reception' or are referencing older authors or their opinions).
Now whilst on some universal way we must accept that all such opinions are subjective
the idea that one person relaying another's information is subjective
is very limited.
Lilly and Bonatti etc. actually said certain things,
if I said he Lilly said something which he didn't, we can't retort with "well it's subjective what he said"
because it isn't,
of course I may interpret what he says one way and you another.
But again when we look to Lilly's actual examples we may well see that actually one person is 'right' and another 'wrong'.
It is from this and from the entire tradition
- which KHZ and Barclay may not have been aware -
that we can now give more definitive responses not to what is Objectively Right
but rather
what is more inline with the tradition of astrology that these authors are drawing from
and what is not.
So it is not like all opinions are equal here
- when we know that they are drawing on the tradition
we only need to examine that tradition
to see if they got it right or wrong,
and we have a LOT more information today
than Barclay did when she wrote her book.
Just as Barclay sources and references back to Lilly,
so too does Lilly reference back to the likes of, say Bonatti who goes back to Sahl and so on,
and unlike in Barclay's time,
we now have easily available to us all those books that all those authors were using themselves.
Today, translations of original astrological ancient works are widely available
For example http://www.projecthindsight.com/products/index.html
that's because your opinions are those of a Modernist astrologerIf practicing astrologers
weren't upset about telescopes and astronomy in the 17th century
I don't see a clear logical argument for denying them today.
in fact, the main argument isAgain, the main argument against using modern outers
and asteroids is really that they cannot be shoe-horned
into the standard tables of essential dignities and debilities.
that modern outers are INVISIBLE to naked eye observation in local skies
UNLESS one uses a powerful expensive aid to vision such as a telescope
and that is why modern outers remained un-observed until 1781
when one of the modern outers was noticed
but even then that modern outer was only seen due to the use of a telescope
and
although one of the modern outers IS visible to naked eye viewing
it is so rarely observable with the naked eye that it is only observable
given very clear local skies with none of the light pollution common in towns and cities
as well as ideal weather conditions
in contrast
the seven VISIBLE planets clearly observed by ancient astrologers
aka the seven visible classical planets
are Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn
WITH REFERENCE TO ASTEROIDS
certainly there are plenty to choose from
since there are one thousand five hundred asteroids
good luck with using any number of asteroids
on our forum one member stated he uses a mere 700 asteroids
i.e.
I use the following asteroids for love and relationship:
Erato, Amor, Bienor, Bosque Alegre, Compassion, Amanda,
Frigga, Klyria, Medea, Rousseau, Summa, Valentine, Anteros, Hathor, Jason, Moraes, Peirithoos,
Pocahintas, Sidi, Ubasti, Sappho, Amicitia, Patroclus, Cupido, Medusa,
Hephaistos, Demeter, Hera, Thereus, Valentine, Nessus,
Ariadne,
Chariklo, Close, Rhoda, Damocles
Does anyone use others not here, and what do they mean?
Zarathu
its a small number. I regularly use 700 of them
Clearly then
our forum allows discussion on a varied spectrum of astrological shades of opinion
ON AN APPROPRIATE FORUM for their discussion
and
in order to accommodate the vast spectrum of astrological opinion
our forum offers multiple boards
HOWEVER
our traditional board
quite rightly excluses modern outers and asteroids
Last edited by a moderator: