Tradition + Modernization = ?

E

eternalautumn

07.Re said:
In keeping with the spirit of openness that has enveloped the forum of late, this could well be a good time to encourage participation between modern and traditional astrologers (sans spears though) :)

The majority of astrologers are divided between "modern" and "traditional"...

What can both "sects" :)smile:) learn from each other? We know the differences; what are the similarities?
 
E

eternalautumn

Claire19 said:
I dont use "traditional" astrology for the very fact that it is often so negative and narrow.....

Can you elaborate on how you see it as "negative and narrow"?
 
E

eternalautumn

astrologer50 said:
Traditional astrologers using ancient outdated information (unproven) that hardly seems relevant in a modern world

How is it outdated? Unproven? How is modern astrology "proven"? Why doesn't it seem relevant?
 
E

eternalautumn

piercethevale said:
[... There are a great deal of techniques in Astrology, that are overly complex, quite old and yet, after many centuries {even millenia}, still haven't proven themselves to any degree of irrefutability....Just because it's old doesn't necessarily mean it should be revered....I mean, think about it...How long did 'cupping' and 'blood letting' go on before the techniques were finally admitted to as being 'bogus'?...until just a few years ago smoking was favored in hospitals because tobacco smoke was concidered to be a gemicidal!]

Isn't complexity subjective? How have modern techniques proven themselves irrefutable? I agree, old does not always equal important, but does that mean new always has to equal important?
 
E

eternalautumn

Pallas-trine-Mars said:
1. Bounds/terms aren't natural, they're contrived dignities that are entirely man-made and only made for the traditional planets. Different cultures just decided which planets they thought were more dignified where and said "ok, this planet is really good in this sign, so it gets terms at an earlier degree than that other planet, and it'll have more too," it's patent nonsense that has doesn't work with logic or order. There are other sign division dignities I like, but bounds aren't one I give much credit to.

How are any other dignities natural? What part of astrology isn't man-made? [You might do well to research the history of the bounds; they are based on the greater years of the planets, which are in turn based on the synodic (I believe) cycles of the planets.] In what ways is astrology logical and ordered?
 
E

eternalautumn

Olivia said:
Wow. Nobody on that thread had a clue what traditional astrology is, or why it is, or how it works. Or if they did, they opted not to share that understanding.
So maybe we can help people new to astrology learn more about it's roots. I think we're (traditionalists) always going to be in the minority, but that doesn't mean we can't try to share our knowledge with others, and defend ourselves in arguments.
 
Last edited:
E

eternalautumn

Olivia said:
Even posts on the late and much lamented Education Board that were traditional in nature were roundly lambasted as 'wrong, irrelevant, stupid, we have superior ways of doing astrology now'

Why do people feel modern astrology is superior to traditional?
 
E

eternalautumn

Olivia said:
Unless modern astrologers want to educate themselves in traditional astrology first

Would any modern astrologers be willing to read an article or two on traditional astrology and then debate?
 
E

eternalautumn

Olivia said:
Traditional astrologers know modern astrology, it's where most of us started out and spent a decade or three. But the same isn't true the other way round - moderns don't read traditionalist works - they read a sentence or a paragraph in a modern book about the 'bad old days' and that's pretty much it.

This is true, and unfortunate. Is it really fair to dismiss an entire system without giving it thorough review?
 

Mark

Well-known member
In choosing between any two schools of thought, I'm not aware of a single instance in which either one can be completely correct. It is a reasonable presumption that both traditional and modern astrology are flawed in their own ways. This is why both must be used as inspiration to direct new scientific research. If astrology is Truth, then the study of it can be made into a discipline of science.

This approach is what gives me information that nobody wants to hear, such as a system of 34 aspects in which each has its own orb. I can support this system mathematically and astrologically. If one would approach the study of aspects the way I have, then anyone would find the same information. I make this a matter of evidence and reason, regardless of what anyone may want it to be. Always remember that the greatest obstacle to learning is what you think you already know.
 
E

eternalautumn

i think that traditional astrology is just as accurate and valid, but you can't ignore new planets and information. The main issue i have is that the outermost planets (ya pluto not a planet... whatever) make so much more sense as the "rulers" of thier respective signs. It's amazing that some astrologers ignore or belittle this, but i can see why they are more comfortable with the time tested approach.

I don't think anyone ignores the outer planets; some people just give them different meaning than others. We are more comfortable with the time-tested approach because we have ca. 2110 years of "proof" that Saturn and Mars rule Aquarius and Scorpio respectively, yet modern astrologers have 230 and 80 years, respectively, since Uranus and Pluto have been discovered, and they have already decided that they rule a sign, and what their essential nature is. Can you see why a logically thinking person would choose to study only the traditional seven planets? Maybe in 2000 more years we will understand the outer planets, but until then, it's hard for people to just blindly accept what "they" say they mean.

We've only observed about 30% of Pluto's travel through the Zodiac since it's discovery... Doesn't that hold any significance?
 
E

eternalautumn

mdinaz said:
That's exactly what I think - if the planet wasn't known, it essentially did not exist. And their discoveries exactly mirrors our own evolution as people and cultures. Think back - as cavemen, we knew two planets - sun and moon. That's it. And life was essentially focused on that - "Am I alive? Do I feel pain?", and that's about it. There were no thoughts about "why am I here", "what's my career path" - the only thoughts were "eat, sleep, don't bleed, and make little cave children".
As the ancients discovered other planets, life evolved. Venus and Mars, cities and trade grew. Jupiter - philosophies, religions, reasons for life. Saturn - governments, large states and nations, big business. And there life stalled, for two thousand years. Once Uranus came around, things changed rapidly. Radical political thoughts - wars over ideas rather than property. Neptune - science, medical discoveries, drugs. Pluto - radical ideas that challenged the supremacy of religion and the Church, people taking claims about who THEY were, apart from a nation or town. When the planets didn't exist, the ideas didn't exist; I think it follows very well.

[Just borrowing a post from the thread EJ linked to.]
 
E

eternalautumn

gaer said:
First, consider the term "modern" astrology. What does it mean? And traditional astrology: same question. What does that mean?

Studying the history of astrology and what has gone before will surely enrich your knowledge, period.

The traditional rulership linking planets and signs assumed that all planets had two "sides", a masculine and feminine side. Only the Sun and Moon were exempted from this. So seven planets, five connected to two signs.

Now, consider Saturn. We tend to have a very limited idea of what Saturn represents today. We consider mostly the feminine side, linked to Capricorn. So we associate Saturn with lessons, limitations, hard lessons, restrictions.

But think beyond that. First, think of how Saturn operates in easy aspect to other planets. What does Saturn trine Mercury show? A limited mind? Or one that, through discipline, may be capable of going on to completely uncharted territory? If Saturn is trine Jupiter, does it mean that Jupiter is less expansive, less generous? Or more in control, more balanced?

When you think of Aquarius, do you think of flakes, weirdness, eccentricity? Or of freedom controlled through discipline/wisdom and focused to get something done, perhaps something new that works?

The idea that Aquarius is linked with eccentricity and weirdness is a relatively new idea, and I think a very wrong one. I would argue, for the same reason, that IF Uranus resonates with the energy of Aquarius, and I think it does, our concept of Uranus is equally flawed.

I have Mercury trine Aquarius, both sextile Saturn. You and others have read my posts. Am I tradiational? Modern? Or am I looking for solutions that bring the best of both ideas together?

Obviously the latter. I don't accept every idea that has been, in my opinion, sometimes blindly accepted simply because astrologer A or B declared it so. I'm going to test things (this is part of Saturn too, find the limitations), but I'm going to go wherever my ideas lead me (freedom), which you may associate with Uranus. So I see no problem whatsoever in seriously thinking about how Saturn relates to Aquarius.

Gaer

[Ditto...]
 
E

eternalautumn

wilsontc said:
This discussion is an interesting case of a modern interpretation vs. a traditional interpretation. The modern interpretation attempts to use every planet in the chart from the point of view in how it personally interacts with the person's psychological makeup. So the modern astrological view is to look at what does the sign, planet, and house do for every planet as an indication of the psychological reality of that person.

[Ditto...{as in, borrowed from the older thread...}]

{My reply:} And I would counter that the traditional "reading" attempts to delineate every planet in the chart from the point of view of how it personally interacts with a person's entire physical, mental, and spiritual life, throughout their whole lifetime.{i.e. physical events, relationships, etc., with many things delineated to occur within a definite time range.}

Is one better than the other? Do both have merits?
 
Last edited:

Nexus7

Well-known member
Well I think it is more important to be thinking about the emerging astrology of the future!

I find the traditional approach rather dry, but do not care for the underpinning philosophy of the moderns - I am, nor ever will be, either theosophical or esoteric material now. But if that is what other groupshere feel theneed to explore, then that is their prerogative, just as it is may be the prerogative of others to follow their brand of astrology.

Meanwhile, Geoffrey Dean and Dawkins may be getting the last laugh if the astrologers cannot find a way to engage a dialogue with the mainstream world view.

I think it is question of rethinking astrology in the light of all the new discoveries taking place in the solar system, the post-modernist critiques coming from the research of Phillipson, Curry, Cornelius, Harding, and Hillman et.al.

That's my POV anyway.
 
Last edited:

Skillcoil

Well-known member
I think astrology is still a work in progress. There could be accurate information from both traditional and modern, but it's not flawless. If there was a guaranteed method of astrology, wouldn't we all be using it and making a great profit from it? I still have a lot to learn about astrology, but with any technique, if it works it works, and if it isn't working completely well, it should be further improved.
 
E

eternalautumn

Olivia said:
Neither view is traditional. If you're going to go this route and claim that it's traditional, I suggest you cite your sources, author, book, publisher (if possible) and page number.

It is my understanding that traditional astrology attempts to show every aspect of a person's life (as far as the houses define), not just the "psychological"... If you don't agree with that, then ... you don't agree. I'm confident in that definition and don't feel the need to cite a reference.

Skillcoil said:
I think astrology is still a work in progress. There could be accurate information from both traditional and modern, but it's not flawless. If there was a guaranteed method of astrology, wouldn't we all be using it and making a great profit from it? I still have a lot to learn about astrology, but with any technique, if it works it works, and if it isn't working completely well, it should be further improved.

I agree with you for the most part. However, would you expect to profit more from a system that has been "successful" for two thousand years, or one that has been "successful" for two hundred years? That doesn't make total sense, but I think you can see what I mean. :smile:

Regardless, why is studying the past a bad thing? In what other field do people not benefit from studying the past techniques and philosophy? Why are modern astrologers so reluctant to simply give traditional astrology a chance?
 

Frank

Well-known member
Whilst I have a very strong affinity with Hellenistic, Medieval, Renaissance, Elizabethan, and Restoration era astrologies (which most people would incorrectly lump together as "traditional astrology"), I'm also conversant with modern techniques and methods.

In most of my lectures, I explain that if it were biologically and temporally possible, I'd be the illegitimate (the filter didn't like the "b" word) son of William Lilly and Reinhold Ebertin. Many people would agree - but leave out the part about Lilly and Ebertin.

If you read the latest work on Hellenistic astrology, you’ll find that Robert Schmidt now believes that Hellenistic astrology (from which all Western astrology derives – we’ll leave out the possibility of transmission to the Vedics for now) is actually a logical construct – that it was created by one person, and then modified and enhanced (and possibly debased) by later Hellenistic astrologers – plus those who came along later.

Students of other subjects don’t skip over the origins, development, history of their subjects – why should astrologers? Philosophy students don’t jump right into Schopenhauer, Hegel, and Nietzsche – they start with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. English Literature students don’t ignore Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton and study only Joyce, James and Pynchon.

It behooves astrologers of all skill levels to study and understand the origin, tradition, and history of our subject – if only to understand why they are doing things the things they do. Limiting oneself to a narrow view with “modern” or “traditional” blinders does both a disservice to oneself and to the study of astrology in general.
 
Last edited:

wilsontc

Staff member
studying traditional methods, to Frank

Frank,

You said:
It behooves astrologers of all skill levels to study and understand the origin, tradition, and history of our subject – if only to understand why they are doing things the things they do. Limiting oneself to a narrow view with “modern” or “traditional” blinders does both a disservice to oneself and to the study of astrology in general.

This, I think, most people can agree with. Whether or not you are a student of "traditional" or modern astrology, it IS important to at least be familiar with the other method. That way you can make an educated decision as to which method works best for the astrology you are trying to do, and for what you are trying to get out of astrology.

Agreeing,

Tim
 
Last edited:
Top