Traditional Astrology Non-sticky Discussion Thread

waybread

Well-known member
Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

Hi, guys, a very easy mystery man question for you. Is this astrologer traditional or modern? And why? [What follows is a direct quote, which I will cite once the answer is revealed.]

"[He] rejects the use of the terms, faces, and Arabic parts (except fortuna) as "fictions" of the Arabs and Chaldeans. He rejects the use of the equal house system....in his view, the planets derived their meanings from the signs they ruled.....

"Did he produce anything useful to a modern astrologer? Yes, indeed. It would be a mistake to dismiss [him] as an egocentric iconoclast who produced little of lasting significance.....[He] developed an orderly system of looking at the planets and determining which of the many meanings are appropriate in a particular chart.

"...[He] looks at the opposite house to give us understanding of the house under consideration. Can we really learn enough about our finances without looking to the house of the finances of others? Can we learn about ourselves without knowing our partners?"
 

Oddity

Well-known member
You're speaking of Morin. Was he a traditionalist? Eh, not exactly. Nor a modernist. But, as I said before, worth reading.

If you want to start a discussion of Morin's ideas on the trad board, I don't think anyone would object, though.
 

waybread

Well-known member
You're speaking of Morin. Was he a traditionalist? Eh, not exactly. Nor a modernist. But, as I said before, worth reading.

If you want to start a discussion of Morin's ideas on the trad board, I don't think anyone would object, though.

Good work, Oddity. You get the prize.

The excerpts are from: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/morin.html

Morin lived from 1583 - 1656, long before the advent of modern astrology.

Also from that bio sketch: "Morin had a gift for tying things together in a perfectly rational manner. Today some of his growing number of adherents have incorporated the outer planets into his system."

The author, Tom Callanan says his own "interests are in the practice of traditional western astrology and the philosophy that supports it."

Again, this isn't to say that the use of the outers is good or bad in traditional astrology. It is to say that because they have a following among people who practice traditional astrology, it makes sense to consider traditional astrology across its breadth and depth, when we're not just talking about the odd iconoclast. That's all.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
And if you like the outer planets, again, I refer you to the whole rest of this forum. Or to most of skyscript, though they may not want to see outer planets in the ancient and traditional techniques section. Or perhaps they do now, I don't know, I don't visit often.

Outer planets aren't traditional. It's not like anyone is locked away from knowing about them, though, even here. Presumably they can click to a different forum, as can you, if you wish to discuss them.
 

david starling

Well-known member
It's not Traditional to be using computer generated Charts. Only what is seen and measured by Tradtional-astrologers themselves, with sextant and astrolabe, should be admissible as Traditionally valid placements. Actually, the sextant wasn't invented until 1731, which leaves just the astrolabe. Nothing wrong with using an ephemeris, as long as it was complied using astrolabes.
 
Last edited:

Oddity

Well-known member
Thank you for this useful comment, David. Do you consider telescopes to be outer planets, as well?

It's not Traditional to be using computer generated Charts. Only what is seen and measured by Tradtional-astrologers themselves, with sextant and astrolabe, should be admissible as Traditionally valid placements. Actually, the sextant wasn't invented until 1731, which leaves just the astrolabe. Nothing wrong with using an ephemeris, as long as it was complied using astrolabes.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Thank you for this useful comment, David. Do you consider telescopes to be outer planets, as well?

Thought you might like that one. :biggrin:
Not sure what you mean though. The outermost planets can't be located and placed using an astrolabe. A telescope is needed for that. The sextant replaced the astrolabe, but not prior to 1700.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: ***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

I take it you're unfamiliar with Chris Brennan's Hellenistic Astrology?
It's a lot more comprehensive than what I've seen by Robert Schmidt.
One wonders whether you studied Robert Schmidt to any extent
Valens is an exceptionally valuable source, but
Hellenistic astrology extended far beyond him.
QUOTE

'.....During the research pase of Project Hindsight :smile:
we published a number of preliminary translations in three tracks
originally classified by language: Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.
These were subsequently re-organized into the Hellenistic Track
(to include Firmicus Maternus, a Hellenistic author who published in Latin)
and the Medieval Track
(which combined the Latin and Hebrew tracks)....'http://projecthindsight.com/products/pricelist.html
 

david starling

Well-known member
If you're not using the Ancient technology, you're not really "Traditional". You're practicing "Ancient Technique Astrology" using modern technology. Nothing wrong with that!
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
It's not Traditional to be using computer generated Charts.
todays Modernist astrologers are completely at a loss during electricity power cuts :smile:

Only what is seen and measured by Tradtional-astrologers themselves, with sextant and astrolabe
should be admissible as Traditionally valid placements.
Actually, the sextant wasn't invented until 1731, which leaves just the astrolabe.
Nothing wrong with using an ephemeris, as long as it was complied using astrolabes.

Not unexpectedly you forgot to mention that the seven visible classical planets
as well as Fixed Stars and other visible celestial bodies
are "what is seen by astrologers of Ancient times"
who had an advantage over those of todays Modernist astrologers
who are resident in large cities and towns whose skies are totally obscured by a combination of tall buildings and light pollution
Industrial pollution also obscures many local skies unfortunately
and
clearly Modernist astrologers are entirely dependent on computer generated charts
prepared by software writers whose software frequently differs
in contrast
todays traditional astrolgers often choose to reside in rural areas where skies are easily observed
and are easily able to prepare natal charts without the aid of a computer
thus
traditonal astrologers at an advantage during electricity power cuts
 

david starling

Well-known member
Nothing easy about it! You would still need some sort of instrument to locate placements and declination accurately enough to construct a Chart. Current-day Astrologers can always use an ephemeris in written form without electricity. That includes both Ancient Technique Astrologers and Modern Technique Astrologers.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
If you're not using the Ancient technology, you're not really "Traditional". You're practicing "Ancient Technique Astrology" using modern technology. Nothing wrong with that!
not unexpectedly, your opinion on "Ancient technology"

deliberately ignores THE ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM - THE FIRST COMPUTER :smile:

i.e.

Hidden inscriptions offer new clues to the origins
of a mysterious astronomical mechanism

THE ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM - DECODING THE FIRST COMPUTER

After 2,000 years under the sea, the sight is stunning.
Close inspection shows traces of technology that appear utterly modern:
gears with neat triangular teeth (just like the inside of a clock)
and a ring divided into degrees (like the protractor you used in school).
Nothing else like this has ever been discovered from antiquity.
Nothing as sophisticated, or even close, appears again for more than a thousand years
AND

Solely because of
a common, mistaken opinion

that ancient people couldn’t possibly build a device so complex :smile:
some claim Antikythera Mechanism is a hoax .
BUT
The Antikythera Mechanism Research Project stated
that an examination at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens
has found that the device is not a hoax.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...first-computer-180953979/#0xThJo2zHQ44I2HR.99



antikythera-mechanism-gearing.gif







antikythera06_02.jpg



antikythera_mechanism_remains.gif
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Nothing easy about it!

You would still need some sort of instrument

to locate placements and declination accurately enough to construct a Chart.
Current-day Astrologers can always use an ephemeris in written form without electricity.

That includes both Ancient Technique Astrologers and Modern Technique Astrologers.
'......Cicero wrote of a bronze device
made by Archimedes in the third century B.C.
And James Evans, a historian of astronomy at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington
thinks that the eclipse cycle represented is Babylonian in origin
and begins in 205 B.C
.
Maybe it was Hipparchus, an astronomer in Rhodes around that time
who worked out the math behind the device.
He is known for having blended the arithmetic-based predictions of Babylonians
with geometric theories favored by the Greeks
.
...'

The Antithykera Mechanism
is by far the most advanced piece of ancient technology ever discovered
is older than we thought
and
not quite as Greek as we thought either
. :smile:
Researchers think they have identified a particular solar eclipse
predicted by the device's complex cycle of astronomical calculations
which can find the location of the Sun and Moon, the phase of the Moon
and possibly the positions of the planets for any given day.
Christian Carman, a science historian at the National University of Quilmes in Argentina
and James Evans, a physicist at the University of Puget Sound in Washington
reached their conclusions by comparing the mechanism's eclipse predictions
found on the Saros dial
with records from Babylon.
That gave them the cosmological clockwork's start date
12 May 205BC
more than a century earlier than originally thought :smile:
The evidence persuaded Drs Carman and Evans that
the ANTITHYKERA mechanism was designed according to Babylonian arithmetic principles

rather than Greek trigonometry, which had not been invented in 205BC.
But while the principle used was imported
it remains likely that the mechanism was built in Greece
the lettering on it is Greek
it has a dial that predicts when the Olympic Games will be held
and
bears an inscription mentioning an athletic event on Rhodes.

NEVERTHELESS

The markings on the face of the device
show both Babylonian and Egyptian dates translated into Greek. :smile:
The new dating adds an additional twist to arguments
over which of the early Greek scientists, Hipparchus, Posidonius
or
according to the Roman scholar Cicero
Archimedes, might have been involved in its manufacture.
because
It is just seven years after Archimedes died

at the hands of a Roman soldier during the sacking of Syracuse
though whether this makes a direct link more or less likely
depends on whom you ask.

according to James Evans, professor of physics at University of Puget Sound
and Christián Carman, history of science professor at University of Quilmes, Argentina
both of whom suggest that

the Mechanism's workings point to Babylonian maths informing its construction.
That's not in the slightest remarkable:
even the doggrel version of history
knows there was contact between the two regions

well before the 200 BC date at which the Mechanism is thought to have been made :smile:
By 200BC much of the Mediterranean and what we now call the Middle East
was ruled by Hellenic monarchs claiming connection to Alexander the Great's empire.
Those ancient nations shared a language and thought of themselves as fellow Greeks
or Macedonians
even when at war.
Cultural - exchange in the region was therefore normal :smile:
Antithykera Mechanism is now a little more mysterious

its origins may be even more complex than first imagined
 

petosiris

Banned
It's not Traditional to be using computer generated Charts. Only what is seen and measured by Tradtional-astrologers themselves, with sextant and astrolabe, should be admissible as Traditionally valid placements. Actually, the sextant wasn't invented until 1731, which leaves just the astrolabe. Nothing wrong with using an ephemeris, as long as it was complied using astrolabes.

Did not get the joke. The problem is not regarding the telescopes, but to the fact that those planets and asteroids emit too little light to necessitate accommodation. But honestly, I am used to your trolling by this point, you think sidereal astrologers live without weather forecasting.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
Technically, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto aren't even planets, traditionally speaking. Planets are wandering stars. Wandering stars are not perpetually invisible, and I don't see how referring to them as 'data points' solves that.

There's also the problem of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto destroying the Chaldean order.

Did not get the joke. The problem is not regarding the telescopes, but to the fact that those planets and asteroids emit too little light to necessitate accommodation. But honestly, I am used to your trolling by this point, you think sidereal astrologers live without weather forecasting.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Technically, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto aren't even planets, traditionally speaking. Planets are wandering stars. Wandering stars are not perpetually invisible, and I don't see how referring to them as 'data points' solves that.

There's also the problem of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto destroying the Chaldean order.

I think the argument is, that if they aren't accorded Sign-rulership, they don't upset the order.
However, Modern Technique Astrology has abandoned the "naked-eye" visible-light principle of Ancient Technique Astrology, and using them at all would therefore fall into the "modern" category. The one possible exception, Ouranos (using the true Ancient name of the Greek god), is visible at times as what appears to be a faint star, but was neither named nor recognized as a wanderer by the Ancients, and shouldn't be considered as a planet when using only the Ancient Techniques. [IMO]
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Since the 7th day has been accorded to Saturn, that would make Saturn the most sacred Planet.

Well, there is an ancient aphorism, that what Saturn gives, none can take away. It is also assigned to the Sephirot Binah. However, you got the logic backwards.

Besides, in an article from November last year by scholar Bill M. Mak, in a footnote he notes (informed by personal communication with Stephen Heilen) that although the origin of the planetary week is Hellenistic, the original one may have been based entirely on the seven-zone, with Saturn ruling the first day, and the Moon taking over the seventh day, although personally I am not sure that is the correct interpretation of the referenced passages from Valens and Paulus.

You even have entire religions based on resting on the seventh day, so I do not see your trolling being successful, just the opposite.
 
Last edited:

IleneK

Premium Member
I may not be remembering this correctly, but here goes because maybe it fits in somewhere in this discussion...For Christian's the holiest day of the week, the 7th day in which God rested after the creation of the universe, is the sabbath and is named Sunday, the Sun's [Son's?] day.

But for the Jews, the sabbath was and is Saturday, Saturn's day. So indeed Saturn's day would have been the holiest of the days going back perhaps 3-5 millenia perhaps and continuing into the present.

I wonder if this might this have any connection with your comment, Petosiris, "We still have 7 day week which has its origin in the most sacred number"?
 
Top