Difference Between Modern and Traditional Astrology?
- Thread starter emilia27
- Start date
Kite
Well-known member
https://studentofastrology.com/2011/10/traditional-and-modern-astrology/
[Article deleted because it violates the rules on quoting from outside sources. Quotes from other sources may ONLY be used to supplement a post IN YOUR OWN WORDS, and may not exceed 100 words. Please add your own take if you want to quote someone else, make it clear that their words are not your own, and only use their material, no more than 100 words of it, to supplement your own ideas. - Moderator]
Last edited by a moderator:
Cary2
Banned
Kite's presentation is excellent, but I will add some to the picture.
Most astrologers when discussing this topic see two categories, Traditional and Modern. Traditional has subcategories, too. It is essentially a revival of some ancient techniques. Traditional may be Hellenistic or Medieval for instance, and there are other categories.
Modern astrology to most astrologers refers to the very popular form of astrology that became prevalent in the twentieth century. It is responsible for resurrecting astrology after it practically disappeared from view in the nineteenth century. Modern astrologers rejected some aspects of Traditional because they had little faith in some arcane practices. Most of the books available for learning astrology are of the Modern persuasion. Modern astrologers think that the fatalistic astrology that is the Traditional astrology tends to negate free will. Modern astrologers tend to think that Traditional astrology is too much like fortune-telling.
I have a different view. I see so-called Modern astrology as Contemporary astrology because it is not so very modern. So I tend to categorize with Traditional, Contemporary, and Modern. The Modern astrologers are not widely known to the general public. To check truly Modern astrology, look for Rheinhold Ebertin and Martin Seymour-Smith, for example.
True Modern astrology tends to discount houses and signs in favor of planetary contacts like aspects, configurations and planetary pictures which are based on midpoints between factors. Some Modern astrologers dismiss houses, and some do not.
I started with the Contemporary astrology which dominated the twentieth century, but I evolved to Modern astrology because it works far better for me in my practice.
Modern astrologers often see things that suggest fate, but they also promote free will. Modern astrologers, as opposed to Contemporary astrologers, often test their methods empirically to verify them. They are disinclined to doctrine or dogma.
Most astrologers when discussing this topic see two categories, Traditional and Modern. Traditional has subcategories, too. It is essentially a revival of some ancient techniques. Traditional may be Hellenistic or Medieval for instance, and there are other categories.
Modern astrology to most astrologers refers to the very popular form of astrology that became prevalent in the twentieth century. It is responsible for resurrecting astrology after it practically disappeared from view in the nineteenth century. Modern astrologers rejected some aspects of Traditional because they had little faith in some arcane practices. Most of the books available for learning astrology are of the Modern persuasion. Modern astrologers think that the fatalistic astrology that is the Traditional astrology tends to negate free will. Modern astrologers tend to think that Traditional astrology is too much like fortune-telling.
I have a different view. I see so-called Modern astrology as Contemporary astrology because it is not so very modern. So I tend to categorize with Traditional, Contemporary, and Modern. The Modern astrologers are not widely known to the general public. To check truly Modern astrology, look for Rheinhold Ebertin and Martin Seymour-Smith, for example.
True Modern astrology tends to discount houses and signs in favor of planetary contacts like aspects, configurations and planetary pictures which are based on midpoints between factors. Some Modern astrologers dismiss houses, and some do not.
I started with the Contemporary astrology which dominated the twentieth century, but I evolved to Modern astrology because it works far better for me in my practice.
Modern astrologers often see things that suggest fate, but they also promote free will. Modern astrologers, as opposed to Contemporary astrologers, often test their methods empirically to verify them. They are disinclined to doctrine or dogma.
Last edited:
Kite
Well-known member
Thanks Cary. I took a year of David Cochrane's Vibrational Astrology program which is based on midpoints and harmonics. It is definitely more of a contemporary approach and one worth checking out and perhaps integrating into whatever "school" you end up wanting to favor. I was a modern astrologer as well up until a couple of years ago and now favor Hellenistic as it seems to speak to more and I am somewhat of traditionalist in that I also a student of Kabbalah.
My advice is to dabble a bit in the various approaches or schools to see how your own chart looks to you and then pick one and stick with it and see if it speaks to both you and your clients. If not - try something else. I can't tell you how many approaches and software packages I've been involved in until I landed here. I've been at it since I was a teenager and now I'm in my mid-sixties.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Traditional astrology excels
at delineating 7th house and its ruler
by sign and house
and "...literally..."
describing partners
i.e.
what they look like
what they do
where you meet them.
acknowledging
you can’t control who walks into your life
describes patterns in relationships
even if
it’s something you don’t necessarily want
because
from a traditional perspective
the 7th and it’s ruler isn’t what YOU want from a relationship
it’s literally your relationship partner/s.
which
highlights
that to shift your reality
accept where you are now.
Traditional techniques excel in describing exact predispositions
and
circumstances
so you can choose how to engage with them
.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
*
Astrology evolved alongside ancient optical theories
and these theories still permeate astrological discourse to this day.
Planets in aspect are said to "...see..." or "...regard..." one another
and their light is often considered a transmitter of their influence.
The word "...planet..." originally evolved from the Greek "...planetes aster...",
or "...wandering star..."
and referred to the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn
whose motion could be detected against the backdrop of fixed stars
that are stable in their relative distance from one another
but all move together as one large group.
the outers lack tools that the classical planets have.
This isn't just referring to dignities
though that is a large part of it
but they also lack nature, sect, gender, years, winds, orbs, signatures, etc.
its significance cannot be overstated.
Without these associations
the outer planets are essentially blank orbs without instruction or meaning.
and
the meanings contemporary astrologers
have given to the outers.
Mostly
either
1) don't make sense within their own context
i.e.
meanings of the planets have been assigned to them based
on mythological interpretations
or perceived mundane events happening
around the time of their discovery
- the mythological meanings are cherry picked and often nonsensical
like Uranus ruling rebellion
but in the myth Ouranos is the tyrannical dictator
not the freedom fighter.
The mundane events are definitely cherry picked
as there are many important events happening around the world
at any given time.
or
2) are already taken by another planet.
i.e.
each of the outer planets have significations
that are more or less plucked from the classical planets.
Instability and recklessness can be found in Mercury and Mars.
Illusions and mysticism can be found in the Moon.
Transformation and general heavy-handedness are the domains of Mercury and Saturn.
.
Astrology evolved alongside ancient optical theories
and these theories still permeate astrological discourse to this day.
Planets in aspect are said to "...see..." or "...regard..." one another
and their light is often considered a transmitter of their influence.
The word "...planet..." originally evolved from the Greek "...planetes aster...",
or "...wandering star..."
and referred to the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn
whose motion could be detected against the backdrop of fixed stars
that are stable in their relative distance from one another
but all move together as one large group.
the outers lack tools that the classical planets have.
This isn't just referring to dignities
though that is a large part of it
but they also lack nature, sect, gender, years, winds, orbs, signatures, etc.
its significance cannot be overstated.
Without these associations
the outer planets are essentially blank orbs without instruction or meaning.
and
the meanings contemporary astrologers
have given to the outers.
Mostly
either
1) don't make sense within their own context
i.e.
meanings of the planets have been assigned to them based
on mythological interpretations
or perceived mundane events happening
around the time of their discovery
- the mythological meanings are cherry picked and often nonsensical
like Uranus ruling rebellion
but in the myth Ouranos is the tyrannical dictator
not the freedom fighter.
The mundane events are definitely cherry picked
as there are many important events happening around the world
at any given time.
or
2) are already taken by another planet.
i.e.
each of the outer planets have significations
that are more or less plucked from the classical planets.
Instability and recklessness can be found in Mercury and Mars.
Illusions and mysticism can be found in the Moon.
Transformation and general heavy-handedness are the domains of Mercury and Saturn.
.