JUPITERASC
Well-known member
you are in luck - there's an online FREE resource
at https://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vettius%20Valens%20entire.pdf
VETTIUS VALENS THE ANTHOLOGY
Modern Astrology IS "Traditional"
- Thread starter david starling
- Start date
at https://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vettius%20Valens%20entire.pdf
VETTIUS VALENS THE ANTHOLOGY
david starling
Well-known member
I've been advised that it's not cool to unilaterally change the name of a branch of Astrology. So, I'll adhere to the (erroneous, in my opinion) custom of referring to Ancient Technique Astrology as "Traditional" Astrology.
What is that supposed to mean?
It's not really a technique. And in fact, both modern and traditional astrology use it. The modernists just forgot how to use it properly.
I thought I just did that in the other thread.Muchacho, how would you describe the difference in mindset?
Now you're just being silly.
I think you are just confused. There is no dignity and debility, tables or + 1 or - 4 in the Hellenistic tradition. That is not to say there are no exaltations, bounds, falls and domiciles, and that they are not important interpretative principles to take into account.
Last edited:
Exactly my point.
Oddity
Well-known member
Ibn Ezra wrote a points scoring table in the mid-1100s to help students work out chart almutens. If he wasn't the first, it was around that time that people started writing them.
Regrettably, the tables have been pushed way beyond their purpose, so we have people talking about their +6 Mercury! and the like. That was never the intention. The problem with tables, probably since their inception, is that students started lumping together dignities and debilities as all of a piece. There's a difference to exaltation or term, just like there's a difference to peregrine or fall. Plus signs count here. Your peregrine planet is going to do far better in a sign ruled by a well-placed Venus than it will in a sign ruled by a badly placed Saturn.
Regrettably, the tables have been pushed way beyond their purpose, so we have people talking about their +6 Mercury! and the like. That was never the intention. The problem with tables, probably since their inception, is that students started lumping together dignities and debilities as all of a piece. There's a difference to exaltation or term, just like there's a difference to peregrine or fall. Plus signs count here. Your peregrine planet is going to do far better in a sign ruled by a well-placed Venus than it will in a sign ruled by a badly placed Saturn.
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
More research is in order. Traditional astrology goes back before the common era, and the codified table of dignities and debilities is a more recent development, comparatively speaking.
Astrologers did not agree with each other for 2000+ years and all of a sudden started disagreeing with each other over night in modern times, and the use dignities is one of the areas of contention, as the dignities have qualitative differences, unlike what the table would have you believe. This forum is an example of what astrologers been doing for a very very very long time - disagreeing with each other and asserting their brand of astrology as the best way.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
Dr. farr has convinced me of the importance of Declination as a separate but vital component in determining the strength of Aspects. For example, he considers an (in-Sign, in-House) Conjunction to be important or not on that basis. Any of the Ancients use declination that way that anyone knows of?
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Do you have an opinion on how Christopher Warnock uses the table of dignities and debilities in his talisman work?
Not sure what that's got to do with my point. It seems you and P have both misread my post.
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Your post is incorrect in the face of more complete information. But you've already decided what the difference is between modern and "traditional" so have at it.
You didn't even understand what I meant. Now you have to backpedal and argue a strawman in order to save face.
david starling
Well-known member
Can you restate it in order to clarify?
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
You didn't even understand what I meant. Now you have to backpedal and argue a strawman in order to save face.
It's a pretty straightforward statement - "However, to me the main difference between modern and traditional astrology is not about using or not using the outers or special aspects, it's about using or not using the table of essential dignities."
And, it isn't. I understand it perfectly well, it's simply incorrect.
Same point P was making in his last post. Maybe those guys thought I was referring to Ptolemy's table or Lilly's version. They could have just asked, you know. Generally these are good discussions, but the people who take part in it are way too disagreeable. Which makes it unnecessarily contentious. Just may 2 cents.
david starling
Well-known member
david starling
Well-known member
For me, as I now understand it, it's the lack of Sign-blending at the cusps that separates Trad. and Mod. Like the Signs as Trads. see them, the twain shall never really meet.
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
What about philosophically? There was no Jungian and post-modernist thought in traditional astrology, for example.