Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Other Astrology > Research and Development

Research and Development This is a forum designed for applying scientific methods and understanding to all approaches of astrology, cooperative formulation and testing of new ideas, re-examination of known methods of delineation and interpretation, and the exploration of new astrological methods of all kinds (e.g. heliocentric models, planetary nodes and apogees, etc.).


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 11-24-2011, 11:31 PM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
traditional / modern / contemporary

hi,
this is a conversation i want to start on different methods being used in astrology that is coming out of a conversation from earlier on the whole sign houses and MC thread.

i quoted a part of james herschel holden from an interview taken in 2008 that i wanted to share that was off topic but might be of interest to others here..

anachiel responded to my post and i share anachiels post below before i begin to respond to it here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anachiel View Post
It's a good point but, what Fiddler on the Roof came to describe was something done by "rote"; an act done out of habit, without meaning or without knowing the meaning, something done without thought.
Generally, acts that require no thought can be done by rote.

Tradition, on the other hand, is a continuing pattern that is handed down generation after generation involving a customary method or manner that is relevant. In other words, it conveys meaning and applies itself in usable form to daily use.

Traditional astrology is very different from astrology done by rote which, I don't think could be done because astrology requires you think. But, I get your general gist.

Mars, per your example, was not originally ascribed to rule anything. It was only through observation that lead to an organized system, passed down through generations (i.e. tradition-a pattern), that all this took form. No, it wasn't a perfect transmission but it had a pattern.

Modern astrologers now say Mars only rules Aries and Pluto now rules Scorpio...they broke with tradition - the pattern- and instead applied the every-body-must-rule-a-sign rote mentality. Not thinking, this, of course, broke down even further when we discovered more bodies than we had signs. Now people want to add more signs to the heavens and perpetuate the same rote mentality.

In short, tradition takes hundreds of years of thinking to develop. You can start acting by rote today.
anachiel seems to be implying that their is a difference between doing something out of tradition and doing something by rote.. this may or may not be the case as i see it..

observation would seem to be the most valuable asset we have when learning more about astrology. we can learn different astrological methods and we can see for ourselves whether they work for us or not. i think this partly explains why their is such diversity in the astro community.. i see astrology as more art then science, but i am always drawn to those who have a more scientific approach in so far as i think astrological ideas need to be put to the test of statistical analysis..

the work of the french couple - michel and francios gauguelin are a good example of this . i think the work they've done was successful in challenging/upending some of the more traditional approaches to astrology, specifically house systems and the idea of angular, succedent and cadent meaning. to quickly summarize - planets in cadent positions were found to have a direct association with the profession of outstanding individuals in there particular area of expertise..

another example of a more modern development in astrology is the work of john addey in the use of and re-introduction to harmonics or what is known as the shodasavargas in vedic astrology.. the navamsa or 9th harmonic chart is an important consideration in vedic astrology and is really a good example of an idea that has existed for some time that is not necessarily all that modern.. i mentioned on another thread how one can do a 3rd harmonic chart and get very similar results offered with the manilius decans.. i suppose there are a number of questions astrologers could ask around these connections.. i do find it isn't so much about how one wants to perceive their involvement in astrology so much as to keep an open mind that is guided by observation as opposed to formulas or rules that are handed down from the past..

the discovery of planets, planetoids and etc over the past few hundred years continues to present challenges to traditional views on astrology.. does one incorporate pluto and asign rulership to scorpio is just one of many examples that need to be addressed.. i suppose this is an example of the distinction i try to address in my title - traditional verses modern which brings me to the 3rd part - contemporary.

while reading the whole sign thread it occurred to me the work of people like steve cossi, michael erlewine in local space astrology had some relation to the conversation in so far using an horizon based system is supposedly quite old, in spite of it's reintroduction to those on the cutting edge of new techniques in astrology.. the work of jim lewis - astrocartography, and martin davis - (astrolocality is a blend of the 2 -acg and ls) are 2 other examples of innovative approaches to astrology that have much to offer those interested in research, or the practice of astrology.

to me the bottom line of all this is this : does one have an open mind to exploring new ideas, or ideas that may be quite old that haven't been explored fully, or does one feel more comfortable identifying with a particular time frame or category of astrological study to the point where they might be more willing to close their mind to equally or possibly more rewarding areas of study? as james holden said or something to this effect - "all i ask is that astrologers consider the use of sign-house or whole signs" to which i would add, the same can be said for the various methods and innovations of others on the cutting edge of contemporary astrology..

i don't believe there are any right or wrong approaches so long as one has an open mind and is willing to base their conclusions on observation as opposed to following a system of rules that says 'this means that' for example.. let experience be a guide..

this is it for now, lol.
james

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 11-25-2011, 06:41 AM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

hi sugar,

i am curious to know where ideas around contemporary astrology fit in for you?

i am thinking of the work of ebertin, witte, jim lewis, david hamblin and astrologers like them..

i am also curious to know how you would answer your own question.. thanks.

Last edited by sandstone; 11-25-2011 at 04:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 11-25-2011, 05:18 PM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

You can't group all traditional or all modern astrology together. Some Traditionalists would say that my chart depositor is Mars in Scorpio. You might say, "You don't even HAVE Mars in Scorpio." It's a harmonic/dodekatemorion position, which, some people use and some people don't. The only definition of modern astrology is using astrology as psychology, which doesn't require that anyone give everything in the heavens rulership. I still prefer traditional rulership to any other system as it makes much more sense, but all those other objects are still quite meaningful IMO. People tend to do two things too often: 1. Group things together (also known as stereotyping) 2. Only look for differences. I try to split things apart and contort them as much as possible and look for similarities. In math this is called topology (except that they aren't allowed to make holes or repair them,) but I don't know what it's called everywhere else so I guess I'll have to coin a word.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 11-25-2011, 06:05 PM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

hi rebel u -

thanks for chiming in.. you help to define what i think of as a more contemporary viewpoint in that getting beyond narrow definitions like traditional or modern or even contemporary to taking what is of value from any time period and finding what works for you is the essence of what those with an open mind will do..

part of the original idea for the post was the idea that astrologers could do something based on rote.. ironically it was an idea that came out of a james holden interview and i felt it was a good question that i think astrologers need to ask themselves periodically.. as he said in the interview and as i fully agree to - try different techniques out and see if it works for you.. in order for this to happen i see a few things necessary - an open mind to exploring different ideas and a flexibility towards labeling oneself or others in any limiting way..

these words, traditional and modern have been given a lot of mention in recent years in astrology perhaps due the significant release of the work out of project hindsight.. do we let it shape and direct how we define ourselves as astrologers, or do we get beyond labeling ourselves or others in a way that closes doors to continuing to explore the many ways there are to perceive and work with astrology? i suppose it is obvious where i am going with all this.. i don't need the labels either and find them suffocating.. i am sure astrologers like hand and holden and many others don't either..

i like your part 2 description.. i suppose that is what i mean by 'open mind' and 'exploring'... thanks for your comments..

Last edited by sandstone; 11-25-2011 at 06:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 11-25-2011, 07:23 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,316
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

I consciously and deliberately practice modern astrology (no offense taken, sugar.)

If you want to turn this thread into a food-fight as per John Frawley, sugar, I have to point out that there is a lot of "garbage" in traditional astrology as well. I cannot take most of the Hellenistic astrologers' character delineations seriously, just for example.

At present I am slogging my way through Vettius Valens Anthologies (2nd century AD.) In book 1 sec. 2, He describes men born under the sign of Aquarius (probably here, meaning rising sign) as: "malicious, haters of their own families, incorrible, self-willed, deceitful, tricky, concealing everything, misanthropic, godless betrayers of reputations and the truth, envious, petty...."

There's a lot more where this came from in Valens, Anthologies.

Here's a gem from Dorotheus of Sidon (1st century AD, Carmen Astrologicum II:18.) If your Saturn "is with Mars" you can look forward to: a weak body, your bile and black bile will be "aroused" against you, you will spoil your father's property, and come to a "miserable end." Your brothers will predecease you or else they will have severe diseases. Your life will be one of "dependence, misery, and blemish."

Well, I can't take stuff like this seriously, can you?

It doesn't matter how sophisticated traditional techniques are if these are the interpretive outcomes you are meant to derive from them.

You know the saying among scientists, "garbage in, garbage out?" (Meaning no matter how sophisticated your methods are, your conclusions will be flawed if they were based upon faulty premises.) We really see a lot of "garbage out" in many of the Hellenistic astrologers' teachings-- which just might make us question the value of their premises.

Sometimes traditional astrologers today claim they use the old techniques without the preposterous predictions and character assassinations; but then they aren't truly practicing (in this instance) the Hellenistic astrology of the founders of this branch of traditional astrology. Our contemporaries arguably have a mixture of traditional methods with modern understandings of human nature and experience.

A good example of this latter hybrid approach by sensible authors living in the 21st century is Avelar and Rebeiro, The Heavenly Spheres: A Treatise on Traditional Astrology (2010.)

The best position is to keep and open mind about potential benefits from different systems; while becoming a connoisseur of specifc authors and texts. Frankly, the more I study, the less enamoured I become of the more metaphysical (sorry, Caprising!), popular, and "psychological" approaches to modern astrology. This doesn't mean I lump this material together with the fine work by modern authors whom I find more rational and informative; such as Karen Hamaker-Zondag and the earlier books by Robert Hand.

James, to get back to your OP, the association of planets and constellations or signs goes back to the Sumerians, so far as I know. To them the planets were literally gods in the sky. Apparently "god" and "planet" were the same word. There was a warlike god who became our (i.e., Roman) Mars, a female fertility goddess who became Venus, and so on. We can envision an observational system, in which the ancient sky-watchers traced omens (their version of astrology) associated with eclipses and planetary positions; and noted which sector of the heavens they occured in. In time, these associations became codified and passed down to new generations of "Chaldeans."

Also, the Gauquelins' work was truly path-breaking and intruiging; but alas, a lot of their research has since been discredited due to problems with their research design. If you locate the article on the "Mars Effect" in Wikipedia you will find a good summary of the debate on their work.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 11-25-2011, 07:52 PM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

I started a thread called "Astrology = Bunk" based on what I thought of the practice (not the idea of the practice.) Are we really just allowed to slap stuff together unsystematically?

Also, with "under the sign" I think of "with the sign culminating/at the zenith/containing the MC" because then literally everything would be under that sign, but most people say Sun signs or other things so I have no idea.

...Which brings me back to the point, what do the signs really mean? I see different meanings of the signs in different places if I go back to older practices or just different practices or even different people and groups within common current practices. I kind of think some of the sign descriptions are distorted currently, since if you look at 1962 Aquastells who often have those planets all very near the angles, most of them are country singers and stuff, not inventors or revolutionaries... I think some people are glossing over a lot of the signs for their purposes. Aspects are still the most important, mostly conjunctions of various midpoints, Lots, angles, etc., but we ought to know what the signs mean. To your (waybread's) description of Aquarius in some place from Valens Anthologies, most people would say Aquarius are peaceful, gentle, humanitarian, and generally the antithesis of that... (1st sentence in this paragraph)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 11-25-2011, 08:29 PM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

waybread and rebel u, thanks for your comments.

regarding the 'mars effect'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect

it would seem if you read the article there were 'some' people in the 'sceintific/astronomy' community that had a vested interested in trying to throw a smoke screen over gauquelins results.. it is my impression his work is about the only work available in the astro community that has done more to validify astrology in a scientific /statistical context and i note in the article the following statement down towards the end.

"As of 2007 there are eight independent studies and nearly thirty of Gauquelin's that have successfully replicated The Mars Effect to the degree that results "could not be explained by artifacts of astronomy, demography, bias, data selection, or fraud".

the connection with mars in cadent houses with outstanding athletes would appear to be still valid, in spite of the work as mentioned in the article on wikipedia of those who seem primarily interested in destroying the results through deceptiveness..

the idea of cadency a tenet of traditional astrology would seem to come directly into question as a result of gauquelins research.. i am not sure where other astrologers sit with this data, but to me more work of this nature would be welcomed! if it means upending some of what i perceive as dogma connected to trad or modern astrology, all the better!

Last edited by sandstone; 11-25-2011 at 08:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 11-25-2011, 09:02 PM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Malefics in cadent houses are usually considered a good thing from my understanding because they contain destructive tendencies. I once got a Vedic astrologer to do a basic interpretation of my chart, and they were like "Mars in the 9th is very good for... *insert stuff I forgot* but in your case it's afflicted so..." Mars has more affinity in the 9th and 12th than the 3rd and 6th since Mars has affinity with Fire and Water and the 9th and 12th are Fire and Water houses. Saturn has affinity in the 3rd in 6th since Saturn has affinity with Air and Earth and the 3rd and 6th are Air and Earth houses.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 11-25-2011, 11:03 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,316
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Sandstone, re: your OP-- to the old-timey astrologers, the cadent 12th and 6th houses, plus the 8th house were just the pits. The rationale seemed to be that they didn't form a "Ptolemaic" aspect with the first house, so they were horrible.

I guess one could debate whether the Gauquelin glass is half empty or half full. I don't think Mars in the 9th house of famous athletes is a sufficient peg to hang the legitimacy of astrology as a whole upon it. That has to be less than 1/1000 of 1% of what astrology addresses.

I once tried to do a study of artists because I thought (then) that Venus and Neptune were unusually prominent in the charts of people who said they wanted to be artists. Recalling that the Gauqelins said that France's government registries had really good birth records that included birth times, for the 19th & 20th centuries, I decided to look at the horoscopes of famous painters born in France. I used the Astro-DataBank data at Astrodienst. I was shocked to discover that the birth times prior to the 1920s & 30s (it varied) were rounded to the nearest hour! Rarely they would list a birth time on the half-hour.

Well, if you are basing a system of either Gauquelin sectors or conventional houses on the angles, a birth time that is 30 minutes off or more (since I don't know if the records rounded up, down, or both) could seriously change the relationship of planets to the angles. A "cadent" planet could easily become a "cardinal" planet, for example.

There might be more information on the debate about the Gauquelin research here:
www.astrology-and-science.com .

In any event, Geoffrey Dean et al. have interesting things to say about the problems of conducting rigorous astrological research.

I don't think any of the debate criticizes M. & MMe. G. for not sticking to conventional astrological practices; but rather, flaws from a social science/statistics perspective on their chart selection and methods.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by waybread; 11-25-2011 at 11:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 11-25-2011, 11:57 PM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

thanks rebel u and waybread,

waybread - i am aware of some of the in and outs of the research they did.. michel was a statistician and well versed in the requirements to meet the rigors of statistical analysis.. as for the data going further back, this may be true, and i realize how an hour is a long time when one wants to make a distinction as to 'is it in the 1st or 12th ?' for example.

i don't want to get bogged down in details over the finer points( chalk that up to my emphasis in fire or whatever), and really this can easily swing back to 'if they used whole sign it would be different' type conversation too, lol.. i realize there are many in's and outs to the work that everyone does no matter what there area of expertise or interest. like the conversation on whole sign houses, i don't think there are any definitive answers and those who use astrology need to continue to be open to learning more, including experimentation with different ways of using astrology that they might not have considered.

i have no desire to use any piece of astro info to clobber someone over the head with it, so much as to discuss the idea that there are many different streams going on that require me personally to adopt a flexible and open minded position on the use of a traditional, modern or contemporary approach to astrology.. i don't think one can be so bold as to think they have found a fool proof system using any of these particular systems of thought while ignoring the others, but perhaps someone can prove otherwise..

really the issue of house systems, specifically whole sign is a particularly interesting catapult for this conversation as i see it as i think it gets some thinking to what exactly astrology of the past had in mind.. it opens up the ideas of a few people/astro researchers i have previously mentioned who are into local space astrology which is a horizon based system and while it may be very old, it is also very contemporary as i see it.. to suggest we have to go back for every insight to be gotten from astrology would seem to ignore the discoveries that continue to come in! i think those who ignore the more 'modern' tools and observations of those alive today are missing out on a great part of what they could benefit from..

obviously we are all different and will gravitate to some particular area in astrology whatever it be.. i think what i find interesting and while i don't want to make this the conversation either, it is a good place for me to throw it in - the astroamerica bookstore is run by a fairly opinionated fellow who seems to think a certain way of certain types of astrology to the point where his slant is a built in part of the site! those who agree with it may not see it, but those who envision a broader respect for those astrologers who continue to develop the field of astrology is not something i see him cultivating.. it is a bit like 'which football team are you routing for?' conversation.. do we really have to have this type of conversation when it comes to astrology as well? again, sorry if i sound repetitive, but to me an open mind to all the available approaches to astrology would seem to be the way to go.. if one doesn't like one style, well then go with what you do l like, but no need to negate or worse other approaches..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 11-26-2011, 09:22 AM
dr. farr dr. farr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: los angeles california
Posts: 12,474
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Open minded is the attitude I've had for many years; but for me, the most important element is whether or not the material I am using works well and reliably FOR ME: that's what has made me an eclectic. A utilitarian eclectic. Who do I regard as authors having had the greatest influences upon my thinking? Modernist pioneer Charles Carter, and the alchemical astrologer, Paracelsus. But I've taken ideas and methods from everywhere, including Vedic and Chinese astrological traditions. Now, I am not a system-maker, I am just a "blue collar" person who only cares about what gives good results in prediction and analysis. An author might make 99 statements which I consider baloney, but one statement which I consider of real value-so, I take the one statement, and reject the other 99; that's especially what I have done with the oldtime Hellenist authors, and in studying them I have found a FEW real gems, most of which have been long forgotten.
So, yes, I absolutely believe in being open-minded, and I consider this to be the best route to take in the study and practice of the astrological arts...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dr. farr For This Useful Post:
AppLeo (01-03-2017)
  #12  
Unread 11-26-2011, 05:46 PM
Anachiel Anachiel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,462
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian View Post
I started a thread called "Astrology = Bunk" based on what I thought of the practice (not the idea of the practice.) Are we really just allowed to slap stuff together unsystematically?
Wow, amazing thread. Thanks, sandstone for starting it.

I think the whole issue boils down to the point above that RebelUranian mentions.

Modern astrology developed from slapping together many traditional concepts and inventing a few new ones like adding Uranus, Neptune Pluto and giving them rule in a system that was not designed to have them to begin with. Yet, while one cannot totally discredit modern astrology, perhaps the modern astrologer, like a tarot card reader, simply uses the chart as a sort of focal point to intuit an relevant answer. This is not a debasement. It is simply something I have thought about. modern astrology might be more intuitive rather than astrological. In other words, modern astrology is actually astronomy used to focus the natural intuition.

Traditional astrology, on the other hand, relies heavily on rules and specific ways of approaching the chart and cannot be as intuitive as modern astrology. There is something else inherent in the original system that seems to make it work.

For example, if you have a clear cut horary chart, you don't even need to know that much about astrology to see, "yes, it will work!" in the horary. The main signifcators come together perfectly and that's the end of that! No intuition required, and only a rudimentary knowledge of the traditional rulerships need be known. You can see this in a thread I just posted about a lost cat. It was so obvious that it did indeed show what happened ny simply following the traditional rules. Nothing else was required and barely any thinking or intuition needed. http://astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43101

I think those who have investigated astrology in modern times, like the Gauquelins are bringing to our attention the direction that modern astrology would have gone should they have adhered to the original tradition astrology was based on. It would have grown rather than mutated.
__________________
添ou are never alone or helpless. The force that guides the stars guides you too.梅 Shrii Shrii Anandamurt

Last edited by Anachiel; 11-26-2011 at 06:04 PM. Reason: added horary link
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 11-26-2011, 06:34 PM
tsmall's Avatar
tsmall tsmall is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 3,114
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anachiel View Post
Modern astrology developed from slapping together many traditional concepts and inventing a few new ones like adding Uranus, Neptune Pluto and giving them rule in a system that was not designed to have them to begin with. Yet, while one cannot totally discredit modern astrology, perhaps the modern astrologer, like a tarot card reader, simply uses the chart as a sort of focal point to intuit an relevant answer. This is not a debasement. It is simply something I have thought about. modern astrology might be more intuitive rather than astrological. In other words, modern astrology is actually astronomy used to focus the natural intuition.

Traditional astrology, on the other hand, relies heavily on rules and specific ways of approaching the chart and cannot be as intuitive as modern astrology. There is something else inherent in the original system that seems to make it work.
I have to say that I agree with this idea. So much of astrology lately seems more like guesswork and supposing than actual prediction. It also could explain in part why astrology is now more focused on inner development than on actual events. I would also go so far as to say that modern astrology isn't even based on astronomy, as a few recent threads here have shown that the zodiac used is tied to the Sun and earth, not the stars themselves.

waybread, you said

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
At present I am slogging my way through Vettius Valens Anthologies (2nd century AD.) In book 1 sec. 2, He describes men born under the sign of Aquarius (probably here, meaning rising sign) as: "malicious, haters of their own families, incorrible, self-willed, deceitful, tricky, concealing everything, misanthropic, godless betrayers of reputations and the truth, envious, petty...."
I have a good friend who has Sun conjunct Saturn in Aquarius, and I have to say this does in fact desribe him. Of course, there is much else redeeming in his chart, so he isn't an entirely horrible person, lol, but...he can be very malicious, especially when crossed, actually does hold most of his family in contempt (though still loves/supports them,) is quite incorrigible (especially with being involved in multiple relationships at the same time,) lies about just about everything personal in order to keep others from knowing the real him, doesn't trust anyone...it goes on. I think when reading these interpretations it is necessary to to see through the language/translation to the meaning. "Godless betrayers of the truth" could mean not religious (no surprise in today's world) and not above telling a lie?
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." ~Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 11-26-2011, 09:17 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,316
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anachiel View Post
Wow, amazing thread. Thanks, sandstone for starting it.....

Modern astrology developed from slapping together many traditional concepts and inventing a few new ones like adding Uranus, Neptune Pluto and giving them rule in a system that was not designed to have them to begin with. Yet, while one cannot totally discredit modern astrology, perhaps the modern astrologer, like a tarot card reader, simply uses the chart as a sort of focal point to intuit an relevant answer. This is not a debasement. It is simply something I have thought about. modern astrology might be more intuitive rather than astrological. In other words, modern astrology is actually astronomy used to focus the natural intuition.

Traditional astrology, on the other hand, relies heavily on rules and specific ways of approaching the chart and cannot be as intuitive as modern astrology. There is something else inherent in the original system that seems to make it work....

I think those who have investigated astrology in modern times, like the Gauquelins are bringing to our attention the direction that modern astrology would have gone should they have adhered to the original tradition astrology was based on. It would have grown rather than mutated.
Perhaps I could introduce some history of astrology into this discussion. Two (well, actually three) books that I highly recommend are Nicholas Campion's 2-volume history of astrology. The first one is The Dawn of Astrology which covers the ancient and classical cultures; and the second is The History of Astrology, which covers the early medieval period to the present. The other book is Geoffrey Cornelius, The Moment of Astrology.

There is a way that the past actually happened. It may be difficult to discover, and we are stuck with our cultural biases as well as those of our subjects and sources in the past. The entire past is unknowable, because nobody bothered to record or preserve information that they regarded as unworthy of notice. Libraries (like the famous one in Hellenistic Alexandria, Egypt) and their contents are perishable. For political reasons, also, some information about the past was suppressed and thereby lost.

But we have to base historical discussion on evidence vs. imagination.

So far as the history of modern astrology is concerned, I have to say that it saved astrology's bacon-- whether traditional or modern. I think everyone on this thread knows that western astrology pretty well died out by the late 18th century, save for farmers' almanacs and a handful of little-known practitioners. The major Christian denominations condemned astrology, and universities dropped it as unworthy of academic status.

When astrology was revitalized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it wasn't by traditionalists, but principally by members of the theosophical and allied movements whose goal was to develop a spiritual heritage with some semblance of reality for the modern world. Founders of this movement like mystic Helena Blavatsky didn't all practice astrology, but influenced those who did.

In the late 19th/early 20th centuries, many of the traditional astrology texts that we take for granted in 2011 were unavailable except in manuscript form or as rare books printed in Greek or Latin. Moreover, anybody in the English-speaking world taking a hard look at the "original" traditional astrology texts (with a few exceptions such as late-comer Lilly) has to confront a lot of dire and doom-filled pronouncements about human nature and fates (or medieval charms) that seem laughable to rational people who live in a modern western society.

I can't emphasize the above point enough. Today it is easy to criticize modern astrology-- notably the pop-schlock, "psychological", and more unhinged Neptunian varieties. But had it not been for early modern astrologers like Evangeline Adams, Alan Leo, Grant Lewi, Dane Rudhyar there would have been no practicing western English-language astrology from which our neo-traditional astrology of the past 20 years could have emerged.

I also have to point out that the first generation of neo-traditionalists, like John Frawley and Robert Hand, came from modern astrology backgrounds. Had they not, there would have precious little astrology around of any description in the UK and North America that they could have even learned as a springboard into their traditional investigations.

Modern genethliacal (birth chart) astrology today is essentially based upon planets and sensitive point in signs, in houses, and in aspect. We've stripped out a lot of the traditional material that more finely indicates what planets in signs are up to. In this way, it is a streamlining or simplification of traditional methods. One thing that impressed me in reading Avelar and Rebeiro's (2010) primer in traditional astrology, is how dynamic traditional astrology is. Planets apply or separate. They beset or assist other planets, almost like in a chess match. On the other hand, any modern astrologer who works with harmonics, midpoints, asteroids, or tertiary progressions has certainly added a lot of enrichment back into the 1970s stripped-down system.

In terms of similarities between astrology and Tarot--well, the Tarot cards are loaded with astrological symbolism. Unsurprisingly, because the Tarot revival was part of the same theosophical/Golden Dawn movement that revitalized a moribund astrology. The Ryder-Waite deck came out of this tradition.

Geoffrey Cornelius, in The Moment of Astrology and some of his other articles makes a strong case that astrology is a form of divination. Although he is a highly respected modern British astrologer, he knows his history.

I have to stress that neo-traditional astrology has been around for only about 20 years. I have to wonder whether the newest critics of modern astrology have read the good modern work by Dutch astrologer Karen Hamaker-Zondag, the early books by Robert Hand, Stephen Arroyo on the four elements (with its ancient roots), Alice Portman www.aliceportman.com , Erin Sullivan, Noel Tyl's 12-volume series (1973-75), or Vivian Robson and Bernadette Brady's work on fixed stars.

I confess I'm not a fan of Marc Edmund Jones or the newer work by Noel Tyl, but "for them as likes 'em" there is a lot of information in their books. Other modernists will have their own favourites.

I've indicated some links to the debate about the Gauquelin research in my previous posts.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by waybread; 11-26-2011 at 09:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 11-26-2011, 09:30 PM
Anachiel Anachiel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,462
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
. But had it not been for early modern astrologers like Evangeline Adams, Alan Leo, Grant Lewi, Dane Rudhyar there would have been no practicing western English-language astrology from which our neo-traditional astrology of the past 20 years could have emerged.

I also have to point out that the first generation of neo-traditionalists, like John Frawley and Robert Hand, came from modern astrology backgrounds. Had they not, there would have precious little astrology around of any description in the UK and North America that they could have even learned as a springboard into their traditional investigations.
The point is not who did what or who's who. No one is knocking any of the astrologers around. Obviously someone modern has to bring the past alive again.

The point still remains that after the "astrological dark ages" of the West, we would not have an astrology to practice if it was not for traditional astrology. My point at the time was tradition is separate from rote. Tradition keeps the seed or core principle alive while everyone is going mad in one way or another. Tradition preserves the essence. It is not necessarily the have-all-and-be-all.

Also, the point is not which is more valid. They (moderns and traditional) are obviously both valid in their own arena. RebelUranian was making a point that can we just mix-and-match anything at any time and still have a valid system? No, obviously, which is where modern astrology went until recently when the roots of it's practice have begun to be re-discovered and re-examined.
__________________
添ou are never alone or helpless. The force that guides the stars guides you too.梅 Shrii Shrii Anandamurt
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 11-26-2011, 09:35 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,316
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

tsmall, just a few footnotes to your latest.

Vedic and western sidereal astrology (which has a handful of practitioners) is a bit more tied to the constellations than is western tropical astrology. However, the sign-constellation match-up is always imperfect. Virgo occupies somthing like 47 degrees along the ecliptic and Aries scarcely touches it (but could be alotted about 23 degrees) so it's a messy correspondence, regardless.

There is a constellational astrology today, with even fewer practitioners, notably the Rudolf Steiner crowd (for moon-sign gardening) and John Lash, Quest for the Zodiac. However, the early 20th century author Vivian Robson and our contemporary Bernadette Brady have published on fixed stars in modern astrology.

The tropical zodiac that most of us used is based on solar seasons--effectively on the sun's rotation around the earth from an earth-centered perspective. The key "anchor" points are the equinoxes and solstices. We see this with our months in our modern calendar. The solstices are always around the 21st of June and December.

I think astrology of any description "works" to the extent that one is intuitive; one is experienced, and one has studied a lot of astrology. To really learn astrology at the level of a professional, if it were a university subject, it would be equivalent to a university undergraduate major. This "major" would have to involve some lengthy in-service practicums. I had studied astrology for about 17 years before I found Internet astrology forums, and they made a huge difference to my ability to read charts. We really need that engagement with real people, real problems, and real time. People's feedback is just invaluable.

I try not to read charts in order to explain just exactly why somebody is such a schmuck. (I'm not saying you do this!!) But it's out there. To me this is a big misuse of what astrologer Isabel Hickey called our "sacred science." Rather, through chart-reading, we learn about all the burdens and barriers with which this soul incarnated. I think that has to engender more understanding and compassion for their human condition.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 11-26-2011, 11:00 PM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
I try not to read charts in order to explain just exactly why somebody is such a schmuck. ... Rather, through chart-reading, we learn about all the burdens and barriers with which this soul incarnated. I think that has to engender more understanding and compassion for their human condition.
Most people jump to doing astrology as a character slam. Don't forget the current modernist ideas of "you can't put up an umbrella but you can stop the rain" which is just idiotic. People think traditionalists are fatalistic? "Your personality has grown to be too detached for your sensitive individuality because of this-or-that life circumstances" and don't forget that's since it's written in the stars there's nothing you can do to change it! Now, on the other hand, we'd never try to predict anything...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 11-26-2011, 11:17 PM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

some excellent comments all around, so thanks folks!

i am reminded of an activity i find myself often making parallels with to astrology, and that is my involvement with music which i have done for most of my life...

i would never suggest a certain style of music is b.s. or whatever derogatory word one wants to apply.. the descriptions some folks give are often more of a reflection on them then on what they are commenting on.. this is something i always keep in mind .. sure i am guilty of blowing off from time to time too, but hopefully no one takes what i say too seriously at those critical moments!

i suppose dr. farr is in part echoing what i feel i've already said, but i will let it reverberate a bit more - (gotta love the reverb, lol) and that is one goes with what works. this dovetails nicely with waybreads comment that others feedback is an essential part of our learning, growing and staying in tune with those we share with...

it definitely isn't about whether astrology is traditional or modern, contemporary or whatever. it is about what works for a person and those who might benefit from any insight that the person/astrologer working with astrology may have to offer..

22.30 aspect anyone? lol...

Last edited by sandstone; 11-26-2011 at 11:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 11-26-2011, 11:42 PM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Quote:
Originally Posted by JUPITERASC View Post
Intriguing waybread that your scathing disapproval of Valens description of those born under the sign of Aquarius as being "malicious, haters of their own families, incorrible, self-willed, deceitful, tricky, concealing everything, misanthropic, godless betrayers of reputations and the truth, envious, petty...." may perchance be attributed to your own natal Aquarian sun
How do we know if we're interpreting their words the same way they interpreted their words? I mean, I don't see anything positive in that, but a ton of stuff from back then just sounds super harsh by today's softie standards. Go read some descriptions of fortunate stars like Regulus and Altair if you want to know what I mean. Aquarius is ruled by Saturn, so we have to look at the attributes of Saturn.

Last edited by Rebel Uranian; 11-26-2011 at 11:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 11-26-2011, 11:58 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,316
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Rebel Uranian-- I do appreciate your Uranian impatience to learn and know everything simultaneously-- I share it, as well! Unfortunately, astrology takes years of study. There is also a "fallacy of over-generalization." Just because some modern astrologers' ideas are silly doesn't mean that all modern astrologers' ideas are silly.

The notion that "traditional astrology is to fatalism as modern astrology is to free will" of course is unsupported by the facts. We had a long thread on this topic a while back. Traditional astrology included both stoics and Catholics whose church taught that everyone has moral choice. Modern astrology includes incredulous optimists as well as horribly negative purveyors of karma from (evil) past lives.

Among modern astrologers I find Robert Pelletier to take a really sardonic view of human nature. Got moon square Mars? According to him, your human relations are toast. You worry that everyone takes advantage of you. You are overly-sensitive and paranoid. You are prone to emotional outbursts. You lack self-control. "You are satisfied only when others give in to your lack of maturity and indulge your need to feel you've won when you've been challenged." It gets worse after this. Not a lot of wiggle-room in this book for self-improvement. (Planets in Aspect: Understanding Your Inner Dynamics, 1974, pp. 135-6.)

JupiterAsc, it's always fun when you try to trip me up! But can't you make your game more of a challenge? Honestly. Read a bunch of the other sign descriptions in Valens from the section I cited. They're just as hilarious-- even the ones that are positive-- because we can always think of those miscreants we know personally who were born under the "good" signs. And wow, if Valens is the authority, thank God I wasn't born under the sign of Capricorn or Scorpio.

Thanks for asking about my 'brand" of modern astrology. But there isn't one particular brand. I pick and choose among different authors from what I think works and discard what I find silly, harmful, or inoperative. The tag-line at the bottom of my posts pretty well sums up my eclectic approach.

JupiterAsc, have you read Steven Forrest's books The Inner Sky and The Changing Sky? These are primers for beginners, not really intended for people like yourself who study astrology beyond that stage. But I find him to be witty, funny, and a shewd judge of human character. I appreciate the dynamic approach taken in these books, in a field where "cookbooks" of simple and static character traits predominate. I've mentioned some other modern astrologers in previous posts whose works I admire.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Unread 11-27-2011, 12:03 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,316
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Jupiter Asc, sorry but I couldn't get your link to that other thread to open. The Internet is often slow to non-functional in my small rural community.

But I think I read your copied and pasted material previously. Some of it several times.

I am also capable of reading other members' posts and digesting them. And drawing different conclusions than you do.

I also have to say that many of Valens's charts couldn't possibly have been from his own practice. Does this matter to you? I'll start another thread on them.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by waybread; 11-27-2011 at 12:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 11-27-2011, 12:08 AM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
Rebel Uranian-- I do appreciate your Uranian impatience to learn and know everything simultaneously-- I share it, as well! Unfortunately, astrology takes years of study. There is also a "fallacy of over-generalization." Just because some modern astrologers' ideas are silly doesn't mean that all modern astrologers' ideas are silly.
Mostly I'm talking about Liz Greene and all the popular ones when I say that. The idea of referring to a school at all in any case can often be a silly one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
The notion that "traditional astrology is to fatalism as modern astrology is to free will" of course is unsupported by the facts. We had a long thread on this topic a while back. Traditional astrology included both stoics and Catholics whose church taught that everyone has moral choice. Modern astrology includes incredulous optimists as well as horribly negative purveyors of karma from (evil) past lives.
Much of modern astrology (yay, no over-generalization!) seems more fatalistic to me than traditional astrology because it's like "oh, you can change things that happen, but not how you are inside" which really pisses me off for obvious reasons. Aren't our actions determined by "how we are inside?"
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 11-27-2011, 12:11 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,316
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

Rebel Uranian-- Well, you probably noticed that Liz Greene is not on my "A" list.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "how you are inside"?
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 11-27-2011, 12:41 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,316
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

I could, JupiterAsc, but I smell a trap here. Say it isn't so.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we値l change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 11-27-2011, 02:02 AM
sandstone sandstone is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bestcoast of canada
Posts: 1,060
Re: traditional / modern / contemporary

perhaps it's necessary to explore the use of these terms 'traditional' and 'modern' a bit more fully.

哲o man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man. heraclitus.. this sort of sums up some of my thoughts on what i am going to say here..

if one has read ceo carter, robert hand, alan leo, steve arroyo, liz greene, reinhold ebertin, alfred witte, nic campion, charles harvey, michael harding, john addey, david hamblin and authors/astrologers/researchers (historical and astro) like these (i am missing a number of others here), i think it safe to say they've 'stepped into and drank some of the water' of modern astrology.. to my way of thinking every one of these authors including liz greene has a wealth of wisdom and knowledge to offer that may or may not be of interest to some directly, but it would seem bizarre to ignore the work of these people in an attempt to turn back the river or remove oneself from the river where astrology presently finds itself..

as rebel u suggested in the beginning of this thread - these categories (trad/mod etc) are limiting. we may have to limit ourselves in that we have only so many hours in the day, but we don't have to close our mind to the wisdom and knowledge that is unique to those who are sharing their insights whether they be considered modern or traditional! a particular style may appeal more to someone then not - this i see happen with music regularly too), but an exposure to different styles makes us all wealthier as i see it. i think there is a way to see the benefit of both traditional and modern approaches as well.

that is it on that for now.. perhaps someone would like to articulate what they call 'traditional' and what it means to them.


tsmall quote >>"So much of astrology lately seems more like guesswork and supposing than actual prediction. It also could explain in part why astrology is now more focused on inner development than on actual events. I would also go so far as to say that modern astrology isn't even based on astronomy, as a few recent threads here have shown that the zodiac used is tied to the Sun and earth, not the stars themselves.<<

thanks tsmall for sharing your thoughts here.. i think one reason why astrology has focused on inner development is that those who practice it have had an interest in inner development. it says something about those practicing as i see it.. there certainly was a new wave of interest in astrology beginning in the 60's as i understand it.. same thing for an increased interest in vegetarianism, and many of the religions of the east, or spirituality more generally. that some of this was reflected in a type of approach to astrology ought not to be a surprise!

as for your comment 'modern astrology isn't even based on astronomy', i think one has to understand the relationships that are being considered. waybread gave a good overview, but i would like to articulate my own thoughts on this here.. the tropical zodiac is not based on anything sidereal and was mis-named and has created much confusion, and leverage for those who would like to dismiss astrology all together..

the relationship between planet earth and the sun, moon and planets as viewed from earth - "geocentric" is indeed astronomical in nature.. that western or tropical zodiac astrology doesn't focus on or use stars and constellations (some do some don't) doesn't alter the fact what is being looked at is still astronomical in nature.

they are 2 different systems working from with different reference points. one - sidereal which is considering our sun and planets in relation to a more distant backdrop of the constellations along the ecliptic primarily and incorporating stars, while the other system - tropical is more local and focuses on the relationship of planet earth to the sun including the planets in this solar system.. hopefully this clarifies something for someone here..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
contemporary, modern, traditional

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dispositor Shining Ray Dignities & debilities 111 03-18-2019 05:50 PM
Traditional vs modern. state your case Liquid Green Astrology and Psychology 66 12-31-2017 08:26 PM
Sort' of Skeptical of Astrology.... SniperBomber328 Hot topic arena 26 07-30-2011 12:50 AM
Traditional or Modern Rulership buddyruff Sports Astrology 3 08-04-2007 03:28 PM
Modern or Traditional Influences? Frisiangal Mundane Astrology 1 07-05-2006 12:45 AM



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ゥ 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.