Is it true traditional astrologers exclude modern planets?

david starling

Well-known member
Incidentally
It is common knowledge amonst many astrologers that

the word astrology derives from Greek, from "astron" aka star
One wonders why :smile:
Clearly astrology is the study of the stars
Even today stars are clearly visible twinkling in local night skies worldwide :smile:

HOWEVER
these stars are in fact SUNS
that are so bright they DWARF our puny sun by comparison
but are so far distant
in fact light years distant
so they seem miniscule
and so
in ancient times, observers of the skies
referred to those distant brilliant SUNS as “Fixed Stars”
because as well
in comparison to other visible celestial bodies
that REFLECTED THE LIGHT OF THE SUN SUFFICIENTLY SO AS TO RENDER THEM VISIBLE
those distant SUNS were apparently “Fixed”
regarding their visible location in night skies worldwide

in contrast
the ancients referred to the seven classical planets as “wandering stars”
simply because the seven classical planets were
and
continue to be

“wanderers”
when compared with more distant SUNS aka “Fixed Stars”

The seven classical planets are:
Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn
all clearly visible
BECAUSE THEY REFLECT THE LIGHT OF THE SUN

hence astrology is based
on visibility of both “Fixed” and “Wandering Stars”

Actually, Astrology is based on the Ecliptic, which is a combination of one star (which we call the "Sun"), one planet, in the centre, which we call "the Earth", and one satellite of Earth, which we call the "Moon".
 

waybread

Well-known member
(Still catching up....)

It all comes down to the attitude, "That doesn't work for me, so it can't possibly work for you, either". Then it's about "proving" it can't work for you. Then there's the "More Traditional Than Thou" approach.

This is an important point. If I had to drop the modern outers, I would not find traditional replacements for them. There just aren't any that work so well. They have different meanings.

Trads, please keep in mind that some modern astrologers actually base our practice on pragmatic grounds-- on what we have found to work over hundreds if not thousands of chart-readings. We pay attention to research published by really, seriously good professional astrologers. (For example, David Cochrane and Alice Portman.)

The notion that mods just make up their delineations as they go along does a real disservice to modern professional astrologers whose work is research-based.

I'm pretty convinced that the modern outers work really well as co-rulers of signs in natal chart interpretation. Pluto and Mars are as different as Scorpio and Aries. Pluto rules radioactive substances. I'm pretty convinced that Neptune rules film (cinema) and substance abuse. In medical astrology it shows up as illnesses that are hard to diagnose. Sun-Neptune can also be the visionary. In event charts for people, Uranus signifies "sudden change," often as an accident. Chiron is a really useful point in showing "where it hurts."

So if a trad can do all this without modern outers, fine. I just do not see the need or desirability of trimming my repertory.

Again, dear trads, your problem is with magnification. If you work with fixed stars, you know that the (naked eye) light you'd see tonight might have left that star many light years ago. The star might have blown up years ago, for all you know.

I really doubt that the naked-eye argument pre-dated the 20th century. Maybe someone here knows when and in what source it first emerged.
 

waybread

Well-known member
You may disagree, and your disagreement is nothing more than just your opinion. I have seen a lot of non-sensical modern blabber about something that very feebly resembles tabloid Astrology, and nothing more than that. Just trying to hold up your vehement tone!! Oh unlike you I won’t actually go thru the chore of showing the modern hollowness here because there is soooo much of it already that litters this forum. Why waste another minute to represent it here, too.
Good day!!!

Like I was telling Odd, this thread has lost all its quality...

A7000, possibly your above post would be an example of deterioration....

My opinion, sure-- but I stand by my opinions on this thread as informed opinions. I have tried very hard to inform as well as to merely opine.

As I said previously, both traditional and modern astrology contain the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I'm traveling now and away from my books, but I can cite some really wretched cookbook delineations from original traditional sources, if anyone's interested. Somewhere above I cited Firmicus Maternus on hard Saturn-Mars contact, and William Lilly on witchcraft.

I would love it if trads would cite specific modern sources that bother them. I wouldn't care for all of the modern sources out there, either.

Surely we need to be connoisseurs of what we read.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Good point. And where it gets really messy is when you look at rulerships, which planet, sign, house rules what. Traditional astrology is far less unified as some would like it to be.


I think there's a great deal of projection involved. One common criticism of modern western astrology is its too simplistic approach to house meanings, like associating the 8th house with sex primarily. But calling the 8th the house of death as traditional authors do isn't much better.


Here is where a knowledge of the history of astrology and of the different branches of astrology becomes helpful.

In medical astrology, each sign rules a particular part of the body, starting with Aries at the head and ending with Pisces at the feet. Scorpio rules the genitals and elimination processes. Medical astrology is one of the few branches where it is legit to match up signs and houses by-the-numbers. So, correspondingly, the 8th also rules the genital organs.

What the 8th doesn't rule is sex-for-fun or for children, 5th house matters; or marriage, a 7th house matter.

But yeh-- the ancients already knew that you couldn't read a person's timing or manner of death transparently off the 8th house. They developed a number of different methods to predict length-of-life plus fatal illnesses.

As the Roman god of death, Pluto strikes some mods as signifying death in a horoscope, but no. This isn't good practice, either.
 
Last edited:

aquarius7000

Well-known member
A7000, possibly your above post would be an example of deterioration.....
You seem quite familiar with deterioration yourself and yours was an even better example.

To think that I used to jump in when others were attacking you on other threads... and you should aim right back at me to attack me.

And you know why yours is an even better example of "deterioration"? Because you actually directed your post as a personal attack towards me by saying "your post"

whereas

I said "this thread is deteriorating"

Be more careful next time, since you always make such an effort to come across as so learned... what good are all those books on your book shelves when detereioration is all they have brought about
 

Michael

Well-known member
David, if you don't like Sidereal astrology, maybe you could try Galactic.

"Skydram Ayanamsha (R. Mardyks)

(also known as Galactic Alignment Ayanamsha)

...This ayanamsha or zodiac therefore has a "tropical" component. Mardyks calls it a "hybrid fixed-tropical, galactic zodiac". In astrological practice, Mardyks uses this galactic zodiac combined with the tropical zodiac along with the stars that compose the constellations."

Ayanamshas in Sidereal Astrology
 

david starling

Well-known member
Michael, good thread actually, once it was moved out of Traditional. It's a learning Community, and the back and forth yielded some good information, even though, unfortunately, also some ruffled feathers.
 

Michael

Well-known member
Good article on ayanamshas. I learned the original Nakshatra system used the Galactic-Ecliptic Node. Before it was unified with the Babylonian Zodiac, under a common Ayanamsha.

So, even if you prefer the tropical zodiac, it could still be helpful for the Moon houses. Unless you want to go full Galactic.
 
Last edited:

katydid

Well-known member
Well, I learned a lot about how Trads view Astrology.

Here is what I don't understand about the reasoning used by some of the trads.


Apparently, they do not trust nor believe in the modern advances in astrological learning and research. It is considered vague, useless and 'unsubstantial' by some. If not most.

My question is, do these same people use modern medicine and take advantage of the advances in that field? Or do they subscribe to blood letting and ignore penicillin and laser surgical techniques?

Why would they trust modern advances in one field, but deny and reject same in another? :pouty:
 

Oddity

Well-known member
Katy, you're aware that modern astrology is not a continuation of traditional astrology, yes?

Trad astrology nearly died out in the late 1600s, owing to a lot of things, the English civil war and the rise of professional societies chief among them. You couldn't have lunatic astrologer doctors like Culpeper running around, writing in English, telling people that falling sickness was a disease of th brain and nerves, when scientists knew it was a heart problem. Worse still, the herbals. In English. When proper medical treatment involved painful doses of mercury. He was tried for witchcraft, you know, on account of being so heretical.

Anyway, Alan Leo was a competent horarist, and it was against the law in Britain to tell fortunes, at least if you got them right, and he did on several occasions. Enough that he was going to be sent to prison.

Out of this, modern astrology was born, as character assessment, with no hint of fortune-telling. I can't blame the guy, who knows what I would've done if I'd been facing those charges? But that's where modern astrology came from, it was essentially an entire rewrite, not an advancement.

If you prefer it, that's fine, and I'm glad you're so passionate about astrology. But you don't know traditional astrology, so I don't think you're in much position to cast aspersion on those who practise it. It's just not your cuppa, and that's okay.

Here is what I don't understand about the reasoning used by some of the trads.


Apparently, they do not trust nor believe in the modern advances in astrological learning and research. It is considered vague, useless and 'unsubstantial' by some. If not most.

My question is, do these same people use modern medicine and take advantage of the advances in that field? Or do they subscribe to blood letting and ignore penicillin and laser surgical techniques?

Why would they trust modern advances in one field, but deny and reject same in another? :pouty:
 

katydid

Well-known member
Katy, you're aware that modern astrology is not a continuation of traditional astrology, yes?

Trad astrology nearly died out in the late 1600s, owing to a lot of things, the English civil war and the rise of professional societies chief among them. You couldn't have lunatic astrologer doctors like Culpeper running around, writing in English, telling people that falling sickness was a disease of th brain and nerves, when scientists knew it was a heart problem. Worse still, the herbals. In English. When proper medical treatment involved painful doses of mercury. He was tried for witchcraft, you know, on account of being so heretical.

Anyway, Alan Leo was a competent horarist, and it was against the law in Britain to tell fortunes, at least if you got them right, and he did on several occasions. Enough that he was going to be sent to prison.

Out of this, modern astrology was born, as character assessment, with no hint of fortune-telling. I can't blame the guy, who knows what I would've done if I'd been facing those charges? But that's where modern astrology came from, it was essentially an entire rewrite, not an advancement.

If you prefer it, that's fine, and I'm glad you're so passionate about astrology. But you don't know traditional astrology, so I don't think you're in much position to cast aspersion on those who practise it. It's just not your cuppa, and that's okay.

Oddity,

I have great respect for you and your attitude towards astrology and it's practitioners.

Until very very recently, I have not had any issues with traditional astrologers. I have tried to learn as much as I could because it has fascinated me. Robert Hand was my favorite astrologer back in the day, and I watched him make that transition and it intrigued me.

The only reason I posted that kind of snarky question is that , quite recently, there have been a few members here being very rude and condescending towards modern astro. Calling it improper, unsubstantial, vague, etc etc. I do take it to heart and it bothers me that they think they are so superior when it is not that cut and dry.

I would rather we co-exist amicably, but I don't see how that can happen as long as modern astro is being called out unfairly and criticized so harshly. :bandit:

I am sorry Oddity, to offend you because it is not what I meant to do. You have always been very respectful and I appreciate that... :pouty:
 

Michael

Well-known member
Oddity said:
You couldn't have lunatic astrologer doctors like Culpeper running around, writing in English, telling people that falling sickness was a disease of th brain and nerves, when scientists knew it was a heart problem. Worse still, the herbals. In English. When proper medical treatment involved painful doses of mercury. He was tried for witchcraft, you know, on account of being so heretical.

Culpeper was a talented astrologer and doctor, not a lunatic. So much for respect of tradition.


Oddity said:
But that's where modern astrology came from, it was essentially an entire rewrite, not an advancement.

It was an advancement, because it provided new ways of thinking about astrology. It's impossible to do traditional astrology today without filtering it through the lens of modern astrology. Nobody will give you prizes for your service to astrology for authoring a fatalistic interpretation cookbook.

Most modern textbooks on traditional astrology don't have much fatalism in them. The quality has risen too.
 
Last edited:

Oddity

Well-known member
You don't get irony, do you, Michael?

That aside, if your astrology is so much better, you don't need to trash traditionalists. That achieves nothing, except making you a troll.

Let your excellence show in your astrological work.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Sometimes a simpler tool is best, especially when there's a wealth of experience of those working with it. By limiting the variables, you can get a clearer focus from one particular angle of view. Doesn't mean you shouldn't look at it from other vantage points as well, but we each have our own favorite methods, and sharing the different results is better than spreading ourselves too thin and trying to see it from all angles at once. For example, I'm working with the standard Tropical model, which is Earth-based and has definite dimensions, and expanding from there. For now, anyway. Limited time, since I work in the physical world, and can't really spend enough time researching and trying out brand new models. The key is in how well whatever method you're using results in actual Chart-readings.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Oddity,
I have great respect for you and your attitude towards astrology and it's practitioners.

Until very very recently, I have not had any issues with traditional astrologers. I have tried to learn as much as I could because it has fascinated me. Robert Hand was my favorite astrologer back in the day, and I watched him make that transition and it intrigued me.

The only reason I posted that kind of snarky question is that , quite recently, there have been a few members here being very rude and condescending towards modern astro. Calling it improper, unsubstantial, vague, etc etc. I do take it to heart and it bothers me that they think they are so superior when it is not that cut and dry.

I would rather we co-exist amicably
but I don't see how that can happen

as long as modern astro

is being called out unfairly

and criticized

so harshly.
:bandit:

I am sorry Oddity, to offend you because it is not what I meant to do. You have always been very respectful and I appreciate that... :pouty:
that's your opinion :smile:
however
note the following negative comment directed against traditional astrology
posted earlier on this thread

I hope your are right

because in the past
much of traditional astrology was literally garbage.

This explains the rise of the modern branch.


Hopefully, the traditionals have cleaned their act since then.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Here is what I don't understand about the reasoning used by some of the trads.

Apparently, they do not trust nor believe in the modern advances in astrological learning and research. It is considered vague, useless and 'unsubstantial' by some. If not most.

My question is, do these same people use modern medicine and take advantage of the advances in that field? Or do they subscribe to blood letting and ignore penicillin and laser surgical techniques?

Why would they trust modern advances in one field, but deny and reject same in another? :pouty:
Modern medical advances are not so wonderful
when scrutinised closely :smile:
for example penicillin is no longer a wonder drug
due to MRSA
aka
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
a gram-positive bacterium that is genetically different
from other strains of Staphylococcus aureus.
MRSA is responsible for several difficult-to-treat infections in humans

 
Top