Is it true traditional astrologers exclude modern planets?

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Sounds like a new branch which can provide new information.
These are the ANCIENT ROOTS and MAIN TRUNK :smile:
Rumen Kolev practices and lectures ANCIENT BABYLONIAN AND MESOPOTAMIAN ASTROLOGY
as I frequently state
and I frequently link to Rumen Kolevs webage at
http://www.babylonianastrology.com/

A new and different restorative branch, then.
Something amazing about those Babylonians...!:biggrin:
ORIGINAL ANCIENT Astrology
 

Michael

Well-known member
A spelling error should not distract from an argumentation. You should assume responsibility for your lack of reading comprehension.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Sometimes I lack a sense of humour, but remember they were the creators of the Zodiac you (mis)use and most importantly they didn't do armchair astrology. Most astrologers today belong to that class.

No one is doing bare eyes' astrology anymore. So it's not difficult to understand why tropical astrology is "traditional" for them.
As I have repeatedly stated since I joined our forum many years ago :smile:
RUMEN KOLEV is one of the few practitioners of visual observation of local skies astrology
however
Rumen Kolev lectures and has students
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Laugh at the facts then. ALL Astrology relies on the Past, going all the way back to Ancient Sumeria. Ancient Traditional Astrology as ONCE PRACTICED in the Hellenistic and Arabic past was RESTORED by Modern Astrologers in the West, but is only one branch. In this Community of mostly Modern Astrologers, it requires its own section to avoid clashes with the other branches. Each Forum is like a branch on the present-day Tree of Astrology.
In fact our forum has a Modern Astrology only board
for comment with an EXCLUSIVE focus on Modern Astrology
likewise our forum has a Traditional Astrology only board
for comment with an EXCLUSIVE focus on Traditional Astrology
this thread is a place intended for BOTH Traditional AND Modernist astrological comment
:smile:
 

david starling

Well-known member
Instead of blaming the lack of respect for Astrology on the use of the telescope, I blame it on the rise and dominance of Modern, Materialistic Science. At least I have an Astrological REASON as to why that occurred.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Laugh at the facts then.
ALL Astrology relies on the Past, going all the way back to Ancient Sumeria.
Ancient Traditional Astrology as ONCE PRACTICED in the Hellenistic and Arabic past
was RESTORED by Modern Astrologers in the West
Hellenistic and Arabic ancient astrological texts
are in the process of being translated
by Benjamin Dykes
and Rumen Kolev
and Robert Schmidt is amongst others working on translations from Ancient Greek and Latin
:smile:
the fact is that early ATTEMPTS at restoration
were based on incomplete information
due to lack of ability to read Ancient languages

but is only one branch.
the twig of Modernist astrology is dependent on Hellenistic and Past Arabic astrology :smile:
In this Community of mostly Modern Astrologers
it requires its own section to avoid clashes with the other branches.
Each Forum is like a branch on the present-day Tree of Astrology.
To avoid clashes, Modrnist Astrology has its own board
Traditional Astrology has its own board
HOWEVER
this particular thread is on GENERAL astrology board
intended for BOTH Traditional AND Modernist comment
 

david starling

Well-known member
In fact our forum has a Modern Astrology only board
for comment with an EXCLUSIVE focus on Modern Astrology
likewise our forum has a Traditional Astrology only board
for comment with an EXCLUSIVE focus on Traditional Astrology
this thread is a place intended for BOTH Traditional AND Modernist astrological comment
:smile:

I came in late, after much of the acrimonious stuff was winding down. Apparently, some Mods couldn't help claiming Trads weren't "playing with a full deck" of rulers; and Trads couldn't help declaring that Mods were practicing "bogus" Astrology, especially when it came to using Pluto as a Sign-ruler.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I came in late, after much of the acrimonious stuff was winding down.
Apparently, some Mods couldn't help claiming Trads weren't "playing with a full deck" of rulers;
and Trads couldn't help declaring that Mods were practicing "bogus" Astrology, especially when it came to using Pluto as a Sign-ruler.
Instead of blaming the lack of respect for Astrology
on the use of the telescope, I blame it on the rise and dominance of Modern, Materialistic Science.
At least I have an Astrological REASON as to why that occurred
.
REASON
is
and I quote
:smile:
Light is the basis of traditional astrology.
You can like it or not like it, but that doesn't change things.
And since you don't need to practise trad astrology yourself
I don't understand why you keep harping about it.
 

Michael

Well-known member
david starling said:
Instead of blaming the lack of respect for Astrology on the use of the telescope, I blame it on the rise and dominance of Modern, Materialistic Science. At least I have an Astrological REASON as to why that occurred.

Modern psychological and transpersonal astrology has helped astrology be relevant in the modern world. There is no doubt about that, but there is also a place for the traditional branch.

The next step in bringing astrology up to date is to adopt a Sidereal Zodiac, this will make it more acceptable to scientifically educated people.

One of the main criticisms of astrology by scientists is the lack correspondence of signs and constellations due to axial precession of the Earth.
 

david starling

Well-known member
One thing to keep in mind is, the Babylonians, Ancient Vedics, Hellenists, and Arabians didn't CHOOSE not to use a telescope, since that choice wasn't available. That worked with what they had in their time.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Modern psychological and transpersonal astrology has helped astrology be relevant in the modern world. There is no doubt about that, but there is also a place for the traditional branch.

The next step in bringing astrology up to date is to adopt a Sidereal Zodiac, this will make it more acceptable to scientifically educated people.

One of the main criticisms of astrology by scientists is the lack correspondence of signs and constellations due to axial precession of the Earth.

Synchronicity is still a necessary concept, even if you're using Signs that contain the Zodiacal constellations. There are no known laws of Physics to explain the correlations. Tropical Signs are based on the relationship of Earth's axial tilt relative to its orbit around the Sun. And, the Zodiacal constellations are determined by the plane of Earth's orbit. Incidentally, I have no problem using information gained from the Heliocentric perspective to increase my understanding of the Geocentric patterns. Like traveling through a forest, climbing a tall tree to get one's bearings, and then climbing down and continuing one's journey with a better understanding of the lay of the land. Scientists use Precession as a weapon against Tropical Astrology because it's the dominant version in the West. They also like pointing out that the constellations are simply random clusters of stars, which only appear to be grouped together from a Terrestrial perspective. They just hate the IDEA of Astrology altogether. No sense trying to win them over to admitting that Astrology does work.
 

Michael

Well-known member
Scientists used to be interested in astrology and they will again. Using a sidereal zodiac would be a step in the right direction.

My goal is to bring educated people to astrology, not just scientists.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Today Modernist astrologers WITH telescopes
nevertheless
CHOOSE to NOT USE KUIPER BELT OBJECTS LARGER THAN PLANETOID PLUTO
which makes no sense given they use telescopes :smile:

Each branch has a CHOICE concerning what celestial objects visible only with a telescope should be used for Astrological purposes. The Ancients didn't have that choice, so we don't know for certain what they would have decided.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
One thing to keep in mind is, the Babylonians, Ancient Vedics, Hellenists, and Arabians
didn't CHOOSE not to use a telescope, since that choice wasn't available.
That worked with what they had in their time.
Today Modernist astrologers WITH telescopes
nevertheless
CHOOSE to NOT USE KUIPER BELT OBJECTS LARGER THAN PLANETOID PLUTO
which makes no sense given they use telescopes :smile:


Each branch has a CHOICE
concerning what celestial objects visible only with a telescope should be used for Astrological purposes.
The Ancients didn't have that choice, so
we don't know for certain
what they would have decided.
Ancient astrology is known as being rooted in the concept of LIGHT
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Synchronicity is still a necessary concept, even if you're using Signs that contain the Zodiacal constellations. There are no known laws of Physics to explain the correlations. Tropical Signs are based on the relationship of Earth's axial tilt relative to its orbit around the Sun. And, the Zodiacal constellations are determined by the plane of Earth's orbit. Incidentally, I have no problem using information gained from the Heliocentric perspective to increase my understanding of the Geocentric patterns. Like traveling through a forest, climbing a tall tree to get one's bearings, and then climbing down and continuing one's journey with a better understanding of the lay of the land. Scientists use Precession as a weapon against Tropical Astrology because it's the dominant version in the West. They also like pointing out that the constellations are simply random clusters of stars, which only appear to be grouped together from a Terrestrial perspective. They just hate the IDEA of Astrology altogether. No sense trying to win them over to admitting that Astrology does work.
Dirius comprehensively stated :smile:
and I quote

Its a good point. Given this is targeted at the naked eye discussion, I will keep my response towards that first, and then I'll move to the outers. I apologise because it may be rather long.

The light issue is part of the symbolism that is intrinsically bound to astrology. And the astrologer uses that symbolism as a way to make a proper interpretation of the message. Think of this:

Why is it the Ascendant the most important house in the chart? In an ephemeris the Ascendant is nothing more than another house in an equal zodiac circle. But by looking at the sky, it is the place where dawn occurs. The house marks the beginning of the daily life of the Sun, it brings forth daylight rescuing us from darkness. This expresses the attributes usually given to the 1st house, through the myth that occurs in the Ascendant. This symbolism is also seen in the 10th house, the second most important place in the chart, by symbolising the zenith of our life (our rank, what we achieve in life), which is represented by the Sun achieving its maximum point and rising the temperature to the daily max. This example is in my perspective one of the reasons as to why the argument for the ephemeris doesn't really work, because the ephemeris is a tracking system for the mathematical positions of the sky, not for the symbolical one.

Similar symbolisms are attached to every house, to every planet, to every sign. One of them is the heliacal cycle, and the movement of the planets in relation to the Sun. The concept of birth/rebirth of the planet is embedded in that symbolism. The best example is Mercury, the "hermaphrodite" planet. The reason Mercury is considered to have that duality is because it often swaps sect, by its short cycle of death and rebirth. However, if you remove the symbolism of transformation there, you remove the concept from Mercury, after all Mercury never "dies" and is never "reborn" into the other sect.

Other planets have similar sectarian benefits, such as Jupiter and Saturn, considered diurnal planets rejoice when oriental. Why is this? Well because by being oriental, they reinforce their masculinity, they announce the Sun's arrival and herald the day. In contrast feminine planets rejoice while occidental, when seen after the Sun has set, being bright in the coolnes of the night, their sect.

In the practical sense there are a number of techniques that relates to this concept of visibility. For example, the fixed stars we usually focus on are the brightest ones, such as Regulus, but we rarely care much for the dimmer ones. Yet, in an Ephemeris, Regulus doesn't really stand out from other stars.

It also seems that luminosoty might be related to the concept of benefic and malefic, although this is just a speculation in some traditional circles, and I do not recall any actual data from the ancients. But I'll add it: from the 5 errant stars, the 2 brightest ones are the benefics, and the 2 dimmer ones are malefics; the same way bright stars such as Regulus or Spica are considered to be beneficial stars, while most malefic stars have varying or dimmer magnitudes.

Ok, so then whats the deal with the outers? The outers because of their lack of visibility do not fit into many of these myths and symbols. They are rather incomplete in our view, in fact less complete than fixed stars. In many modern circles they are treated as "2nd class" planets on equal level with fixed stars. The only thing different is that we simply take a step foward and reject them all together, which isn't much different.

But why do we reject the outers being seen with a telescope? Well first, because it doesn't fix the symbolistic problem they have regarding many of the techniques, and second, at least for me the concept on involving technological development and scientific advancement into the scheme of astrology is just a matter of "how much" you wish to include, which seems rather picky: just enough to make a case for the outer planets, but not too much as to deny astrology all together. Earlier we briefly discussed the causality of astrology and (in a way) the order of the cosmos. Science has a different view than astrology regarding the origin of the universe, free will, etc.... yet we do not include those discoveries into our "theology". The reason is simple, it opposes it.

Sure you can use a telescope to see every actual celestial object in the solar system. But we don't include all, just some. Yet do we take pluto as a giant asteroid like science dictates? We do it for Ceres who is similar in size, but we give pluto the treatment of a planet. So we only use the scientifical concepts we wish to use, but we deny the rest. And yet, the telescope can't add this symbolism into the planet. Pluto can't be seen as such.

That is at least for me, the reasons why I don't see a case for the outers through telescopic use. Maybe I am wrong, who knows?

Regarding the future, I have never denied the possibility of them becoming important if, for example their orbit changed and suddenly they were able to be seen. Maybe that will happen. But for now it doesn't, so to me, they are non-existant within my astrological scheme.

Sorry for making it long.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Yes, please read this for more information:

Some Reflections about Babylonian Astrology

A new and different restorative branch, then.
Something amazing about those Babylonians...!
:biggrin:
Amazingly "those Babylonians" considered that
and I quote from the link posted
:smile:

'.....Light is the primary medium for communication of the stars
.

Light is the object of sight and sight is our primary sense.
The stars emanate their essence outward into Light and let us know them thereby.
The more shiny a star, the stronger.
The steadier its light, the steadier its nature.
When it shines on Earth for the most part of the night
(un-annihilated by the solar light)
then the peak of its influence.
When the star cannot be seen, then the trough of its influence.....'
 
Top