waybread
Well-known member
So bleeping what?
Modern Astrology IS "Traditional"
- Thread starter david starling
- Start date
So bleeping what?
waybread
Well-known member
Who claims either of these ridiculous propositions?
Are you getting enough rest these days, Petosiris? Maybe not if you're trying to spy on your neighbours.
waybread
Well-known member
OK, go for it.
david starling
Well-known member
Just admit it, waybread. If God had wanted us to be able to see those goldurn Outers, He would have given us keener eyesight!
david starling
Well-known member
Modern science or Ancient science?
Troll science.
david starling
Well-known member
I can't find my posts in this 34 page troll thread about how apparent brightness works in astrology.
But as Oddity explained, astrology is the study of stars and cosmic phenomena that is visible to the naked eye like eclipses, comets and halos. We don't deal with quasars or billions of invisible galaxies. If each of those invisible objects had some astrological effect or correlation on Earth, then astrology would be impossible and useless.
david starling
Well-known member
That explanation applies to the Traditional version of Astrology you're into. Doesn't necessarily apply to other versions, like Modern.
Oddity
Well-known member
As I've noted before, the matters that are assigned to the outer planets were all 'transferred' from the original seven. That alone should be enough to weaken your confidence in them a bit.
Witchyone
Well-known member
I wonder what percentage of people who practice traditional astrology are fixed dominant.
There is no original astrology. It's all approximate recreations of ancient ideas that people made up. It wasn't given to them on stone tablets. And the ancients never were in total agreement either. We are all following old traditions. I don't know why you would arbitrarily cut knowledge off at the year 1700.
There is no original astrology. It's all approximate recreations of ancient ideas that people made up. It wasn't given to them on stone tablets. And the ancients never were in total agreement either. We are all following old traditions. I don't know why you would arbitrarily cut knowledge off at the year 1700.
david starling
Well-known member
I use the Ancient Greek which borrowed from the Ancient Egyptian religion as descriptions of planetary characteristics. Venus is from the Sumerian goddess Inanna, and there's Roman input also. No need to transfer anything. Ouranos (Caelus in Roman) was god of the Heavens, and there were the three brothers who overthrew Cronus/Saturn. Pluto is derived from Osiris. I have confidence in the visionary imaginings of that Age.
david starling
Well-known member
It's a unique and powerful version. But you're right, it's not the entirety of the Tradition of Astrology. Modern is a different version of that Astrological Tradition, and in that sense, is just as "Traditional" in the inclusive sense of the word. Trad is one important version that occurred within a limited time-frame.
Witchyone
Well-known member
What's great about it, from my limited perspective, is how knowledgeable those who practice it tend to be about the sources, theories, and techniques around it. I have learned so much reading their threads and debates, both among themselves and with "modern" astrologers.
While I can see the value in focusing more attention on bodies visible to the naked eye (those that originally inspired the constellations), I, personally, can't pretend that the outer planets don't exist within our sun's gravitational reach. I can't pretend that I don't know that we orbit the sun, not the other way around. I can't pretend that I don't know that planets do not emit light.
I think modern astrology is flawed as well. It's true that Pluto is incredibly far away and tiny compared to the other planets. What happens when science discovers more Pluto-sized planets in the outer solar system? There's very good evidence that it's a possibility.
david starling
Well-known member
Pluto fits the patterns I'm using so well, I have no problem with it. Also, I feel as if the "Muse has spoken" when it comes to including Pluto into the pantheon of Modern-astrology.
It already has. It is why Pluto is no longer considered a planet. ''Starting in 2000, with the discovery of at least three bodies (Quaoar, Sedna, and Eris) all comparable to Pluto in terms of size and orbit, it became clear that either they all had to be called planets or Pluto would have to be reclassified.'' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet
Oddity
Well-known member
You might want to have a look at this on the rulerships of the outer planets:
http://leephd.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-have-rulerships-shifted-since.html
And even modern astrologers are going to have to make a cut-off point somewhere, or every asteroid, centaur, bit of space dust, and possibly satellite will become responsible for something - and your charts will be unreadable.
http://leephd.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-have-rulerships-shifted-since.html
And even modern astrologers are going to have to make a cut-off point somewhere, or every asteroid, centaur, bit of space dust, and possibly satellite will become responsible for something - and your charts will be unreadable.
Witchyone
Well-known member
I thought the latest word on this was that Pluto still has other characteristics that make it better fit the definition of a planet than these other bodies that have been identified, but I don't recall what those distinctions were. Maybe I'm behind on that; will do some reading.
If it hasn't been disproved yet, there was also talk at one point of Pluto having a twin that affects its orbit. That might have already been satisfied with better understanding of its moons and tectonics.
david starling
Well-known member
I don't use the asteroids. Consider this: The names AND characteristic nature of the 5 innermost planets is taken directly from the Greco-Roman pantheon. I see no reason why that shouldn't apply to the outermost planets as well. Since the Greeks borrowed from the more ancient cultures, we have comparative characteristics to go on, also. No need to transform an inner into an outer. We can simply expand the pantheon.