Comparison of fate vs free will in traditional astrology vs modern astrology

Gemini888

Well-known member
I notice many Traditionalistic astrologers have "a chip on their shoulders" regarding Modernistic astrology.
I think this is because Trad astrology was designed to foresee things in a long period of time. Trad was so fixated with the idea that astrology was a product of the Higher Being and an accurate tool to determine the future, so when modern astrology came and spread the notion that free will also plays a large part, it's like a shattered dream for Trad. Astrology is no longer view as the ultimate prediction tool, and that doesn't sit well with Trad's hard work.


Also, modern is much simpler. There is no such thing as sect, moist, dry... As a result astrology became much more accessible to the public. Trad wasn't designed to be accessible to the masses. That's like being a film director and seeing people with no experience putting great videos on Youtube. You don't work hard just to lose over some random uneducated people huh?


It could also be the mistake of linking modern to tabloid sun-sign horoscope too.


I also notice that modern astrologers are more willing to dig into Trad than Trad do to modern :wink:
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
The older trend is that those who found traditional did so after being disillusioned with modern astrology. There is enough available these days that someone can jump righy into learning traditional without any exposure to modern astrology and its ideas but that is a much more recent thing.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I'm curious about why you seem to gravitate towards Traditionalistic astrology.
You say you respect Modernistic?
It is not helpful in promising tangible results
besides it is not authoritative
no matter how appealing to the modern ideas
and to the people who want to feel special instead of taking action.
Traditional astrology is authoritative,
ancient astrologers have observed skies and recorded everything
that is why it is more valid.
As long as the seven planets exist traditional astrology will work,
there is no doubt about it.
As someone with strong Saturn
I gravitate towards Traditional astrology, blame the planet. :smile:

Quite :smile:
 

lostinstars

Well-known member
The older trend is that those who found traditional did so after being disillusioned with modern astrology. There is enough available these days that someone can jump righy into learning traditional without any exposure to modern astrology and its ideas but that is a much more recent thing.

Must be true and we can't deny how modern western astrology came into being. And there must be some good modern western astrologers who may use some techniques from traditional and provide better insights to clients while some may limit themselves to personality analysis. If both are successful astrologers who is to say who is doing the right thing? One can argue strongly it doesn't matter but there are some dangers to it, as someone may bring in new knowledge from other disciplines and call it modern western astrology.

There are no authority figures in modern western astrology unlike in traditional where you can always fall back on ancient astrologers.
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Must be true and we can't deny how modern western astrology came into being. And there must be some good modern western astrologers who may use some techniques from traditional and provide better insights to clients while some may limit themselves to personality analysis. If both are successful astrologers who is to say who is doing the right thing? One can argue strongly it doesn't matter but there are some dangers to it, as someone may bring in new knowledge from other disciplines and call it modern western astrology.

There are no authority figures in modern western astrology unlike in traditional where you can always fall back on ancient astrologers.

I think the most decisive factor in an astrology consultation is the skill of the astrologer. I remember reading something Curtis Manwaring said about the best astrological reading he has ever gotten being from an evolutionary astrologer. He is the creator of various astrology softwares that are based in hellenistic techniques. He was also one of the astrologers who started out as a modern astrologer under the Dane Rudhyar camp, then shifted to being a student of Robert Schmidt & Project Hindsight, which had a big hand in allowing for the accessibility of more ancient astrological texts.

I'm also reminded of an astrologer that was formerly on here who was also a trained psychologist who aimed to marry his psychological learning with his astrology, with the astrodynes/cosmodynes system as his astrological basis. Here is his website - http://zarathuastrology.zohosites.com/What-are-Cosmodynes.html

Syncretism has been occurring wherever different cultures mix and interact with one another. Societies may even find this cross pollination of ideas as something that is a net positive, encouraging creativity and further development toward their own peoples. I do find the idea of purism attractive, but is a pure form of ancient astrology really possible today? I won't say that we are "evolved" or what-have-you, but we are certainly a different culture than from those in antiquity, which will affect how we engage an art like astrology in subtle ways that we wouldn't even pick up, since it would be like trying to see the back of your eyes.

As to authority figures, modern astrology has loads. Robert Hand, Liz Greene, Dane Rudhyar, Noel Tyl, Marc Edmund Jones, C.E.O Carter, Reinhold Ebertin, Jeff Green, and so on. Maybe the historical distance isn't vast enough for them to become mythologized like Bonatti and Valens, but you have to give credit where it is due.
 
Last edited:

lostinstars

Well-known member
I think the most decisive factor in an astrology consultation is the skill of the astrologer. I remember reading something Curtis Manwaring said about the best astrological reading he has ever gotten being from an evolutionary astrologer. He is the creator of various astrology softwares that are based in hellenistic techniques. He was also one of the astrologers who started out as a modern astrologer under the Dane Rudhyar camp, then shifted to being a student of Robert Schmidt & Project Hindsight, which had a big hand in allowing for the accessibility of more ancient astrological texts.

I don't know about it and we don't know what exactly he asked the evolutionary astrologer.

Syncretism has been occurring wherever different cultures mix and interact with one another. Societies may even find this cross pollination of ideas as something that is a net positive, encouraging creativity and further development toward their own peoples. I do find the idea of purism attractive, but is a pure form of ancient astrology really possible today? I won't say that we are "evolved" or what-have-you, but we are certainly a different culture than from those in antiquity, which will affect how we engage an art like astrology in subtle ways that we wouldn't even pick up, since it would be like trying to see the back of your eyes.

We should always welcome new ideas, no contest in that and I think practising pure form of ancient astrology is still possible even today as we see planets in action all the time. A modern astrologer uses psychology and provides a setting for psychotherapy in some form or the other during a reading or a consultation. And psychotherapy works for some but not for everyone and even some therapists struggle to improve the lives of some clients even after years of therapy. If a modern astrologer says I don't use psychology at all then we are talking about two different things.

As to authority figures, modern astrology has loads. Robert Hand, Liz Greene, Dane Rudhyar, Noel Tyl, Marc Edmund Jones, C.E.O Carter, Reinhold Ebertin, Jeff Green, and so on. Maybe the historical distance isn't vast enough for them to become mythologized like Bonatti and Valens, but you have to give credit where it is due.

As already mentioned I'm a big fan of Jung so I know Liz Greene's work and of course Dane Rudhyar, I don't know much about the rest as I decided not to pursue modern astrology anymore. If you are biased towards Jung and consider archetypes rule our lives, then you are more likely to consider Liz Greene as authority vis-à-vis some other pioneer who might bring theology and biblical myths into modern astrology.

Psychology is a fascinating thing as you can see it in my signature it is based on a lecture by Jordan Peterson on the biblical story of Jonah and whale. If modern astrologers emphasise psychology so much then why do they even need a natal chart to look at? In the future they may don't even need to bother with the natal chart I guess.
 
Last edited:

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
We don't know what he asked of him, but I used him as an example because he has been exposed deeply on both sides of the modern/trad schism, and at the time of that comment he had long since left behind modern astrology as a proponent and was quite a happy acolyte of Project Hindsight.

Both traditional and modern branches take into consideration the actions of planets all the time. Secondary progressions and astrocartography are both modern conceptions which are based on prediction in the former case, and based on the actions of planets and practical manifestations in the second case. The cosmobiologists' whole school developed for the sake of refining predictions. There is an astrologer on this website called "Unique Astrology" is another event based astrologer that is purely modern. I'm speaking more in the sense of worldview, contemporary experiences, world context, historical moment etc. We cannot practice as if we were Valens because we do not live in Valens' world. Just the fact that we are having this conversation across country borders almost instantaneously shows the vast difference of the contexts of the astrologers of old vs. now in 2019.

A modern astrologer uses psychology and provides a setting for psychotherapy in some form or the other during a reading or a consultation. And psychotherapy works for some but not for everyone and even some therapists struggle to improve the lives of some clients even after years of therapy. If a modern astrologer says I don't use psychology at all then we are talking about two different things.

Could you clarify what you meant by this?

I mentioned those names not because they are who I see as my personal heros and authority figures, but to show you that these people are authorities in the modern schools of astrology. If there was a modern biblical (I'm assuming a Christian theologian?) astrologer that contributed his brand of astrology to the contemporary corpus in a sufficiently influential way, I would have added him/her to the list.

This is more speculative, but are you aware of the theory that Freud got his psychoanalytic ideas from the Kabbalah and Jewish mystical teachings? If so be the case, what is seen as too totally different fields (psychology and astrology) may very well be more unified than we think.

Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition

Just to jolt your perception, I am neither a proponent of modern nor traditional astrology. In fact if you were active on this forum even a couple years back you would think that I was a traditional astrologer all the way.
 

lostinstars

Well-known member
We don't know what he asked of him, but I used him as an example because he has been exposed deeply on both sides of the modern/trad schism, and at the time of that comment he had long since left behind modern astrology as a proponent and was quite a happy acolyte of Project Hindsight.

I got the idea.

Secondary progressions and astrocartography are both modern conceptions which are based on prediction in the former case, and based on the actions of planets and practical manifestations in the second case.

Astrocartography is definitely modern astrology's brainchild, an impressive feat I should say but uses the basics of natal chart with roots in traditional astrology. I'm not going to argue on this I think many people must have benefitted immensely with this tool alone.

We cannot practice as if we were Valens because we do not live in Valens' world. Just the fact that we are having this conversation across country borders almost instantaneously shows the vast difference of the contexts of the astrologers of old vs. now in 2019.

Valid point but the planetary gods are still pulling strings else we don't see concrete external events manifesting in the world at some particular placements.

Psychology is the study of mind and its influence on our behaviour. I don't hold degrees in psychology. Modern astrology places a lot of importance on signs than planets, and these signs causing people to act in certain ways and can be worsened by some planets in those signs. For example a modern astrologer may hold the opinion pisces people are sensitive destructive to themselves in the form of addictions and tell the same to a client if s/he wants to know what to do with addictions. On top the astrologer is likely to say you are intuitive, you are special it is not your fault your partner can't love you the way you deserve etc. But the client is interested in how to get rid of addictions.

I'm not saying every modern astrologer does this, but most do.

I mentioned those names not because they are who I see as my personal heros and authority figures, but to show you that these people are authorities in the modern schools of astrology. If there was a modern biblical (I'm assuming a Christian theologian?) astrologer that contributed his brand of astrology to the contemporary corpus in a sufficiently influential way, I would have added him/her to the list.

Yes I understood your intention.

This is more speculative, but are you aware of the theory that Freud got his psychoanalytic ideas from the Kabbalah and Jewish mystical teachings? If so be the case, what is seen as too totally different fields (psychology and astrology) may very well be more unified than we think.

Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition

Could be possible, didn't know about this, thanks.

Just to jolt your perception, I am neither a proponent of modern nor traditional astrology. In fact if you were active on this forum even a couple years back you would think that I was a traditional astrologer all the way.

This is a good discussion, we can always get different perspective we may never thought of.
 

david starling

Well-known member
It's dumb to criticize Modernistic astrology for being "rooted" in Hellenistic-Christian-Arabian-Renaissance astrology, which was Modernistic for its time, being "rooted" in ancient Egyptian, Chaldean, and Babylonian astrology.
The ox-cart became the chariot which became the horse-drawn carriage which became the automobile. So the automobile is "rooted" in the ox-cart.
Nothing wrong with ox-carts or horse-drawn carriages, but they don't fit in well with the modern-day world.
 
Last edited:

lostinstars

Well-known member
It's dumb to criticize Modernistic astrology for being "rooted" in Hellenistic-Christian-Arabian-Renaissance astrology, which was Modernistic for its time, being "rooted" in ancient Egyptian, Chaldean, and Babylonian astrology.
The ox-cart became the chariot which became the horse-drawn carriage which became the automobile. So the automobile is "rooted" in the ox-cart.
Nothing wrong with ox-carts or horse-drawn carriages, but they don't fit in well with the modern-day world.

Got your point and humans came from nature and aren't we violating natural laws and destroying it? :lol: Don't take this as a backlash but an analogy.

Edit: A thought came to my mind. If someone were to ask what right psychologists and psychoanalysts had to contribute so much to astrology, the obvious answer is they had no right but there were no authorities to stop anyone from doing anything to astrology.

And I have no clue on what role psychology and psychoanalysis play in modern medical astrology if at all there is something like that already.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
It's dumb to criticize Modernistic astrology for being "rooted" in Hellenistic-Christian-Arabian-Renaissance astrology, which was Modernistic for its time, being "rooted" in ancient Egyptian, Chaldean, and Babylonian astrology.
The ox-cart became the chariot which became the horse-drawn carriage which became the automobile. So the automobile is "rooted" in the ox-cart.
Nothing wrong with ox-carts or horse-drawn carriages, but they don't fit in well with the modern-day world.
On the contrary :smile:
Modernist astrology is completely dependent on traditional astrology rulerships
as well as on other multiple traditional techniques

for example:

modernist SOLAR RETURN is the traditional SOLAR REVOLUTION re-named
 

david starling

Well-known member
On the contrary :smile:
Modernist astrology is completely dependent on traditional astrology rulerships
as well as on multiple traditional techniques

for example
modernist SOLAR RETURN is the traditional SOLAR REVOLUTION re-named

Not Modernistic astrologers who don't use Traditionalistic co-Domicile-rulers for Aquarius, Pisces, and Scorpio.
Traditionalistic is totally dependent on ancient Babylonian astrology for 12 equal Signs and much of the Sign-imagery.
Each phase of astrological innovation depends on the previous phase. Traditionalistic now was Modernistic in its own time.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
It's dumb to criticize Modernistic astrology for being "rooted" in Hellenistic-Christian-Arabian-Renaissance astrology, which was Modernistic for its time, being "rooted" in ancient Egyptian, Chaldean, and Babylonian astrology.
The ox-cart became the chariot which became the horse-drawn carriage which became the automobile. So the automobile is "rooted" in the ox-cart.
Nothing wrong with ox-carts or horse-drawn carriages, but they don't fit in well with the modern-day world.
On the contrary :smile:
Modernist astrology is completely dependent on traditional astrology rulerships
as well as on other multiple traditional techniques

for example:

modernist SOLAR RETURN is the traditional SOLAR REVOLUTION re-named
Not Modernistic astrologers who don't use Traditionalistic
co-Domicile-rulers for Aquarius, Pisces, and Scorpio.
Modernist astrologers who use co-rulers
are using original traditional rulers

modernist astrology is completely dependent on traditional rulerships


Traditional astrologers are completely independent of modernist
unproven, untested theorising
 

david starling

Well-known member
Got your point and humans came from nature and aren't we violating natural laws and destroying it? :lol: Don't take this as a backlash but an analogy.

Edit: A thought came to my mind. If someone were to ask what right psychologists and psychoanalysts had to contribute so much to astrology, the obvious answer is they had no right but there were no authorities to stop anyone from doing anything to astrology.

And I have no clue on what role psychology and psychoanalysis play in modern medical astrology if at all there is something like that already.

Traditionalistic astrologers use modern-day technology like computers, and depend on modern astronomy for planetary positions (unless they're using an astrolabe and making their own calculations). :biggrin:
The ancient astrologers had disagreements among themselves. Nobody has copyrights on astrology itself, so anyone can use it and/or contribute to it.
 
Top