consider the following commentThis 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/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/the-planetary-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.
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?
- 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 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.
@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 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.
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 theorised without practicebecause, 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.
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 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'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.
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.
Y
Also, what Ptolomy did was mostly interpret astrology on Aristotelian principles that had existed long before.
Theorising astronomers
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-World-I-Ptolemaic-Inheritance/dp/1934586390
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-World-I-Ptolemaic-Inheritance/dp/1934586390
Brennan is one of our membersYeah 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.