This is so dishonest. The original post was giving pros and cons of each "system" of astrology and both traditional and modern was given an overly simplistic synopsis that did neither of them any justice. That was the basis of my challenge. Yet you are so hung up on your law of attraction that that is what you decided to focus on. The quotes are only worthless to you because you've already made up your mind.
Astrology works with symbolism -- you aren't saying I haven't heard. Your claims about LOA being essential to Astrology and "LOA is most basic cosmic law there is" are just wind unless you can back them with something other than your rhetoric. I'm waiting on those references.
That's your prerogative. If you think that stoicism is the only philosophical system that rejects the notion that "you are the creator of your own reality" then you don't know what you're talking about.
I've seen deterministic astrologers of the Vedic stripe but naturally you would be blind to them. (Of course you would)
Maybe you should read up on the hermetic laws. LOA is the mechanism that organizes experience, be it physical or non-physical. The hermetic laws build onto that. Before events or things manifest in the physical world, they exist as probabilities in the non-physical realm, which is the backdrop of the physical realm. The physical realm is the realm of time and space and cause and effect. The non-physical realm is beyond time and space and cause and effect and the source of everything. So we could say that the physical world as we know it is just a projection from the non-physical realm. Which means what's physically manifested doesn't actually exist in itself, in it's own right. It's just a reflection of something more profound.
Because the non-physical realm is beyond space and time and cause and effect, this means our normal reasoning and language doesn't work there. The non-physical realm works purely by association. That's where symbols come into play. Symbols also work by association, not logic. Which means they can't be understood with the intellect, they can only be understood on a feeling basis. So in a sense, symbols are pointers and not meant to be taken literally (as the intellect naturally does). They are like the finger that is pointing to the Moon.
Astrology works in the same way. The chart is also just the finger that is pointing to the Moon and its symbols are not meant to be taken literally. The symbols point to a larger and more profound unseen reality and there's a lot of leeway in interpretation.
Since this non-physical realm is the background of the physical, this means your current self has also a larger more profound background self. This cannot be proven intellectually, of course. You have to experience it. But once you've realized your larger self, your actual self, you'll also understand your place and role in creation and your relationship to all that is. This understanding is not an intellectual understanding, it's actually visceral, it's in your cells and blood so to speak. It bypasses the intellect. It's prior to intellectual knowing. Which means it can't be put into words, it can't be conveyed, you have to experience it in order to know it. And the important thing is that this knowledge is not something newly acquired, it's something that's been with your all along. You were born with it. It's your natural state. Children still know it but slowly lose it when the intellect becomes more dominant as they grow up.
What you naturally know and what children still know is the magical nature of the entire universe, how thoughts turn to things, that their actual self is larger than their physical self and that your existence is assured and appreciated, that you are literally the creator of your own reality and your own self. Which means your natural outlook on life is inherently a positive one from this visceral perspective.
Now here is how all of this becomes relevant in characterizing those different astrological traditions (or any teaching): Every tradition has an ontology, a philosophy that explains our place and role in the entire picture of creation, a filter of perception so to speak. This means the more you are aware and familiar with this non-physical background reality and the mechanics of it and your true place in it, the more you understand your active role in creation, the more leeway you will allow in your interpretations and the more positive and self-empowered your general outlook will become.
And this is what I was describing, the modern western approach is more in alignment with the visceral approach and therefore has generally a more positive outlook and is more flexible in interpretations. It's also the reason why this tradition is more psychologically oriented because the non-physical realm is the realm of the psyche. And since the original astrological symbolism is of a psychological nature, the modern tradition is naturally more adept at dealing with those symbols.
The traditional western approach is much less in alignment with the visceral approach, it's more in alignment with the intellectual approach and since the intellectual approach is limited in nature and disconnected from its non-physical background, the outlook is generally more negative and interpretations are less flexible and more literal.
That's why on this forum, trads often accuse mods of giving solely psychological interpretations and mods often accuse trads of painting negative doom and gloom scenarios.
Vedic astrology is a special case, however. It definitely doesn't allow the kind of freedom modern western astrology allows, but it still is very much aware of the non-physical background, it actually places great importance on that realm, because that's what the divisional charts are dealing with.
And now back to stoicism. The stoics believed that man is like a dog that is taken on a walk on a leash. While he can stray away here and there a little to the left and to the right, the general course of the journey is not in his control, however. And that's exactly the kind of thinking that I've found in the traditional western approach. There may be differences in how long this leash is considered to be though. The stoic point of view is more concerned with putting up with reality than actually creating one's own reality. And that's the big divide I see between modern western and traditional western approach.
This more deterministic approach would also apply to the vedic tradition, as you've correctly noted. Although you have to see it in connection with the karma concept. And depending on how everyone understands karma, they will grant the individual more or less freedom. But the main focus in vedic is on the non-physical realm (moksha), on attaining absolute freedom.
That's my 2 cents so far. Take it or leave it.