Horary: Modern vs. Traditional

Dirius

Well-known member
Dirius, my understanding of sect is that in the day chart the sun, Jupiter, and Saturn are in-sect. In a night chart, the moon, Venus, and Mars are in-sect. Mercury can go either way, depending upon its location. Sect is another one of those areas where it would be hard to add in the modern outers and stir.

I'd have to grant that point, but how many horary astrologers use this method today? Even so, by this calculation, the modern outers would equally gain light in the same way. But because they are so far from the sun, this probably wouldn't be very time-sensitive.

I was making the point about Mercury, that it is classified by sect according to its visibility in the sky. Mercury is considered of the day sect if it heralds the rising Sun right before dawn, and of the night sect if it sets after the Sun at dusk. This is directly tied to Mercury's visibility in the sky, and the reason for its myth as "herald of the Gods".

And this does not change if Mercury is below earth (and thus invisible), in any given chart.


Thanks. They would say that planets weren't stars like fixed stars, in the same way. The Greek word for "planet" means "wanderer."

OK-- see my point on orbs, in my last post. But also, to follow your line of reasoning, if other things visually seem to give off light, then the naked-eye planets lose their special status-- as planets. The Babylonians actually included a lot of meteorological data in their observations, and Ptolemy picked up on this in his discussion of comets, something I don't see too many astrologers using today.

Dirius, I don't think that, with modern astrologers picking up one or two scientific facts, it's fair to invoke a slippery-slope argument that modern astrologers thereby pick up any and all other scientific facts. I don't think you'd make a case today that planets emit their own light.

I'm not sure who discovered that planets reflect the sun's light, but I think it was Da Vinci (moon) and Galileo in the 16th century. This was still within the period of traditional astrology. I don't think William Lilly wigged out about it.

The geocentric cosmos is at the heart of both traditional and modern astrology. To some extent, astronomers do this today. For example, what is the distance from the earth to Mars? Where in the night sky can we next observe Jupiter?

Well the term wanderer relates to them as stars. :happy::joyful: From the wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet#Planets_in_antiquity

Greek astronomers employed the term asteres planetai (ἀστέρες πλανῆται), "wandering stars", to describe those starlike lights in the heavens that moved over the course of the year, in contrast to the asteres aplaneis (ἀστέρες ἀπλανεῖς), the "fixed stars", which stayed motionless relative to one another.

Regarding comets, they are used by traditional astrologers, but only when they reach a distance that makes them visible from earth, which makes us revolve around the concept of visible light again. They are usually understood to bring forth some great event (depending on the place they are visible), and are more related to Mundane branch. The problem is that this occurance happen every few decades, and only for a few days, so its never really discussed much.

I do accept that little has been written on comets though.

As for the scientific mention, I'm just pointing out that if we are going to use scientific facts to dismiss one concept in astrology, then there is no reason not to use another or all of them. Most scientific discoveries do not agree with astrology. Its not proper to use one to create an argument, but ignore the rest. However I didn't say this about modern astrologers as a group, just pointed out that to Cap's style of debating.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Actually, Dirius, modern astrology as a whole (minus some anomalies) has gotten away from the concept of planets as benefic or malefic. Planets have key associations and rulerships, but these are not inherently good or bad. Just different.

The modern outers do seem harder for people to handle. "Sudden change" for Uranus: to many, this would seem like unwanted disruption. What about "new discoveries" or "liberation"? These seem more positive.

Neptune seems related to drug addiction, especially now with Neptune in its own sign of Pisces. Neptune doesn't deal with reality. This could be bad, as with the addict's highs and withdrawals. But I think Neptune rules film (cinema.) A good movie gives an illusion of reality; or of a believable fantasy. But really, if we look at how a film is put together, we'd see camera operators, stage sets, lighting, actors, the director, film editors, a special effects studio, and so on. We wouldn't see the illusion that a film creates for its audience.

Pluto might show up as the ruthless, domineering bully who prevails; or as inexorable, horrible, and unwanted change. But sometimes we need metaphorical death and dying in order to create space for new growth.

And you'd find this "some good, some bad" in traditional astrology. Venus, in a man's chart, might, with certain placements, make him seem too effeminate, by the cultural standards of the day.

I don't have a problem with trads finding the modern outers to be unnecessary in their work, just as I hope they don't take offense if I skip the table of essential dignities in reading a nativity. Maybe neither of us would use techiniques that seem essential to Vedic astrology. Different folks, different strokes.

I understand that. But my topic is a response to their application in a technique such as Horary, and how I assume they are employed. Usually the planetary qualities are what matters.

Thus the reason I reject them, as you mention here, they are not used along the concepts of malefic or benefic, concepts which to Horary are of upmost importance when it comes to delineation, and how a planet is understood to affect certain types of charts in particular events.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
Waybread, here's a fun question: Can you use Traditional and/or Modern methods to explain your sharp eyesight? And, by extension, predict the level of visual acuity from the condition of anyone else's Natal-chart? VERY interesting if this can be done.

Not Waybread, but yes, you can. I'm nearly blind. Both lights under the horizon and afflicted, as well as a number of fixed stars indicative of blindness prominent. Even when I was young, I had fairly bad visual acuity. Now it's horrible. And it's all in the chart.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Dirius, thanks. I agree with most of what you say.

I wouldn't do horary astrology for ages and when I changed my mind and decided to learn it I decided on a "two for the price of one" strategy of learning traditional methods. So yes-- if Saturn is sitting on someone's significator in a horary chart, that might not be promising. But you can't really un-learn what you know, and if Pluto, Uranus or Neptune show up in a horary in a way that helps the interpretation, then I'm apt to use them. But not as sign rulers. And then I'm apt to take a more streamlined approach than I think an experienced "hard core" trad wold do.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Dirius, thanks. I agree with most of what you say.

I wouldn't do horary astrology for ages and when I changed my mind and decided to learn it I decided on a "two for the price of one" strategy of learning traditional methods. So yes-- if Saturn is sitting on someone's significator in a horary chart, that might not be promising. But you can't really un-learn what you know, and if Pluto, Uranus or Neptune show up in a horary in a way that helps the interpretation, then I'm apt to use them. But not as sign rulers. And then I'm apt to take a more streamlined approach than I think an experienced "hard core" trad wold do.

I respect that.

By the way, I found an example of comet usage in Mundane astrology text in William Ramesey Astrology restored (17th century astrologer). As I presumed (for what little I had read till the moment), comets are more prominent in Mundane, which we rarely use now days:

The book is available on skyscript website I believe. This is just a small extract:

-------------**-------------

[Some Comets move, others again are fixed, How to judge their portences]
You are to take notice that some comets do move as the planets. And again, others do not stir <move> but are fixed, as are the other stars.

To judge of the accidents portended by comets, the place of their appearance in the heavens is to be observed and what stars are in configuration therewith. Also <observe> in what similitude they appear, and where they appear and shine.

If they appear like swords, wars are threatened and destruction of mankind; like flutes or haut-boys, it portends mischief to musicians; if in the middle of a sign, to whore-masters, and women gamesters; in form of a triangle of quadrangle, i.e. a trine of square aspect to any of the fixed stars, to wits and learned men. If a comet appears in either of the Nodes, or those places which we commonly call the Head and Tail of the Dragon, it proves infectious and pestiferous.

---------------------------*------------------------------
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I looked up eyesight in
Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book
(highly recommended.)
To be clear - that's a modernist book :smile:
definitely is not traditional as we use the term on our forum
i.e.
astrology before 1700.
because the book makes extensive use of the trans-saturnians
- a modernist trend of thinking
 

waybread

Well-known member
To be even more clear, most of Bills' rulerships come from traditional horary and medical astrology. (Nicholas Culpeper's herbal compendium being one example.) Bills cites more recent (to him in the 1970s) sources than Culpeper, but if you look up particular herbs that grow in England, you'll see his rulerships compiled in Bills's book.

Many trads use modern outers as rulers of particular phenomena or as supplementary data points, even though they would not use modern outers as sign rulers. A good example would be Olivia Barclay's book, Horary Astrology Rediscovered. She was an early voice against modern esoteric and psychological astrology, and known as the astrologer who resurrected William Lilly's 17th century book, Christian Astrology.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
To be even more clear, most of Bills' rulerships
come from traditional horary and medical astrology.
To be much more clear than that :smile:
the book includes modernist concepts and is modernist, not traditional

(Nicholas Culpeper's herbal compendium being one example.)
Bills cites more recent (to him in the 1970s) sources than Culpeper,
but if you look up particular herbs that grow in England,
you'll see his rulerships compiled in Bills's book.

Many trads use modern outers as rulers of particular phenomena or as supplementary data points,
even though they would not use modern outers as sign rulers.
A good example would be Olivia Barclay's book, Horary Astrology Rediscovered.
She was an early voice against modern esoteric and psychological astrology,
and known as the astrologer who resurrected William Lilly's 17th century book, Christian Astrology.
Paul explained, before he closed his account and left our forum
Olivia Barclay
was relying on other sources
and not inventing anything
because she was using very specific terms
which have their roots in traditional astrology

- for example 'reception'

We know that KHZ
and
Olivia 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 Olivia 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 Olivia 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
.

Paul_ is Horary forum moderator on Skyscript
Clearly Olivia Barclay lacked the information we now have today :smile:
Today, translations of original astrological ancient works are widely available
these texts were not available to Olivia Barclay et al
For example from traditional astrologer BENJAMIN DYKES
https://www.bendykes.com/
 

david starling

Well-known member
What makes Horary testable is that the prediction can be checked for accuracy. So, given the prediction and the result, with Traditional as the template, it should be possible to tell if Modern supplements brought anything useful to the table--something that would have been even slightly less comprehensive, using Trad only. Have there been any such pragmatic studies, or is this just an argument between opposing theories and preferences?
 

waybread

Well-known member
JA, why don't you just PM Paul, over at Skyscript, where he is the horary moderator, and ask him what he thinks today? I haven't communicated with him for a while, but the last I knew, he didn't think that the trad/modern dichotemy was worth making a fuss about. I seem to recall him using the expression "hybrid" astrology, but I don't think I saved those posts.

Given that Skyscript is more expressly dedicated to traditional astrology, you might find that site to your liking.

You argue strongly against using the modern outers as extra data points, because you have no personal experience in working with other people's charts to see whether the modern outers work or not-- and even though many trads have moved beyond your position, themselves.

It's fine to disagree with modern astrology.

David, I've mentioned Olivia Barclay's book Horary Astrology Revisited. She was very influential in bringing back William Lilly's horary astrology to at least the English speaking countries, and she was critical of the modern astrology of her day. Yet she used the modern outers as data points without hesitation. See the examples in her book.

The irony today, of course, is that we all live in a modern or post-modern world. I can't think of much else in our lives where we wouldn't agree that Time Marches On. I don't think most trads would give up modern conveniences in their lives, but for some inexplicable reason, they want a hands-off approach to the Astro-Masters.

[deleted attacking comments - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
David, I've mentioned Olivia Barclay's book Horary Astrology Revisited.
She was very influential in bringing back William Lilly's horary astrology
to at least the English speaking countries
and she was critical of the modern astrology of her day
Yet she used the modern outers as data points without hesitation
See the examples in her book.
If you are a modernist astrologer then that book could be useful
but because
Olivia Barclay had no access to the translations available today

from for example traditional astrologer BENJAMIN DYKES https://www.bendykes.com/
that book is not a traditional one


[deleted attacking comments and response to attacking comments - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
What makes Horary testable is that the prediction can be checked for accuracy. So, given the prediction and the result, with Traditional as the template, it should be possible to tell if Modern supplements brought anything useful to the table--something that would have been even slightly less comprehensive, using Trad only. Have there been any such pragmatic studies, or is this just an argument between opposing theories and preferences?
Nothing prevents you from organising your own pragmatic study :smile:
 

waybread

Well-known member
JA, just a reminder of the forum rules:

"Respect of other members is expected at all times. No talking down to, being rude, dismissing of people, trying to shut someone down if they don't agree, or passive aggressively drawing people out to respond negatively."
 

tikana

Well-known member
JA

thing is

you can read a horary without modern planets ... just use fixed stars, antiscias, terms position of the significators to get a full picture.

ancients did not know about post saturnian planets, but heavily depended on a list posted above. So you can safely say you do not need modern planets at all.

Of course when we enter into modern world with new metals or new elements in periodic table we can easily assign them to traditional planets without sticking our nose into modern.

if someone was to ask if Iran had nukes, we do not need to use uranus but we need to look at mars since mars rules weapons.

Bill Rex is good but again he is modernist more than traditional .. a lot of today's everyday objects cannot be found in his book, for example a CD ... it could be 5th or it could be merc or moon ..

Bill E Rex has not published any other book than rulership book.

arguing with modernists is like pulling teeth with pliers. it is useless entertainment with 0 satisfaction at the end. Not even mentioning if modernists do not pay extra attention to little details. traditional astrology is a lot simpler than modern just because we have less planets and aspects to deal with and you can validate a chart with relative ease. If I see a post saturn planet sitting on top of angle or significator, I pay extra attention to the significator and what is going on with it. FE. there is crazy ongoing combustion involving mars/sun in cancer going on. Mars is in terrible status quo.. so if you have a signficator Mars, i'd be paying attention if any kind of alarm going on on the cusp or lunar's condition since it rules the heart of the querent.

over the years i have been wrangling with 4 issues:

1. can we validate the chart?
is hour agreement good enough for chart validation? NO! I will tell you why. Querent and astrologer run exact the same chart from radically 2 different places. both charts meet hour agreement .... look good? NO! Answers oppose. What do you do? you figure out which chart makes more sense.... physical description of a person who is asking.. then locaiton of the planets ... is the question random? I have had those! random qs hit my head i run a chart - different answers lol...
2. last lunar aspect - does this have anything to do with the q
3. does dispositor of lord of asce show us what drives the querent or ruler of fall/detriment shows the concern?
4... timing.. sometimes when you ask will so and so happen that day? you may hit a jackpot ..but most cases you don't so it is all touch and go on that one.

Like LIoness'sons sexuality chart was tricky. someone in another group looked at the attraction I looked at is my suspicion correct?

the good thing about traditonalists is ... it is an ultimate guilt satisfaction when a modernist screws up in reading a chart and traditonalist sits back and laughs at the whole zoo ... moment of DUH! and total sadistic satisfaction... so IMO IGNORE. No matter how much you bark at them, they wont get out of post saturn realm.



T


For someone who trumpeted frequently to have put my posts "on ignore"
you have boxed yourself in
:smile:


Traditional techniques have no requirement of modern outers
it's that simple


Take a look at your own lack of information regarding the content of my posts
which you prefer to not read
your choice


That applies to yourself, since you have not read all my posts

If you are a modernist astrologer then that book could be useful
but because
Olivia Barclay had no access to the translations available today

from for example traditional astrologer BENJAMIN DYKES https://www.bendykes.com/
that book is not a traditional one


you are entitled to your opinion
with which many disagree
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Tikana, I get this totally.

To me, to use the modern outers or not is a matter of personal preference.

Is chocolate better than vanilla? It depends whom you ask.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
So, just an argument between opposing theories and preferences
with no actual evidence supporting one opinion over another.
:sleeping:
nothing prevents you from noting actual evidence at our own horary forum :smile:
and then using that evidence for yourself
for
compiling a pragmatic study



[deleted comment about reading Forum rules as not relevant to astro-discussion - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Tikana, I get this totally.
To me, to use the modern outers or not is a matter of personal preference.
Tikana also said:

JA

thing is

you can read a horary without modern planets
...
just use fixed stars, antiscias
terms position of the significators to get a full picture.

ancients did not know about post saturnian planets
but heavily depended on a list posted above.
So you can safely say you do not need modern planets at all.

Of course when we enter into modern world with new metals or new elements in periodic table
we can easily assign them to traditional planets without sticking our nose into modern.

if someone was to ask if Iran had nukes
we do not need to use uranus
but we need to look at mars since mars rules weapons.

and also
:smile:

Bill Rex is good but again he is modernist more than traditional ..
a lot of today's everyday objects cannot be found in his book, for example a CD ...
it could be 5th or it could be merc or moon ..

Bill E Rex has not published any other book than rulership book.

the good thing about traditonalists is ... it is an ultimate guilt satisfaction
when a modernist screws up in reading a chart
and traditonalist sits back and laughs at the whole zoo ...
moment of DUH! and total sadistic satisfaction...
so IMO IGNORE.
No matter how much you bark at them
they wont get out of post saturn realm.

T
 

tikana

Well-known member
So, just an argument between opposing theories and preferences, with no actual evidence supporting one opinion over another. :sleeping:

They are not OPPOSING. what part of trad astrology DOES NOT NEED modern and modern has to depend on trad astrlogy

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top