Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Traditional Astrology

Traditional Astrology For discussions on Traditional Astrology only. (Note: Typically, traditional astrology is defined as using techniques developed prior to 1700 by astrologers from the Hellenistic, Persian, Hebrew, and Renaissance eras. In general, it relies on Ptolemaic aspects (sextile, trine, square, opposition and conjunction) though there may be some exceptions, and always excludes modern planets (Neptune, Uranus and Pluto,) as well as any asteroids. The focus is less on what would be considered modern psychological chart interpretation and more on prediction. Members who wish to explore a combination of traditional and modern ideas should feel free to start a new thread in an appropriate forum for further discussion.)


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 06-27-2017, 10:18 AM
aleth3ia aleth3ia is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 156
Petty clarifications

This was too much to handle, sorry peeps~


Last edited by aleth3ia; 06-29-2017 at 01:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to aleth3ia For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (06-29-2017)
  #2  
Unread 06-27-2017, 08:08 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,991
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post
This thread stems out of the recent exchanges with the hard core traditionalists from the forum. This doesn't want to be anything else than a very "grammatical" review of some things that most people in here take for granted. I'm not blaming anyone for such views, I come from a particular situation, that is, english is not my mother tongue, and this made it possible for me to confront different books, different translations, and as surprising as it was for me to find out, you might find it surprising too, well, when you change language, astrology rules change too, eh. So, the "official data" change too. Impressive right...?
I think it's very bad that astrology faces such inaccuracies. Some clarifications are needed, specially if your field is indeed revolving around a traditional practice.

-The importance of Ptolemy for astrology (or "Vettius Valens Vs. Ptolemy").
There's no doubt that both of these famous people (for us...) have had the biggest impact on astrology. Now, there's someone in here who likes to believe that Ptolemy wasn't an astrologer, and had no impact in astrological matters.
So, let's make some order. If you happen to read both authors, you'll see they share something in common, that no other astrologer before of them ever mentioned, that is: the elements. Both Ptolemy and Valens talk about them, and if Ptolemy does that in a kind of vague manner, you can see Valens talking far more precisely of them. This would be very weird, for someone like Valens, who had to bare the ancient traditions on his shoulders, because the elements are a new "tradition", and it's more probable that it was Ptolemy to introduce them first.

http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/...etary-joys.pdf
This is a very nice article, about some technical things, written by one of the acclaimed astrologers that are around now, Mr Brennan. There's just a little fallacy that I can see in this whole article, Valens' work is said to be older than the one of Ptolemy, by what another pillar of contemporary astrology, Robert Hand, says. That's just plain inaccurate.

Valen's work, The Anthologies, was not only written in a span of 20 years, starting from around the 152 AC, but the parts where he mentions the elements are the latest written ones, and sometimes, they've even been adjusted in more recent, medieval times.
The work of Ptolemy where the elements are first mentioned is the Tetrabiblos. We have no official dating for it, but according to all, it is to be traced from 150 to 160 AC.
If we get a bit more in detail in the matter, since it's kind of fundamental for the basics of astrology, we can get to examine what's behind the 2 people; if on one side we have one of the biggest scientists of their times, Ptolemy, who happened to be a philosopher as well as many other things, we can see how he tried to create a new form of astrology, that wanted to embrace the philosophy of Euclid, Aristotle and others who talked about the elements. It's even no surprising to see that he wrote the Tetrabiblos when he was a mature man, with years of experience, and practical studies on his shoulders. It doesn't surprise me to see someone who spent his life in research, who tries to integrate the most advanced ideas in his fields. It would be surprising to see someone young and with little philosophical and practical experience to do the same instead. And here comes Vettius Valens. Valens not only mentions the elements, but he goes in detail, more than Ptolemy, and attributes them to each sign.
Now I wonder, how could someone who never saw the application of the elements before, take them and apply them specifically with a given order? Wasn't Valens a traditionalist himself? What's the reason for this foresight?
It's simple, he saw the elements in Ptolemy, who was already famous and acclaimed, and then he elaborated it. And he had 20 years to do so. This would excuse the dates, the lives of the 2, and the elements themselves. They are indeed important for all of astrology.

alright, this one was long, now something more simple.

- The Thema Mundi.
Such an amazing piece of astro-archeology. Let's get to know what it is: dated around the latest centuries BC, it is said to represent the birth of the world. With Cancer as the rising sign, Aries on top. Everything is fine up to now, and we really should stop here.
People in here, and I'm sure not only around here, because thanks to wikipedia we have the worst kind of astrological informations spread worldwide, like to draw all kind of meanings, all to the Thema Mundi: houses, dignities, correct triangles, all can be traced to the Thema Mundi. Well, sorry to break it down for you, the Thema Mundi is not such a piece of revelations, it is "just" the birthdate of the world, lol.
Yes, you'll see the planets in one of their domiciles. But try and build a real chart out of it, that's impossible. Talking about a house division, or a meaning for the houses is very improper too, most likely because house division wasn't much a matter for those times, no astrologer mentions them, especially for the oldest texts we have.
So yeah, take your Thema Mundi for what it actually is, the birth of the world, with the AC in Cancer, and all the planets in the correct place; and that's pretty cool already, isn't it?

It would be nice if this thread could gather other petty clarifications of the sort... If you go through astrological articles that put in doubt some of what you know, or that make other incorrect claims, in order to favor one side of the story... or everything else, it would be nice if we could gather all of that.
consider the following comment



Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post

Don't worry, David, as I said, traditional astrology is pretty heterodox in many places. It's not the same as 'do your own thing' modern, but there's been quite a lot of disagreement amongst authors.

Ever notice how trad authors so often respectfully quoted Ptolemy
- then went on to say
that whatever specific principle he wrote
just doesn't work in the real world of charts?

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JUPITERASC For This Useful Post:
Culpeper (06-28-2017), Dirius (06-27-2017)
  #3  
Unread 06-27-2017, 08:34 PM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,982
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post
- The Thema Mundi.
Such an amazing piece of astro-archeology. Let's get to know what it is: dated around the latest centuries BC, it is said to represent the birth of the world. With Cancer as the rising sign, Aries on top. Everything is fine up to now, and we really should stop here.
People in here, and I'm sure not only around here, because thanks to wikipedia we have the worst kind of astrological informations spread worldwide, like to draw all kind of meanings, all to the Thema Mundi: houses, dignities, correct triangles, all can be traced to the Thema Mundi. Well, sorry to break it down for you, the Thema Mundi is not such a piece of revelations, it is "just" the birthdate of the world, lol.
Yes, you'll see the planets in one of their domiciles. But try and build a real chart out of it, that's impossible. Talking about a house division, or a meaning for the houses is very improper too, most likely because house division wasn't much a matter for those times, no astrologer mentions them, especially for the oldest texts we have.
So yeah, take your Thema Mundi for what it actually is, the birth of the world, with the AC in Cancer, and all the planets in the correct place; and that's pretty cool already, isn't it?

It would be nice if this thread could gather other petty clarifications of the sort... If you go through astrological articles that put in doubt some of what you know, or that make other incorrect claims, in order to favor one side of the story... or everything else, it would be nice if we could gather all of that.
The Thema Mundi has always been presented as a pedagogical device. Same with the the Zoroastrian chart of the fall. Technically, they are both 'representative' charts, though I think 'philosophical' is a better word. And you can draw a lot from studying them.

I think you're oversimplifying things here.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Oddity For This Useful Post:
Dirius (06-27-2017), IleneK (06-29-2017), JUPITERASC (06-27-2017), tsmall (08-22-2017)
  #4  
Unread 06-27-2017, 10:46 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,589
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post

-The importance of Ptolemy for astrology (or "Vettius Valens Vs. Ptolemy").
There's no doubt that both of these famous people (for us...) have had the biggest impact on astrology. Now, there's someone in here who likes to believe that Ptolemy wasn't an astrologer, and had no impact in astrological matters.
You are sort of miss-quoting people.

What is said is that Ptolomy wasn't a practicing astrologer. He was an astronomer mostly. Astrology is pretty much the theological companion to Astronomy for the ancients. Most of his work (is believed) to have been academic and theoretical. This is why he is usually quoted for theoretical basic concepts, but usually dismissed for applied techniques.

Also, what Ptolomy did was mostly interpret astrology on Aristotelian principles that had existed long before.

Valens is presumed to have been a working astrologer, that studied under different teachers/schools. His work is filled with charts, and most of his books cover practical methods with lots of examples.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 06-28-2017 at 09:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
Culpeper (06-28-2017), IleneK (06-29-2017), JUPITERASC (06-28-2017), Oddity (06-27-2017)
  #5  
Unread 06-28-2017, 12:46 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,589
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post

@dirius
Perhaps it's you who just took the side of your friends? No problem, I'm used to this : )
please, if you don't mind, spend a visit to the thread " Venus ~in or ~out of sect?", because the accuses made to Ptolemy, by your friend Jup, are not what you're making out of them.
I'm not taking any sides. From the "venus out of sect" topic you mentioned. I said exactly the same thing JUP did because I completly agree with his statement in that other topic:

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...=107878&page=4

Ptolemy was not a practicing astrologer
but a mathematician, astronomer and theorist
VETTIUS VALENS in contrast was a practicing astrologer
and details more than a one hundred charts of clients
in THE ANTHOLOGY translated from Ancient Greek by Professor Mark T Riley CSU
and available in FREE pdf form at

I believe you mistook JUP's opinion in his other post that is above this one. He talked about James Holden book there: is it possible he was quoting from the book?. And yes it is true that many of the things posted in Ptolomy's books were based on observations done by Hipparchus. But this does not relate to the entirety of what Ptolomy wrote. Furthermore, Ptolomy is noted as a compiler of information. I think the book's objective is to recorgnise Hipparchus as a more prominent figure, given Ptolomy tends to get the whole credit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post
I did this thread firstly to put it clear that no matter what someone might think of Ptolemy, he influenced pretty much everything in astrology. I explained why. You might want to discuss that, or the Thema Mundi, instead of accusing me of misinterpreting people, or of being too simplistic without giving any reason for such accusations.
No one is saying otherwise. But it is fair to be objective about Ptolomy's work, and not over-indulge in praises. He did a lot of work for astrology. He is valued for his theoretical work, whether original or not. He is criticized for his applied techniques mostly.

For instance, many of the chapters from Valens Anthology are the work of other astrologers. In his book he cites many sources. To mention a one, he presents techniques of Critodemus in book III. This is common in the ancient world.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 06-28-2017 at 01:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (06-28-2017)
  #6  
Unread 06-28-2017, 07:16 AM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,991
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post

Fair Dirius, each one's entitled to his own opinion. I like to confront my point of view with totally opposing others,
it makes me learn so much more than I'd learn by always sticking to my own side.
I don't even think I have one at this point, because eheh, to me Ptolemy is all old stuff.
As most of astrology, uhuh.

So yeah, I can see a clear connection between the two,
Ptolemy and all of other astrologers,
Ptolemy was not a practicing astrologer
but a mathematician, astronomer and theorist

VETTIUS VALENS in contrast was a practicing astrologer
and details more than a one hundred charts of clients
in THE ANTHOLOGY translated from Ancient Greek by Professor Mark T Riley CSU
and available in FREE pdf form at
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius%20valens%20entire.pdf


Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post

because, in big lines, it's pretty much the same. Every astrologer took from the previous and tried to add more things,
I am not surprised to see other, newer, people who changed Ptolemy's dictates,
and here I'm always referring to the traditional astrologers.
Astrology is a constant work in progress, it shapes itself with time and people, as everything.
As it always did.
And it was not only astrologers that modified Ptolemy, but so did science when proving him wrong.
From this, to accuse him of fraud, because he couldn't calculate for real some astronomical data... well Idk.
I don't think astrology should have so many different rules, they can't all work.
It's true though that the approach to things is personal, and we can't just say
that there's one correct approach to it, because it supports what we believe in.
Astrology for Ptolemy was kind of scientific, that's another branch that is alive up to today.
And has little to do with predictions, although Ptolemy mentions them.
Ptolemy's models have been applied worldwide by very popular astrologers, anyway.
Primarily because of the vast diffusion of his opera.
I don't really believe he's been a lesser prophet of the doctrine, the contrary.

I've explained why I think he influenced some of the most advanced theories of Valens, it's just my two cents idea.
Anyway the article I've linked before provides kind of twisted informations about other things too.
Not just the dating of Ptolemy and Valens and their views.
It delves into philosophy and it says some dubious things... I gotta dig further.
Ptolemy theorised without practice
because
Ptolemy was not an astrologer
Ptolemy left no natal charts at all

In contrast
Valens discusses more than one hundred natal charts
to which Valens applies the techniques he practices
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 06-28-2017, 11:19 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,589
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post
Fair Dirius, each one's entitled to his own opinion. I like to confront my point of view with totally opposing others, it makes me learn so much more than I'd learn by always sticking to my own side. I don't even think I have one at this point, because eheh, to me Ptolemy is all old stuff. As most of astrology, uhuh.
So yeah, I can see a clear connection between the two, Ptolemy and all of other astrologers, because, in big lines, it's pretty much the same. Every astrologer took from the previous and tried to add more things, I am not surprised to see other, newer, people who changed Ptolemy's dictates, and here I'm always referring to the traditional astrologers. Astrology is a constant work in progress, it shapes itself with time and people, as everything. As it always did. And it was not only astrologers that modified Ptolemy, but so did science when proving him wrong. From this, to accuse him of fraud, because he couldn't calculate for real some astronomical data... well Idk. I don't think astrology should have so many different rules, they can't all work. It's true though that the approach to things is personal, and we can't just say that there's one correct approach to it, because it supports what we believe in. Astrology for Ptolemy was kind of scientific, that's another branch that is alive up to today. And has little to do with predictions, although Ptolemy mentions them. Ptolemy's models have been applied worldwide by very popular astrologers, anyway. Primarily because of the vast diffusion of his opera. I don't really believe he's been a lesser prophet of the doctrine, the contrary.

I've explained why I think he influenced some of the most advanced theories of Valens, it's just my two cents idea. Anyway the article I've linked before provides kind of twisted informations about other things too. Not just the dating of Ptolemy and Valens and their views. It delves into philosophy and it says some dubious things... I gotta dig further.
I wouldn't personally call him a fraud. And I do think tetrabiblos is one of the most influential astrology books, and many of Ptolomy's theorems compose the basis of astrology.

I do sustain he was (in all probability) not a practicing astrologer, which is what I mentioned earlier. Perhaps I didn't make it clear, what I agree with is JUP's opinion regarding that specific fact, but not with James Holden's accusation of Ptolomy in his book.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (06-29-2017)
  #8  
Unread 06-28-2017, 09:36 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,589
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post
I see intellectual honesty ain't the forte in here.

James Holden makes no accusation to Ptolemy, Jup said that just because Mr Holden calls Ptolemy a scientist. Jup even accuses Ptolemy of fraud, because of some book he saw on amazon. Not James Holden.
Let's forget about it. I didn't want to go through this for the tenth time. Meh god.
I have no idea what the book says.

I was just making the clarification when I said "I agree with JUP completly", that I was refering to what I myself said, that Ptolomy wasn't a practicing astrologer, but rather a theoretical researcher, and most of the criticism he gets is for applied theorems. You accused me of just being biased for a friend, and I simply showed you the post in which he said the same thing on other topic (

(Jup also said Ptolomy was a fraud, on another post)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post
I'm going through that article written by Brennan that quotes Hand, and if my philosophy books from uni are not completely wrong, well, then those 2 guys are up to some very messy ideas. That's absolutely not fair to astrology, and I wonder why they do that.
It seems to me, they just want to push forward one of the ideas that is the backbone of traditional astrology TODAY, that is, determinism. While leaving behind the fact that there were many ideas in the past, not just the one they find more fitting to their personal practices. You yourself say that theogy (??) has always been the other side of astronomy, but I think that's just one view, maybe the mainstream one in the past, surely not the only one.

I'm seriously disappointed.
Theology, which means (according to wiki): the critical study of the nature of the divine. Astronomers were not just concerned with stellar motion, but rather the interpretation of their message. (I misspelled in my original post)

That is what Astrology is, the interpretation of the divine message from the sky. Saying otherwise, is simply trying to search for a meaning that is not there.

I'm really not sure whats the intention of your post.

link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 06-28-2017 at 09:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (06-29-2017)
  #9  
Unread 06-29-2017, 12:56 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,589
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post
Dear Dirius, I didn't make this thread to convert you or to prove you're saying the wrong things, so, chill.

If you happen to read the thread, maybe you'll get the intent of it: confronting Valens' work in Ptolemy's light, because, as I've explained, I believe Valens was influenced by Ptolemy. Because, they are both the first to use elements, and despite what Robert Hand and Chris Brennan have to say about it, Ptolemy was older than Valens, and probably his work is older as well.

The intent of this thread is to find out all the fallacies that astrology is filled with.
But I'm expecting no understand on someone who says astrology= theology.
Feel free to abandon this thread.
By "elements", and the link you posted, I presume you mean triplicities.

The work of Valens is more related (in both style and practice) to that of Dorotheus of Sidon who is dated as earlier than Ptolomy. Both Valens and Dorotheus invest a lot of time into legth of life techniques, use the profection technique and employ the kleroi, some of them Ptolomy does mention but never goes into it much. Valens does not spend much time on concepts, as Ptolomy did.

Also Dorotheus uses the Triplicities (called "triangles") which is what you refer to as "elements", which suggest they were employed much earlier than Ptolomy.

The point you are trying to make simply shows that you haven't really read Valens or Ptolomy much.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 06-29-2017 at 01:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (06-29-2017)
  #10  
Unread 06-29-2017, 01:42 AM
aleth3ia aleth3ia is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 156
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
By "elements", and the link you posted, I presume you mean triplicities.

The work of Valens is more related (in both style and practice) to that of Dorotheus of Sidon who is dated as earlier than Ptolomy. Both Valens and Dorotheus invest a lot of time into legth of life techniques, use the profection technique and employ the kleroi, some of them Ptolomy does mention but never goes into it much. Valens does not spend much time on concepts, as Ptolomy did.

Also Dorotheus uses the Triplicities (called "triangles") which is what you refer to as "elements", which suggest they were employed much earlier than Ptolomy.

The point you are trying to make simply shows that you haven't really read Valens or Ptolomy much.
I didn't mention triplicities, did I? But they're related, sure. The ideal of elements is the basis of western philosophy. It's in every book you'll read from those times, but how is that expressed? It's true, in astrological books it's present too, somehow, but it is very vaguely described, sometimes completely messed up. Dorotheus does not mentions elements and qualities. Ptolemy's the first who mentioned them, describing them, in detail somehow, but does not attribute them to the signs, nor in triplicity. Valens does. I just think he's been influenced. Well, right. I'm probably wrong. This thread was an error. Ptolemy was an astronomer.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 06-29-2017, 02:01 AM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,589
Re: Petty clarifications

The topic wasn't and error, its quite interesting actually. But you should expect criticism on this particular section. You are expected to back your arguments in the light of traditional principles and ancient texts and you will be confronted with different opinions regarding those. The argument of "well because I like it" is not well recieved here. Welcome to the traditional section.

----------------**--------------------**--------------------

Its true Dorotheus does not mention the triplicities as belonging to a certain element. And I never said Ptolomy didn't influence astrologers that came after him. No one denies his contribution, and using aristotelian principles to interpret astrology, in fact I said that in my opening post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
Y
Also, what Ptolomy did was mostly interpret astrology on Aristotelian principles that had existed long before.
But you are trying to portray Ptolomy as the inspiration behind Valens, when its clear he wasn't. The only relatable subject from Ptolomy to Valens comes in the first few chapters in book I of the Anthology. All the other volumes have little to do with Ptolomy.

As for the Dorotheus connection, one must note that Dorotheus style of writting is not particularly concerned with explaining the basic concepts, he doesn't spend much time explaining the Signs, the planets, etc. He directly jumps into chart analysis as early as book I. It is assumed that his books are meant to have the trained astrologer as his audience.

While it is true that Valens does dedicate time to basic concepts, this has more to do with Valens detailed style of writting. For example, he provides like 3 or 4 methods for finding the Ascendant and the Sun and Moon position, and gives lots of theorems to deal with the same subject. No other writter did this, not even Ptolomy.

Both Dorotheus and Valens dedicate time (whole books) to the legth of life analysis. Both heavily employ the kleroi of marriage, children, fortune, etc. Both rely on the profection technique and dedicate whole books to it. If you look at both authors, it is rather obvious that the knowledge they employ has a similar origin. Ptolomy focuses little on these theorems, and as I mentioned earlier in my posts, he is not considered to have been a practicing astrologer.

----------

Finally I don't really get what your problem is with Brennan's article. It is an interesting theory about the joy of the planets and its connection to the triplicities.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 06-29-2017 at 02:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (06-29-2017)
  #12  
Unread 06-29-2017, 03:29 PM
aleth3ia aleth3ia is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 156
Re: Petty clarifications

Yeah sorry Dirius, but I suddenly felt embarrassed. I've stumbled into something bigger than me with this thread. And yeah well, I doubt anyone will ever have a real "solution" of this elements matter, infact we can't probably get to check all the books from 2000, and older, years ago... it's a crazy work.

That article from Brennan is indeed a good one for the theories he makes up, for the joys of the planets. But it is even a didactic piece, and if you get to read it because you're looking for a knowledge of some things (as I did), you'll get twisted informations about other things. Such as the philosophical schools. Brennan tries to bring back the disposition of the four elements-angles-trigons, to a philosophy of those times that could have embraced a view of sort: to each element is only one quality. And he says that's what Stoics did. But most schools didn't have such a view. It is instead a very theological view. It appears in the Qabalah, but not in previous philosophy.

Basically, I think Brennan holds up his theory by twisting some things, that are kind of hard to be proved and checked, because he has to make his thesis look valid. And although it is a good thesis, I don't see the point of excusing it by making up dubious claims. But, again, that's just my 2 cents.

This is a book for Jup anyway: https://www.amazon.com/Astrology-Wor.../dp/1934586390

Last edited by aleth3ia; 06-29-2017 at 03:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 06-29-2017, 03:52 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,991
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post

Yeah sorry Dirius, but I suddenly felt embarrassed.

I've stumbled into something bigger than me with this thread.
This is a book for Jup anyway:
https://www.amazon.com/Astrology-Wor.../dp/1934586390
Theorising astronomers
who plagiarize predecessors
without citing sources
may have their adherents

HOWEVER
THE ANTHOLOGY by Vettius Valens PRACTICING ASTROLOGER
is a practical read
for those who value Valens chronicling without altering
followed by practical examples
illustrated by charts from Valens own astrological practice



THE ANTHOLOGY translated from Ancient Greek by Professor Mark T Riley CSU
is available in FREE pdf form at
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf


crucial difference between Ptolemy and Valens is:

Ptolemy was a mathematician and theorist.


whereas in contrast

.......Vettius Valens' Anthologiae
IS THE LONGEST EXTANT ASTROLOGICAL WORK FROM ANTIQUITY

It is unique in several respects:
the author was a practicing astrologer;
the work includes more than 100 authentic horoscopes of Valens' clients
or associates, including his own
which is used as an example many times throughout the work

the work also includes tables and the description of algorithms
used by astrologers and mathematicians....

Professor Mark T Riley CSU
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 06-29-2017, 08:14 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,589
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post
Yeah sorry Dirius, but I suddenly felt embarrassed. I've stumbled into something bigger than me with this thread. And yeah well, I doubt anyone will ever have a real "solution" of this elements matter, infact we can't probably get to check all the books from 2000, and older, years ago... it's a crazy work.
I apologise if I made u feel attacked, I wasn't trying to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post
That article from Brennan is indeed a good one for the theories he makes up, for the joys of the planets. But it is even a didactic piece, and if you get to read it because you're looking for a knowledge of some things (as I did), you'll get twisted informations about other things. Such as the philosophical schools. Brennan tries to bring back the disposition of the four elements-angles-trigons, to a philosophy of those times that could have embraced a view of sort: to each element is only one quality. And he says that's what Stoics did. But most schools didn't have such a view. It is instead a very theological view. It appears in the Qabalah, but not in previous philosophy.

Basically, I think Brennan holds up his theory by twisting some things, that are kind of hard to be proved and checked, because he has to make his thesis look valid. And although it is a good thesis, I don't see the point of excusing it by making up dubious claims. But, again, that's just my 2 cents.

This is a book for Jup anyway: https://www.amazon.com/Astrology-Wor.../dp/1934586390
To be honest, I seem to have miss-understood your initial post regarding this subject. Now (I think) I do.

I suppose that what Brennan said about Valens as the "author" of adding the elemental theme into the triplicities is the first problem you had with the paper. Problem is, its hard to say which came first if Ptolomy of Valens, given Valen's work is also a compilation of previous works. The thing about the Anthology is that it contains percieved number of works from a different arrange of astrologers and thus makes it rather hard to date. Supposedly, Ptolomy came first, but we also can't be sure if his work is completly original or not.

You should point ou what is specifically brennan's words that you disagree with, the whole article is long.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 06-29-2017 at 08:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (06-29-2017)
  #15  
Unread 06-30-2017, 04:27 AM
aleth3ia aleth3ia is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 156
Re: Petty clarifications

Yeah I pretty much find the whole article to be full of fallacies. That's why I made the thread. If we trust such articles and get informed on them, no wonder there are so many misunderstandings.
Yes, I find the datings to be wrong, they're not really explanatory of the situation either. And they support a view, which Jup agrees with, and no wonder, he's an abituee of that site, that favours their own story. This because the entire philosophical backing up of the whole concept is a bit twisted, again, to support the view of Brennan about the true meaning of the joys. And that's his opinion, it doesn't make much sense to me, but maybe it would a bit more if he provided some more correct infos.
So yeah, from now on my black list of astrologers contains Brennan too. Robert Hand was in it already from the composites, glad to confirm him.
I'll check them 4 times if I'll ever happen to meet them again on my way. You never know..

The idea of the joy as source for the houses is really good though, unfortunately if you apply it, you'll see that the wheel won't follow the same elements disposition that he mentions... but the thesis is still good.

I made a petty error myself in the initial thread, the Thema Mundi can be applied, I got confused with the joys.

Last edited by aleth3ia; 06-30-2017 at 08:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 06-30-2017, 11:48 AM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,991
Re: Petty clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by aleth3ia View Post
Yeah I pretty much find the whole article to be full of fallacies. That's why I made the thread. If we trust such articles and get informed on them, no wonder there are so many misunderstandings.
Yes, I find the datings to be wrong, they're not really explanatory of the situation either. And they support a view, which Jup agrees with, and no wonder, he's an abituee of that site, that favours their own story. This because the entire philosophical backing up of the whole concept is a bit twisted, again, to support the view of Brennan about the true meaning of the joys. And that's his opinion, it doesn't make much sense to me, but maybe it would a bit more if he provided some more correct infos.
So yeah, from now on my black list of astrologers contains Brennan too. Robert Hand was in it already from the composites, glad to confirm him.
I'll check them 4 times if I'll ever happen to meet them again on my way. You never know..

The idea of the joy as source for the houses is really good though, unfortunately if you apply it, you'll see that the wheel won't follow the same elements disposition that he mentions... but the thesis is still good.

I made a petty error myself in the initial thread, the Thema Mundi can be applied, I got confused with the joys.
Brennan is one of our members
if you have an issue with Brennans opinions
nothing prevents you from sending Brennan a pm
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 06-30-2017, 09:18 PM
aleth3ia aleth3ia is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 156
Re: Petty clarifications

lol Jup, that would be quite amazing. Idk if he's the only one to think that the planetary joys are behind the meaning of the houses, but that doesn't seem too much crazy to think, because the meaning we can draw from the joys are about what we make of the houses now.

I've spent the last months questioning all that I knew about astrology, and it has nothing to do with this traditional astrology branch. Anyway, It's been an enlightening work. Now I know that it doesn't really matter what kind of methods one applies, there's more insight in what we can actually make of the chart, than in the chart itself. I don't mean this to belittle the entire astrological practice. I really believe in some of its forms, but I realize that I can't expect anyone to challenge their own views, if they work for them, because who am I to tell them not to follow them?
This is why I deleted my posts, I felt a bit nauseated by my own pettiness, so don't worry Dirius. : ) You've been helpful.

I can't expect anyone to follow logic and common sense, especially if the matter in question they consider "god-like", which is a very V.Valens view. Eheh..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
clarifications, petty

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



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 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.