perhaps it's necessary to explore the use of these terms 'traditional' and 'modern' a bit more fully.
“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” heraclitus.. this sort of sums up some of my thoughts on what i am going to say here..
if one has read ceo carter, robert hand, alan leo, steve arroyo, liz greene, reinhold ebertin, alfred witte, nic campion, charles harvey, michael harding, john addey, david hamblin and authors/astrologers/researchers (historical and astro) like these (i am missing a number of others here), i think it safe to say they've 'stepped into and drank some of the water' of modern astrology.. to my way of thinking every one of these authors including liz greene has a wealth of wisdom and knowledge to offer that may or may not be of interest to some directly, but it would seem bizarre to ignore the work of these people in an attempt to turn back the river or remove oneself from the river where astrology presently finds itself..
as rebel u suggested in the beginning of this thread - these categories (trad/mod etc) are limiting. we may have to limit ourselves in that we have only so many hours in the day, but we don't have to close our mind to the wisdom and knowledge that is unique to those who are sharing their insights whether they be considered modern or traditional! a particular style may appeal more to someone then not - this i see happen with music regularly too), but an exposure to different styles makes us all wealthier as i see it. i think there is a way to see the benefit of both traditional and modern approaches as well.
that is it on that for now.. perhaps someone would like to articulate what they call 'traditional' and what it means to them.
tsmall quote >>"So much of astrology lately seems more like guesswork and supposing than actual prediction. It also could explain in part why astrology is now more focused on inner development than on actual events. I would also go so far as to say that modern astrology isn't even based on astronomy, as a few recent threads here have shown that the zodiac used is tied to the Sun and earth, not the stars themselves.<<
thanks tsmall for sharing your thoughts here.. i think one reason why astrology has focused on inner development is that those who practice it have had an interest in inner development. it says something about those practicing as i see it.. there certainly was a new wave of interest in astrology beginning in the 60's as i understand it.. same thing for an increased interest in vegetarianism, and many of the religions of the east, or spirituality more generally. that some of this was reflected in a type of approach to astrology ought not to be a surprise!
as for your comment 'modern astrology isn't even based on astronomy', i think one has to understand the relationships that are being considered. waybread gave a good overview, but i would like to articulate my own thoughts on this here.. the tropical zodiac is not based on anything sidereal and was mis-named and has created much confusion, and leverage for those who would like to dismiss astrology all together..
the relationship between planet earth and the sun, moon and planets as viewed from earth - "geocentric" is indeed astronomical in nature.. that western or tropical zodiac astrology doesn't focus on or use stars and constellations (some do some don't) doesn't alter the fact what is being looked at is still astronomical in nature.
they are 2 different systems working from with different reference points. one - sidereal which is considering our sun and planets in relation to a more distant backdrop of the constellations along the ecliptic primarily and incorporating stars, while the other system - tropical is more local and focuses on the relationship of planet earth to the sun including the planets in this solar system.. hopefully this clarifies something for someone here..
