conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
What a slew of ideas, Vyri. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this thread. A lot of it is off-topic, but you do provide some rationale as to why some modern astrologers practice their astrology with more focus on the outers and a rationale for the utility for the outers themselves, so you're post adds more than detracts. I'm going to touch on some of the things you've said and give my views on the matter.
The Macrocosm/Microcosm effect is definitely built into astrology and it is true that the outer planets coincided with large scales changes that has affected and continues to effect the world in various domains for life. My issue with this is, should such coincidences/synchronicities be the basis of the effects of the planets? There's evidence that a lot of the current meanings of the three newer planets were given their significations from their inception (I'm going to read Sue Ward's paper to freshen up on the history behind them soon) and they seemed to have been taken as gospel. The reason why some prefer to rely on the traditional seven planets is not some slavishness toward tradition as some would like to think, but the fact that the seven planets gained has had millennia's worth of usage and thought behind them, which makes their significances in astrology more iron-clad, as they would have been tested and tested again for their validity. The outers are newer and are relatively untested in comparison, so I think it is unwise to run with what they supposedly signify 100%. I personally think that now is the time in their development to separate the wheat from the chaff in regard to their meaning and usage.
And do you suppose the "traditionals" are opposed to theories that facilitate expansion necessary to improvements? Don't misunderstand me, this question is not meant to provoke. But why is the assumption that one who prefers the tradition is automatically against any new developments or progress? What I notice in most of the traditionalists, or it at least the ones I respect, is that they are more interested in being accurate and legitimizing their practice by going back to the sources that started it all, and begin to take the useful bits from the un-useful. The new traditionalists are more like auditors of the ancient texts, not blind servants to King Ptolemy or some other stupidity. What it can be summed up with is, "If one wants to build something of true power and force, a solid foundation is necessary."
In regard to the second part of your statement, I'm not of the same opinion that what the outer planets coincided with was necessarily all "successful experiments that contributed to lessening the ailments of an expansive's world population" or "heralding in new principalities changing or fine tuning laws needful to be put in place as we expand in our thinking to embrace a wider scope of values that must take into consideration a continent or collective expansiveness, with considerations of establishing world peace.
For one, all the new planets that have come to the fore have been supposedly referred to as destabilizing to "normalcy" (Pre-Saturn planets). How could world war I and II, the creation of the atomic bomb, the rise of Nazi Germany, the whole situation of Russia, Mao Tse Tung's Communist regime which destroyed Chinese culture and displaced the Tibetans etc be characterized as facilitating world peace. Mark you, all of these atrocities occurred post trans-saturnians so one can't say their hands weren't related in some manner to what happened, if you were to look at the mundanoscope of those various events. And a lot of "progressive" ideas that are currently in vogue in the current day are doing more harm than good for the persons that they purport to protect. A lot of good has happened to the world in recent times, but don't discount the evil also.
This doesn't bring into consideration traditional mundane techniques that may have just as much validity in describing what transpired since Uranus' inception. In my personal opinion, I don't see how the traditional seven is able to describe elections, horaries and people quite well and then fall short in mundane practice.
What are these new age theories and in what way the outer planets do a better job of explaining than the traditional planets?
I don't see how one couldn't get the same result using more traditional methods. Traditionalists have a reputation for being more blunt and "doom and gloom" but when you actually look at how both "schools" go about doing their craft, you don't see much difference in tone (in the sense of emotional intelligence), in my estimation. And there is something to be said about the origins of the more modern types of astrology and the resultant difference in their tone (in the philosophical sense). A lot of it came out of theosophical circles as well as amendments made to their practice in order to bypass the divination laws (or psychic laws or something of the sort) in the UK - I think it was Alan Leo. In any event, you can see why the philosophical underpinnings would differ.
I'm also of the opinion that older traditions have a lot to offer in regard to spiritual development and the raising of consciousness and the recent developments in spirituality a la new age hasn't the premium on the domain. I'm also of the opinion that history is cyclical and not linear therefore humanity isn't going on an upward trend to the current day where we are supermen, but that there are alternating periods of progress and destruction which is why I do not disregard what the ancients say and take everything that we do in this modern age as the greatest mankind has ever achieved.
The Macrocosm/Microcosm effect is definitely built into astrology and it is true that the outer planets coincided with large scales changes that has affected and continues to effect the world in various domains for life. My issue with this is, should such coincidences/synchronicities be the basis of the effects of the planets? There's evidence that a lot of the current meanings of the three newer planets were given their significations from their inception (I'm going to read Sue Ward's paper to freshen up on the history behind them soon) and they seemed to have been taken as gospel. The reason why some prefer to rely on the traditional seven planets is not some slavishness toward tradition as some would like to think, but the fact that the seven planets gained has had millennia's worth of usage and thought behind them, which makes their significances in astrology more iron-clad, as they would have been tested and tested again for their validity. The outers are newer and are relatively untested in comparison, so I think it is unwise to run with what they supposedly signify 100%. I personally think that now is the time in their development to separate the wheat from the chaff in regard to their meaning and usage.
And do you suppose the "traditionals" are opposed to theories that facilitate expansion necessary to improvements? Don't misunderstand me, this question is not meant to provoke. But why is the assumption that one who prefers the tradition is automatically against any new developments or progress? What I notice in most of the traditionalists, or it at least the ones I respect, is that they are more interested in being accurate and legitimizing their practice by going back to the sources that started it all, and begin to take the useful bits from the un-useful. The new traditionalists are more like auditors of the ancient texts, not blind servants to King Ptolemy or some other stupidity. What it can be summed up with is, "If one wants to build something of true power and force, a solid foundation is necessary."
In regard to the second part of your statement, I'm not of the same opinion that what the outer planets coincided with was necessarily all "successful experiments that contributed to lessening the ailments of an expansive's world population" or "heralding in new principalities changing or fine tuning laws needful to be put in place as we expand in our thinking to embrace a wider scope of values that must take into consideration a continent or collective expansiveness, with considerations of establishing world peace.
For one, all the new planets that have come to the fore have been supposedly referred to as destabilizing to "normalcy" (Pre-Saturn planets). How could world war I and II, the creation of the atomic bomb, the rise of Nazi Germany, the whole situation of Russia, Mao Tse Tung's Communist regime which destroyed Chinese culture and displaced the Tibetans etc be characterized as facilitating world peace. Mark you, all of these atrocities occurred post trans-saturnians so one can't say their hands weren't related in some manner to what happened, if you were to look at the mundanoscope of those various events. And a lot of "progressive" ideas that are currently in vogue in the current day are doing more harm than good for the persons that they purport to protect. A lot of good has happened to the world in recent times, but don't discount the evil also.
This doesn't bring into consideration traditional mundane techniques that may have just as much validity in describing what transpired since Uranus' inception. In my personal opinion, I don't see how the traditional seven is able to describe elections, horaries and people quite well and then fall short in mundane practice.
What are these new age theories and in what way the outer planets do a better job of explaining than the traditional planets?
I don't see how one couldn't get the same result using more traditional methods. Traditionalists have a reputation for being more blunt and "doom and gloom" but when you actually look at how both "schools" go about doing their craft, you don't see much difference in tone (in the sense of emotional intelligence), in my estimation. And there is something to be said about the origins of the more modern types of astrology and the resultant difference in their tone (in the philosophical sense). A lot of it came out of theosophical circles as well as amendments made to their practice in order to bypass the divination laws (or psychic laws or something of the sort) in the UK - I think it was Alan Leo. In any event, you can see why the philosophical underpinnings would differ.
I'm also of the opinion that older traditions have a lot to offer in regard to spiritual development and the raising of consciousness and the recent developments in spirituality a la new age hasn't the premium on the domain. I'm also of the opinion that history is cyclical and not linear therefore humanity isn't going on an upward trend to the current day where we are supermen, but that there are alternating periods of progress and destruction which is why I do not disregard what the ancients say and take everything that we do in this modern age as the greatest mankind has ever achieved.
