Modern Astrology IS "Traditional"

Their excuse was that all of the other planets were named in Latin, and the misspelling would make it sound more Latin! If they wanted the Latin name, they should have named it "Caelus".

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...

Muchacho, maybe it depends upon the form of modern & traditional astrology studied, but my brand of modern is normally on the more "classical" side. I don't have much patience with evolutionary, esoteric, or past-lives karma types of modern astrology for example. I was fortunate to teach myself modern astrology using the early books by Robert Hand, and the choice-centered approach of the early books by Steven Forrest.

Planets, signs, houses, aspects, and elements are pretty much the same in traditional and modern, despite differences between this or that author. You read enough modern astrology manuals, you begin to see a common core. Learning to read an ephemeris doesn't vary by one's school of thought.

I don't find the common core to be arbitrary, although individual astrologers' may be. I look at this more like statistical trends. In that sense, if you read widely, there's not such a sense of cherry-picking.

I think the biggest difference was learning the essential dignities and planets as mobile. Modern astrology views a horoscope as a still snapshot in time, but a traditional horary chart is read with an eye to planets' subsequent movements.

Then modern astrology has its own newer directions for anyone wishing to advance beyond the introductory stage. Midpoints, chart patterns, minor aspects, harmonics, asteroids, outers, for example. Plus a lot of research. I don't know that a lot of trads are aware of trends in modern astrology beyond inclusion of the outers.

Some mods are interested in Vedic, as well, and incorporate some of the techniques. One area on my agenda to study is the Vedic use of harmonics.

waybread said:

Muchacho, maybe it depends upon the form of modern & traditional astrology studied, but my brand of modern is normally on the more "classical" side. I don't have much patience with evolutionary, esoteric, or past-lives karma types of modern astrology for example. I was fortunate to teach myself modern astrology using the early books by Robert Hand, and the choice-centered approach of the early books by Steven Forrest.

Planets, signs, houses, aspects, and elements are pretty much the same in traditional and modern, despite differences between this or that author. You read enough modern astrology manuals, you begin to see a common core. Learning to read an ephemeris doesn't vary by one's school of thought.

I don't find the common core to be arbitrary, although individual astrologers' may be. I look at this more like statistical trends. In that sense, if you read widely, there's not such a sense of cherry-picking.

I think the biggest difference was learning the essential dignities and planets as mobile. Modern astrology views a horoscope as a still snapshot in time, but a traditional horary chart is read with an eye to planets' subsequent movements.

Then modern astrology has its own newer directions for anyone wishing to advance beyond the introductory stage. Midpoints, chart patterns, minor aspects, harmonics, asteroids, outers, for example. Plus a lot of research. I don't know that a lot of trads are aware of trends in modern astrology beyond inclusion of the outers.

Some mods are interested in Vedic, as well, and incorporate some of the techniques. One area on my agenda to study is the Vedic use of harmonics.

Click to expand...

Waybread, aren't Progressions "standard" Modern? If you think about it, a birth-Chart IS a snapshot, which is why exact as possible birthtime is so important. Also, IMO you can't REPLACE a birth-Chart with an SR or a relocation chart, you can only modify it. Progressions have been used by Modern astrologers since at least the 1970s, and maybe before that, which is a way of updating it into the future.

muchacho said:

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.

Click to expand...

Muchacho, I don't know how many of my posts you read-- or agreed with. But in modern astrology:

1. The outers are used as sign rulers (Scorpio, Aquarius, Pisces,) and thereby, as house cusp lords. I used them this way for many years, until I decided to check out the traditional sign rulers as house cusp lords. I found that these worked well, and so now I look at both in a natal or event chart interpretation.

A few years ago, I decided to teach myself horary astrology, using traditional methods. I thought it would be most efficient, to learn both at once. So I don't use the outers as sign rulers in horary. There's another problem, as well, in that the outers move so slowly, they stay in one sign for a really long time.

2. As I posted repeatedly on this and other precursor threads, trads who use the outers (for examples, see my post 317, p. 13 on this thread) use them as supplementary data points. They don't try to fit the outers into an essential dignity scheme. Problem solved.

Certainly we could consider a supplementary data point as comparable to a fixed star, once we get beyond the flawed "naked eye" rationale. Traditional astrology is full of invisible points, ranging from Arabic parts (lots) to lunar nodes, to planets "under" the earth, to the MC.

3. In modern astrology, aspects (and the conjunction, you trads) are really important. Of course, they're used traditionally (though sometimes differently,) but in modern astrology aspects are primary.

To me, this makes a lot of sense. Planets can wind up in different houses depending upon the system used. They can wind up in different signs, depending upon whether one uses a tropical or sidereal zodiac. But an aspect will pertain, regardless.

muchacho said:

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.

Click to expand...

If we define traditional astrology as the practice of self-identified traditional astrologers today, then the scope of traditional astrology does include the outers as supplementary data for some practitioners. It's just that simple.

If someone wants to practice the astrology of Vettius Valens or William Lilly, then the outers would have no place. And while many traditional astrologers tend to specialize in a particular period or technique, many are much more eclectic.

Certainly trads today address modern problems that didn't exist centuries ago, like predicting the outcome of a football sports match. They have to transpose and interpolate.

On one of your earlier points, Muchacho, I think we see determinism (fatalism) as well as moral choice (free will) in both traditional and modern astrology. Even the old stoic fatalists thought that some dire predictions could be mitigated; and then the Catholic Church stressed free will. To see some really negative modern fatalism in action, Check out the karmic past-lives crowd.

petosiris said:

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

Click to expand...

Although, interestingly, Mercury is one of the more difficult traditional planets to observe, as it is normally within 28 degrees of the sun. It is only observable sometimes lagging just behind the sun after sunset, or preceding the sun just before sunrise. Otherwise it's not directly observable.

Waybread, you mentioned that only about one-third of Trad is in Mod. Seems to me, that includes most of what's really important. What's left out that are important in Trad are things like Sect, team-native, Dignities and Triplicites. But so much else is included in Mod, I think one-third is too low, and Muchacho's 10% is without basis.

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...

There's zero evidence that the planet Uranus or anything else significant would have shown itself to diviners, and proto-scientists thousands of years ago. C'mon. Take a look at the scientific discoveries of the past century. Just because we practice astrology doesn't mean we have to believe wild theories.

The god Uranus (Ouranos) in Greco-Roman mythology symbolized the sky, notably the night sky. So in that sense, the god was entirely visible.

But you kind of have to study mythology to know this.

david starling said:

Waybread, aren't Progressions "standard" Modern? If you think about it, a birth-Chart IS a snapshot, which is why exact as possible birthtime is so important. Also, IMO you can't REPLACE a birth-Chart with an SR or a relocation chart, you can only modify it. Progressions have been used by Modern astrologers since at least the 1970s, and maybe before that, which is a way of updating it into the future.

Click to expand...

David, I neglected to mention predictive methods. Alan Leo wrote a book about predictive methods, including secondary progressions, in the early 20th century.

waybread said:

Muchacho, maybe it depends upon the form of modern & traditional astrology studied, but my brand of modern is normally on the more "classical" side. I don't have much patience with evolutionary, esoteric, or past-lives karma types of modern astrology for example. I was fortunate to teach myself modern astrology using the early books by Robert Hand, and the choice-centered approach of the early books by Steven Forrest.

Planets, signs, houses, aspects, and elements are pretty much the same in traditional and modern, despite differences between this or that author. You read enough modern astrology manuals, you begin to see a common core. Learning to read an ephemeris doesn't vary by one's school of thought.

I don't find the common core to be arbitrary, although individual astrologers' may be. I look at this more like statistical trends. In that sense, if you read widely, there's not such a sense of cherry-picking.

I think the biggest difference was learning the essential dignities and planets as mobile. Modern astrology views a horoscope as a still snapshot in time, but a traditional horary chart is read with an eye to planets' subsequent movements.

Then modern astrology has its own newer directions for anyone wishing to advance beyond the introductory stage. Midpoints, chart patterns, minor aspects, harmonics, asteroids, outers, for example. Plus a lot of research. I don't know that a lot of trads are aware of trends in modern astrology beyond inclusion of the outers.

Some mods are interested in Vedic, as well, and incorporate some of the techniques. One area on my agenda to study is the Vedic use of harmonics.

Click to expand...

Okay, maybe I should have made this clear earlier, but when I compare the different traditions I usually only talk about natal astrology. And I agree with your point that there's more to modern astrology than is mostly talked about here and especially more to than what is usually practiced here on the forum. When I first learned (modern) astrology, the table of essential dignities was actually a part of it. So I think most who criticize modern astrology aren't really aware of how close to traditional astrology it still was a hundred years ago or so. I am getting the impression that when neo-trads talk about modern astrology they may actually just have the kind of modern astrology in mind that is predominantly practiced here on the forum, i.e. heavily relying on aspects and mostly just using transits as predictive technique. And that kind of practice is indeed questionable. But it is by no means representative of what modern astrology is actually about.

waybread said:

Muchacho, I don't know how many of my posts you read-- or agreed with. But in modern astrology:

1. The outers are used as sign rulers (Scorpio, Aquarius, Pisces,) and thereby, as house cusp lords. I used them this way for many years, until I decided to check out the traditional sign rulers as house cusp lords. I found that these worked well, and so now I look at both in a natal or event chart interpretation.

A few years ago, I decided to teach myself horary astrology, using traditional methods. I thought it would be most efficient, to learn both at once. So I don't use the outers as sign rulers in horary. There's another problem, as well, in that the outers move so slowly, they stay in one sign for a really long time.

Click to expand...

I probably agree with the vast majority of what post on modern astrology.

It's just that I prefer to work with the sidereal zodiac. The tropical zodiac doesn't work for me (except for horary I still use it but am about to switch there as well). IMO, it is the rise of tropical astrology that called for new innovations and a lot of new rules of delineation because as the two zodiacs started drifting more and more apart, sticking with the old rules and the new zodiac just wouldn't do it anymore in terms of accuracy. I see something similar happening with the rise of modern astrology and the use of all the numerous new data points. If you would delineate a chart according to traditional rules, you wouldn't really miss those extra data points.

waybread said:

2. As I posted repeatedly on this and other precursor threads, trads who use the outers (for examples, see my post 317, p. 13 on this thread) use them as supplementary data points. They don't try to fit the outers into an essential dignity scheme. Problem solved.

Certainly we could consider a supplementary data point as comparable to a fixed star, once we get beyond the flawed "naked eye" rationale. Traditional astrology is full of invisible points, ranging from Arabic parts (lots) to lunar nodes, to planets "under" the earth, to the MC.

Click to expand...

That way you may have found a way of making use of the outers but it doesn't really solve the problem since you still can't treat the outers like the classical planets. As such, the outers remain a different class of planets, or in a more strict sense, they actually can't really be considered (astrological) planets even though they are planets in the astronomical sense (check out Hartmut Warm on this). The arabic parts though, as well as the nodes are only mathematical points. The outers, however, are actual physical/celestial bodies out there that are physically moving around and that can be observed with the naked eye or via telescopes. So that's different still.

waybread said:

3. In modern astrology, aspects (and the conjunction, you trads) are really important. Of course, they're used traditionally (though sometimes differently,) but in modern astrology aspects are primary.

To me, this makes a lot of sense. Planets can wind up in different houses depending upon the system used. They can wind up in different signs, depending upon whether one uses a tropical or sidereal zodiac. But an aspect will pertain, regardless.

Click to expand...

Actually, in the original sense, aspect means aspect by sign (which was also a house). So this is already a later development. Vedic still works like this. Which means when you switch from tropical to sidereal and a planet changes signs, aspects usually also change. However, because of the new house systems, the planets usually remain in the same houses. The exact aspects stay the same, of course. So if you should mostly work with houses and exact aspects, then you should get very similar predictions.

Anyway, as Oddity mentioned, modern astrology started a lot earlier than is commonly known, way before the 1700's.

waybread said:

If we define traditional astrology as the practice of self-identified traditional astrologers today, then the scope of traditional astrology does include the outers as supplementary data for some practitioners. It's just that simple.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I would call that neo-traditional astrology though.

waybread said:

If someone wants to practice the astrology of Vettius Valens or William Lilly, then the outers would have no place. And while many traditional astrologers tend to specialize in a particular period or technique, many are much more eclectic.

Click to expand...

Yes. And I think that was the main point the trads were making. However, just practicing that ancient technique doesn't necessarily make a traditional astrologer. That would be my counter point. It takes more than just practicing ancient techniques in order to be a genuine traditional astrologer.

waybread said:

Certainly trads today address modern problems that didn't exist centuries ago, like predicting the outcome of a football sports match. They have to transpose and interpolate.

Click to expand...

And that's where it is important to grasp the real meaning of the planets, signs and houses - independently of what's in the books! At some point the books have to be put aside and the principles have to be understood and applied accordingly. Those who have mastered that won't have any problems with applying ancient techniques and understanding to modern day phenomena and problems.

waybread said:

On one of your earlier points, Muchacho, I think we see determinism (fatalism) as well as moral choice (free will) in both traditional and modern astrology. Even the old stoic fatalists thought that some dire predictions could be mitigated; and then the Catholic Church stressed free will. To see some really negative modern fatalism in action, Check out the karmic past-lives crowd.

Click to expand...

Agreed. That's actually a point I forgot to make earlier. Astrology itself doesn't have a philosophy in terms of life orientation. It's basically neutral in that regard. It usually works just fine with a lot of philosophies. It works fine for those who believe in free will as well as for those who belief in total predetermination. However, depending on what you believe, what ontology you prefer (knowingly or unknowingly) it will inevitably color your understanding of astrology, what astrology is all about and what it can do or cannot do. Which again will directly influence your readings. In that sense, a chart reading is as much about the client as it is about the astrologer who does the reading. It's important to be clear about your own values and general beliefs about life. Very often in these general discussions about astrology people think they speak for astrology but in reality they just expound on their personal beliefs about life in general. It's important to keep these two apart.

muchacho said:

Agreed. That's actually a point I forgot to make earlier. Astrology itself doesn't have a philosophy in terms of life orientation. It's basically neutral in that regard. It usually works just fine with a lot of philosophies. It works fine for those who believe in free will as well as for those who belief in total predetermination. However, depending on what you believe, what ontology you prefer (knowingly or unknowingly) it will inevitably color your understanding of astrology, what astrology is all about and what it can do or cannot do. Which again will directly influence your readings. In that sense, a chart reading is as much about the client as it is about the astrologer who does the reading. It's important to be clear about your own values and general beliefs about life. Very often in these general discussions about astrology people think they speak for astrology but in reality they just expound on their personal beliefs about life in general. It's important to keep these two apart.

Click to expand...

Perfectly stated. I totally agree.

I always want to know the chart of the astrologer doing the reading, or expounding on what Astrology itself is "really all about". Astrology itself describes the attitude of the astrologer.

There's a simmering feud between tropical and sidereal astrologers who need it to be one way or the other, instead of different angles of view of the same thing. That's usually kept on the back burner, both Modern and Trad. Since "tropical rules" in the West, and "sidereal rules" in the East, those practicing sidereal in the West are at a disadvantage, and vice versa. But, there's a similar attitude of disdain by those adhering to the older versions of each toward those who prefer the newer versions.
Since I'm of the "different angle of view" opinion, coupled with "whatever works for you ", I'm not emotionally invested unless one version claims to "own" Astrology itself, and attempts to discredit the others. Especially my own version.

If we describe Astrology as a language, then there are many different dialects, some of which are nearly unintelligible to one another.

Although, interestingly, Mercury is one of the more difficult traditional planets to observe, as it is normally within 28 degrees of the sun. It is only observable sometimes lagging just behind the sun after sunset, or preceding the sun just before sunrise. Otherwise it's not directly observable.

Click to expand...

A few posts before from the same page:

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.

Click to expand...

Traditional astrology is full of invisible points, ranging from Arabic parts (lots) to lunar nodes, to planets "under" the earth, to the MC.

Click to expand...

I wonder how those naked eye astrologers and astronomers saw those invisible points 3000 years ago. Thanks for the laugh though.

The Sign-boundaries, or, House-boundaries of you prefer, are invisible, even using a telescope!

david starling said:

The Sign-boundaries, or, House-boundaries of you prefer, are invisible, even using a telescope!

Click to expand...

I can't see you, even using a telescope, you are also invisible.

Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, the hand can't hit what the eye can't see!*


[*Muhammad Ali]