Traditional Astrology Non-sticky Discussion Thread

[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]

waybread said:

Osamenor, 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.

Click to expand...

WB is not a traditional astrologer
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/

Paul_ said:

We 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.

Click to expand...

Clearly Barclay lacked the information we now have
Today, translations of original astrological ancient works are widely available
For example http://www.projecthindsight.com/products/index.html

waybread said:

If 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.

Click to expand...

that's because your opinions are those of a Modernist astrologer

waybread said:

Again, 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.

Click to expand...

in fact, the main argument is
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.

Zarathu said:

I use the following asteroids for love and relationship:

Click to expand...

Zarathu said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

[Deleted reply to a post that stayed in the thread this has been moved from, so that this post would make sense after the move. - Moderator]

I strongly disagree with the 6 points that waybread has made here, but due to time constraint I will only point out concerning the sixth point about Babylonian astrology is that we simply do not have enough literary sources to understand many, or even some of their methods for natal and mundane divination. Most of the surviving natal charts do not contain, or if they do, they make only very brief delineations, and sometimes it is speculative to try to understand their reasoning. To be honest, that equally applies to ''Persian astrology'' (but not to ''Arabic'' which some people mistake for ''Persian''). Someone who claims to practice either of the two would have to be making things up.

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Osamenor, thanks.

I greatly appreciate your efforts. My concern is with not imposing some kind of absolute censorship on what may be discussed, as I think it's important for us to be historically accurate and current with the diversity in traditional astrologers' thought.

Many astrologers knowledgeable in traditional astrology consider themselves to be "hybrids." Former member Paul certainly did. He's the horary moderator at Skyscript, so anyone could simply ask him how he feels about it now. I don't know where one would place the recent books by J. Lee Lehman or Demetra George.

Olivia Barclay set the tone for an entire generation of traditional horary astrologers, in being a foremost promoter and interpreter of William Lilly, at a time when horary was little practiced. Yes, Time Marches On, and much more is now known about traditional horary astrology today than 25 years ago, thanks to recent translations of older horary works and research into Lilly's "field notes." Yet some traditional horary astrologers nevertheless inset modern outers as supplementary data points: not as sign rulers or as fitting into the schemes of essential dignities and debilities.

I don't have a problem with leaving the modern outers out of a particular discussion where they're irrelevant, but neither do I see what is served by their censorship. So far as the "naked eye" argument goes, Uranus (discovered in 1781) is visible to the naked eye under good atmospheric conditions and a very clear idea as to where to look for it. Traditional British astrologers discussed its significance by the early 19th century, and concluded it was a malefic similar to Saturn. Once *traditional astrologers* like Galileo and Kepler gained access to the telescope after 1608, they embraced it.

Johannes Kepler, who promoted the quintile, bi-quintile, and sesqui-square, was a traditional astrologer.

I assume antiscia are either not considered aspects or are acceptable. You might get into a debate with some trads as to whether the conjunction is technically an aspect. Some would say not. Then the "inconjunct" (i. e., semi-sextile, quincunx) do have a meaning, in a negative kind of way, called "aversion."

The problem is that nobody today really practices traditional western astrology exactly as it was done in the past. If you don't think it's inappropriate for this board, I could certainly start a thread on this point: namely that today traditional western astrology is really "neo-traditional astrology." For one thing, people live very different kinds of lives today than their ancestors did in centuries past.

JA, My post #3 here, elsewhere on this board, and on horary threads speak to my practical and historical knowledge of traditional astrology. Nobody has to take some kind of loyalty oath to traditional astrology in order to post on this board, so far as I know. The issue is one of method and topic.

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Osamenor said:

Outer planets are definitely not traditional astrology.

Click to expand...

Certainly the modern outers are definitely not traditional astrology

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

On traditional astrologers and the modern outers:

By Chris Brennan, probably the foremost authority on Hellenistic astrology today, and author of Hellenistic Astrology:
http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008/11/29/the-outer-planets-in-astrology-to-use-or-not-to-use/

See also this blog in The Classical Astrologer:

https://classicalastrologer.me/2013/06/04/into-the-outer-darkness/

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

The foremost authority on Hellenistic astrology today is Robert Schmidt
of Project Hindsight
Robert Schmidts scholarly translations of Vettius Valens et al
are available frp, the website at http://www.projecthindsight.com/
on which THE ASTROLOGICAL RECORD OF THE EARLY SAGES
totally excludes modern outers
and
the mere fact these planets are commonly referred to as "the Modern Outers"

for example by a poster on this thread

waybread said:

On traditional astrologers and the modern outers:

Click to expand...

obviously
that comment alone

clearly highlights that these Modern Outers are non-traditional planets
and therefore have no place on our traditional board
as is already clearly stated on the OP of this thread
with which I am in agreement

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

waybread said:

On traditional astrologers and the modern outers:

See also this blog in The Classical Astrologer:

https://classicalastrologer.me/2013/06/04/into-the-outer-darkness/

Click to expand...

From that post at Classical Astrologer:

Of course, none of these associations were actually *borrowed* They were stolen, stripping the Traditional planets of much of their meaning. After all, has been tallied up, we can see that the cosmology, meaning and structure has been unceremoniously tossed aside, as if the tradition that served us well for millennia were nothing more than last year’s model, that can be changed on a whim with impunity – yet another symptom of a throw away society.


Not exactly a resounding endorsement. I'm also sure that if you ask Chris Brennan if the outer planets are part of traditional astrology, you'll get a 'no'.

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

JUPITERASC said:

The foremost authority on Hellenistic astrology today is Robert Schmidt of Project Hindsight
Robert Schmidts scholarly translations of Vettius Valens et al[]are available frp, the website at http://www.projecthindsight.com/ on which THE ASTROLOGICAL RECORD OF THE EARLY SAGES]totally excludes modern outers

Click to expand...

I take it you're unfamiliar with Chris Brennan's Hellenistic Astrology? It's a lot more comprehensive than what I've seen by Robert Schmidt. Valens is an exceptionally valuable source, but Hellenistic astrology extended far beyond him.

the mere fact these planets are commonly referred to as "the Modern Outers"

for example by a poster on this thread]obviously]that comment alone
clearly highlights that these Modern Outers are non-traditional planets and therefore have no place on our traditional board ...

Click to expand...

OH, an interesting point! Which I'll take. From here on, I'll call them the trans-Saturnians.

But you might wish to be cautious, as western traditional astrologers today use a lot of terminology that their authorities never used, or that we use differently today. Also the old traditional astrologers' terminology shifted over time. For example, the ascendant used to be called the "horoscope." The Arabic parts used to be called "lots." If the old traditional astrologers adopted what was then "new" terminology, it doesn't make such a case for linguistic purity now.

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Oddity said:

From that post at Classical Astrologer:

Of course, none of these associations were actually *borrowed* They were stolen, stripping the Traditional planets of much of their meaning. After all, has been tallied up, we can see that the cosmology, meaning and structure has been unceremoniously tossed aside, as if the tradition that served us well for millennia were nothing more than last year’s model, that can be changed on a whim with impunity – yet another symptom of a throw away society.


Not exactly a resounding endorsement. I'm also sure that if you ask Chris Brennan if the outer planets are part of traditional astrology, you'll get a 'no'.

Click to expand...

I don't think you took my actual point, which was that self-declared traditional astrologers nevertheless claim to use trans-Saturnians. They do so in specific, judicious ways. Namely, as supplementary data points. They do not use them as sign rulers. They do not accord them essential dignities and debilities.

This is what the Classical Astrologer blogger meant, when s/he talked about violence to the structure of traditional astrology. We can't shoehorn the trans-Saturnians into a table of essential dignities.

As you can imagine, I disagree with a lot of what this person wrote, namely in desscribing trans-Saturnians as invariably malefic. I cited this article simply as an example of a trad who seemed to be incorportating them into his/her work.

I really hope we don't see a self-appointed gate-keeper fussing if somehow the trans-Saturnians make logical sense to include in a discussion.

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Oddity said:

From that post at Classical Astrologer:

Of course, none of these associations were actually *borrowed* They were stolen, stripping the Traditional planets of much of their meaning. After all, has been tallied up, we can see that the cosmology, meaning and structure has been unceremoniously tossed aside, as if the tradition that served us well for millennia were nothing more than last year’s model, that can be changed on a whim with impunity – yet another symptom of a throw away society.


Not exactly a resounding endorsement. I'm also sure that if you ask Chris Brennan if the outer planets are part of traditional astrology, you'll get a 'no'.

Click to expand...

There is not a single instance in which Chris Brennan shows an outer in his Hellenistic book or course, because the moment he does it, he is not doing traditional astrology, but modern astrology.

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Sigh. This wasn't my point, either. I merely cited what he wrote.

Here is another blog article by a traditional astrologer who uses the trans-Saturnians.

https://mollymorrissey.com/myapproach/traditional-astrology-vs-modern-astrology/

And here's what she wrote: "I still use them but consider them fixed-star-like objects. And no, none of them rule a sign (Mars rules Scorpio, Saturn rules Aquarius, and of course Jupiter rules Pisces.) The three outer planet are discoveries only a couple of hundred years old and do not really fit nor are they needed within the several millennia-old tradition of astrology."

So not saying, "Yes, let's all use them." She is saying that she uses them in a specific, circumscribed manner.

Which is what I proposed here, vs. a ban on even mentioning them on this board.

The fact is that we're in an era of neo-traditional western astrology. Traditional astrology underwent repeated change as it was transmitted from teacher to student. We're simply no different today. In fact, to deny the potential for expanded knowledge and debate is antithetical to the spirit of western traditional astrology.

P. S. And where/how would you place or classify Morinus?

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Okay, here's a bit more of what he said in that article. I can't read it as incorporating the outer planets in any way, perhaps you can enlighten me on this:

I’ve had reason to contemplate the outer planets lately, after having them turned off in all my astrology programmes for the last eight years. In part, it’s because I’ve become alarmed and curious regarding the number of so called Tradition Astrologers returning to the trans personals as if they could do so without doing some violence to the Tradition itself.

This system cannot accommodate asteroids or invisible planets without changing it at its core.

This doesn't sound like an endorsement either.

waybread said:

I don't think you took my actual point, which was that self-declared traditional astrologers nevertheless claim to use trans-Saturnians. They do so in specific, judicious ways. Namely, as supplementary data points. They do not use them as sign rulers. They do not accord them essential dignities and debilities.

This is what the Classical Astrologer blogger meant, when s/he talked about violence to the structure of traditional astrology. We can't shoehorn the trans-Saturnians into a table of essential dignities.

As you can imagine, I disagree with a lot of what this person wrote, namely in desscribing trans-Saturnians as invariably malefic. I cited this article simply as an example of a trad who seemed to be incorportating them into his/her work.

I really hope we don't see a self-appointed gate-keeper fussing if somehow the trans-Saturnians make logical sense to include in a discussion.

Click to expand...

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Waybread, you can talk about the outer planets on any other forum on this board. Just not this one. The outer planets have no place in traditional astrology. If some people choose to use them in some hybrid of traditional-modern astrology, I don't think well of it. I won't try to stop them, but they aren't doing traditional astrology.

The outers do NOT belong on this forum. It's still traditional.

As for your question, Morinus was a would-be reformer, and yes, he's worth reading.

waybread said:

Sigh. This wasn't my point, either. I merely cited what he wrote.

Here is another blog article by a traditional astrologer who uses the trans-Saturnians.

https://mollymorrissey.com/myapproach/traditional-astrology-vs-modern-astrology/

And here's what she wrote: "I still use them but consider them fixed-star-like objects. And no, none of them rule a sign (Mars rules Scorpio, Saturn rules Aquarius, and of course Jupiter rules Pisces.) The three outer planet are discoveries only a couple of hundred years old and do not really fit nor are they needed within the several millennia-old tradition of astrology."

So not saying, "Yes, let's all use them." She is saying that she uses them in a specific, circumscribed manner.

Which is what I proposed here, vs. a ban on even mentioning them on this board.

The fact is that we're in an era of neo-traditional western astrology. Traditional astrology underwent repeated change as it was transmitted from teacher to student. We're simply no different today. In fact, to deny the potential for expanded knowledge and debate is antithetical to the spirit of western traditional astrology.

P. S. And where/how would you place or classify Morinus?

Click to expand...

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Here is Deborah Houlding, founder of the traditional western astrology site Skyscript, and author of many articles on traditional astrology that can be found on this site. She wrote a beginners' primer on traditional horary astrology, that discourages people from using modern sign rulerships.

She simply calls them "the outer planets."

She also wrote:

The outer planets, whilst not dismissing their general relevance or denying them a valid role in judgement, are accepted as tending to represent social or political influences. Where they make a contact to the significators they can add fine descriptive information, but their slow movement fails to convey personal influence in the way that the quicker moving visible planets are able to through techniques such as translation or collection of light. ... The outer planets are incapable of demonstrating this flow of movement, and therefore cannot reveal a fine degree of detail in events or in the actions of the querent. Whatever arguments can be made for using them in natal work, there is a clear disadvantage to using them in horary techniques.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary1b.html

One wonders how often Saturn translates light! But the point being, that while Houlding discourages their use in horary, she equally indicates that they are so used, at least by some.

Whether this is a good or bad thing is up for debate, but she acknowledges a diversity of opinion on the subject. Interestingly, she then posts an "exercise" chart that includes "the outers."

More to the point for this thread, I hope not to see this board get into a situation where the mere potential of discussing how "the outers" might function in a traditionally-read chart is verboten, because it would seem to deny the current diversity of opinion and practice among people who identify themselves as traditional western astrologers.

Click to expand...

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Oh, sure, Oddity. The Classical Astrologer starts out by saying,
'I’ve had reason to contemplate the outer planets lately, after having them turned off in all my astrology programmes for the last eight years. In part, it’s because I’ve become alarmed and curious regarding the number of so called Tradition Astrologers returning to the trans personals as if they could do so without doing some violence to the Tradition itself."

Once again (she says till she's blue in the face) ours is a decent debate. The issue isn't what you or I think is correct, it's just to confirm that there is diversity out there.

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Traditional astrologers are not saying that the outer planets are traditional. They're not traditional. If you want to use them in delineations, you are more than welcome to do that on the general astrology boards, and in the modern forum. We don't do that in the traditional forum. Open it up to 'using outer planets in chart delineation' and we might as well close it down.

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Correcting your emphasis. It's 'so-called traditional astrologers'.

You believe the popular thing is the correct thing. Congratulations, you're a modern astrologer! And you have the whole rest of the forum to play in and 99% of the people here agree with you.

This is the traditional board, however.

waybread said:

Oh, sure, Oddity. The Classical Astrologer starts out by saying,
'I’ve had reason to contemplate the outer planets lately, after having them turned off in all my astrology programmes for the last eight years. In part, it’s because I’ve become alarmed and curious regarding the number of so called Tradition Astrologers returning to the trans personals as if they could do so without doing some violence to the Tradition itself."

Once again (she says till she's blue in the face) ours is a decent debate. The issue isn't what you or I think is correct, it's just to confirm that there is diversity out there.

Click to expand...

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

REMINDER

wilsontc said:

All,

You make good arguments.
I agree and have created a Traditional Astrology subforum in the "Other Astrology" forum.
This subforum is only for Traditional Astrology discussions

(e.g., it is not for comparing Traditional Astrology to Modern Astrology, Modern Astrology interpretations, etc.).

If you see something in the Traditional Astrology subforum

that is NOT Traditional Astrology, please report it to the Moderator Team.

Merry Christmas!

Tim

Click to expand...

tsmall said:

I don't think exclusivity is the point at all. Nor do I think self described "modern" astrologers are not wanted or expected to comment on threads. The point is to have a place to discuss traditional methods (and anyone ought to be able to participate in the discussions) without having to defend those methods, or to contrast/create confusion between classical astrology and what can be termed as "modern." There seem to be quite a few members who are in fact interested in learning both. It also has the effect of organizing the board in a way that has threads about traditional astrology in one location, making it easier to find information.

As far as "keeping off" modern threads...does that mean that you expect that the only place traditional astrology will be mentioned is on this new subforum? If that's the case, I wouldn't call that exclusivity so much as ostracization, and I don't think that was the intent either.

Click to expand...

Frank said:

The difference is

that one can practice "traditional" astrology without using "modern" techniques, but

one cannot practice "modern" astrology without using "traditional" techniques.

Click to expand...

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Oddity said:

Traditional astrologers are not saying that the outer planets are traditional. They're not traditional. If you want to use them in delineations, you are more than welcome to do that on the general astrology boards, and in the modern forum. We don't do that in the traditional forum. Open it up to 'using outer planets in chart delineation' and we might as well close it down.

Click to expand...

Oddity, I don't think it's up to you to decide who is a traditional astrologer and who is not. If you or anybody wishes to call her/himself a traditional astrologer, we take you at your word.

Again (and yet again,) the people I linked/cited do not argue for using the trans-Saturnians in a modern way. They do not. I think this is where a lot of the apparent confusion lies on this thread.

Your understanding of what I've posted and the history of astrology seems off-target.

The trads who use the outers use them as supplementary data points. They argue nothing else that would somehow do violence to traditional astrology's schematic structure.

Further, you seem to argue for a traditional astrology that became fossilized by a particular date. (When? Ca. 1850? 1800?? 1700? When do you date the introduction of modern astrology?)

But traditional astrology never ossified during its long history prior to its near-collapse ca. 1700. In contrast, it kept growing and evolving. For too many examples to name, see Nicholas Campion's 2-volume history of astrology.

Somehow you seem to want to convert traditional astrology into a static museum piece, which it never was during its heyday.

Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Oddity said:

Correcting your emphasis. It's 'so-called traditional astrologers'.

You believe the popular thing is the correct thing. Congratulations, you're a modern astrologer! And you have the whole rest of the forum to play in and 99% of the people here agree with you.

This is the traditional board, however.

Click to expand...

Oddity, we've interacted enough by now for you to finally accept that I will call your bluff whenever you attempt to be sly and to misrepresent my posts with words that I didn't say and don't believe.

Where did I talk about what was popular? Go ahead, Oddity: quote my exact statement where this is what I said. I'm waiting for it.

Oh, and within the corpus of western neo-traditional astrologers, should we equally discuss what is "popular" among them and what is not? Poor old Ptolemy comes in for quite a beating, does he not? Poor guy apparently is not "popular" today with some trads. In contrast, William Lilly has been virtually canonized. So if you wish to discuss "popularity," by all means, let's do so within the ranks of traditional astrologers.