waybread
Well-known member
Well, to each her own.
Rudhyar was a kind of second or third generation theosophist, which in today's terms is more akin to evolutionary astrology. If you Google theosophy and the Golden Dawn you'll get the idea. If you believe in the Perfectability of Man [sic] by intuiting all kinds of mystical stuff by-the-numbers, then maybe Rudhyar is for you. If you're totally into Christ-consciousness or Buddha-consciousness as these might be shoe-horned into houses, signs and planets; then maybe Rudhyar will appeal to you.
It was noted on another thread that when modern astrology emerged ca 1900 there were laws in Britain and in the US against fortune-telling. Astrologers Alan Leo and Evangeline Adams both ran afoul of the law. Understandably astrology of personality and spirituality was on safer ground. But also preferred by the theosophists.
I found Rudhyar very appealing once. I got into astrology during a real crisis of confidence, and began questioning why I-- as this unique individual-- was on the planet. Rudhar has some spiritual guidance.
But when I got on-line in 2007 and began reading horoscopes for people, I found his books to be worth a lot less. People want to know about the practical problems of their daily lives: relationships, jobs, money, &c. They're not so interested in some kind of Illumined Way.
I also found that Rudhyar's notion that the goal of enlightened men was to rise above Nature (encoded as feminine) to be unappealing. Yes, he wrote most of his stuff before today's environmental crises were well known, but to me, that just makes him dated.
I don't see Rudhyar as a post-modernist. In many ways, his project was very modern: using humanistic psychology in service of the Perfectability of Man.
I don't see Rudhyar as post-structuralist. The horoscope is precisely a kind of deep structure.
Linguistic? Possibly, but I doubt it. Rudhyar's work is more like a lot of early/mid-20th century narratives about the nature of humanity, namely men. Some of these just don't hold up to factual evidence today. In Rudhyar's time, Social Darwinism argued that some humans (notably elite white guys) had an advanced potential unavailable to the unwashed masses.
Rudhyar was a kind of second or third generation theosophist, which in today's terms is more akin to evolutionary astrology. If you Google theosophy and the Golden Dawn you'll get the idea. If you believe in the Perfectability of Man [sic] by intuiting all kinds of mystical stuff by-the-numbers, then maybe Rudhyar is for you. If you're totally into Christ-consciousness or Buddha-consciousness as these might be shoe-horned into houses, signs and planets; then maybe Rudhyar will appeal to you.
It was noted on another thread that when modern astrology emerged ca 1900 there were laws in Britain and in the US against fortune-telling. Astrologers Alan Leo and Evangeline Adams both ran afoul of the law. Understandably astrology of personality and spirituality was on safer ground. But also preferred by the theosophists.
I found Rudhyar very appealing once. I got into astrology during a real crisis of confidence, and began questioning why I-- as this unique individual-- was on the planet. Rudhar has some spiritual guidance.
But when I got on-line in 2007 and began reading horoscopes for people, I found his books to be worth a lot less. People want to know about the practical problems of their daily lives: relationships, jobs, money, &c. They're not so interested in some kind of Illumined Way.
I also found that Rudhyar's notion that the goal of enlightened men was to rise above Nature (encoded as feminine) to be unappealing. Yes, he wrote most of his stuff before today's environmental crises were well known, but to me, that just makes him dated.
I don't see Rudhyar as a post-modernist. In many ways, his project was very modern: using humanistic psychology in service of the Perfectability of Man.
I don't see Rudhyar as post-structuralist. The horoscope is precisely a kind of deep structure.
Linguistic? Possibly, but I doubt it. Rudhyar's work is more like a lot of early/mid-20th century narratives about the nature of humanity, namely men. Some of these just don't hold up to factual evidence today. In Rudhyar's time, Social Darwinism argued that some humans (notably elite white guys) had an advanced potential unavailable to the unwashed masses.
