Horary: Modern vs. Traditional

Senecar said:

I see your reply to Bunraku there, but the reason I use the outers is mainly because they make the readings more rich and powerful with them included in some readings.

Click to expand...

From a traditional perspective, they really don't provide much enrichment. The definitions that were assigned to Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are more subjective than anything else and their significations tend not to represent qualities that directly provide an explanation to a particular situation (ex:"pluto is intense"). More often than not, practitioners tend to use them as gap fillers to add some flavour into an astrological reading.

Senecar said:

Fatalistic and Free Will issue shouldn't be an issue in traditional vs modern astrology as such, I feel, because there are as many modern astrologers who believe in Fates and also Free Will, as in ancient times, whether they are modern or traditional astrologers.

And I recall reading some ancient astrologers believed in Free Will, and astrological knowledge and readings can change their bad fate, protect from bad lucks etc, and choosing good fortunes and times for actions etc from the readings.

Click to expand...

The very framework of traditional astrology and its methodology suggests we live in a pre-ordained cosmos, while the nature of modern astrology with emphasis on choice and the option of self improvement suggests the opposite.

If you look at the practical scenario in the way both branches analyse charts, and the principles they employ, both represent the ancient conflict of predestination vs. free will. However, a lot of astrologers either amateur or professionals will choose or defend one point of view over the other, while practicing the opposite, because they don't seem to even realise the implied dogma of each branch.

Ancient astrologers abide that destiny can be overcome by divine intervention only, and they never suggest that unfortunate periods of time can really be avoided, only deminshed by virtue of knowledge.

Dirius said:

I presume this is the topic you are referring to: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104486

The usual critique is that most *new* modern astrologers when delving into horary attempt to analyse the chart in a manner that is much more similar to a birth chart psychological reading, and largely ignore the actual guidelines that are commonly used for horary.

Horary was developed among guidelines that make it work. Ignoring those guidelines would mean you are not doing horary, and providing a reading without them and then calling it "an alternative method" doesn't make it right.

Modern disregards many of the concepts astrological practice based itself upon, introduces new concepts that attempt to change other principles, and even creates new ones for no purpose. It also deminishes the role of basic concepts such as temperature, speed, sect, etc. A good example is house definitions, for example, using the 8th house as the one for sexuality instead of the 5th (or using both which is even more pointless).

This is a direct contradiction to what traditional astrology employs, and thus makes it incompatible with modern theorems.

Just to be clear, I don't discourage people from using modern astrology in Horary or in general (such as using outer planets), but I do question the use of a method that distorts Horary guidelines under the pretext that "you are free to choose your method";

Horary is a pretty strict practice with little room for variance, and almost none for innovation.

Click to expand...

Horary is quite psychological process itself, if we think about it. Not just psychological, but also religious and magical too in its methods and belief. But everything under the Sun evolves through time, even our consciousness. It sounds strange to say, the Horary methods shouldn't.
The modern horary is not something which is totally revolutionary or drastic deviation from the traditions. It is just using the newly discovered outer planets and also adding astrologer's intuitive element to the readings, which get richer and more powerful in the readings in some cases.

Calling it non horary, and to get out from the forum sounds childish attitude and low mentality.

Dirius said:

From a traditional perspective, they really don't provide much enrichment. The definitions that were assigned to Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are more subjective than anything else and their significations tend not to represent qualities that directly provide an explanation to a particular situation (ex:"pluto is intense"). More often than not, practitioners tend to use them as gap fillers to add some flavour into an astrological reading.



The very framework of traditional astrology and its methodology suggests we live in a pre-ordained cosmos, while the nature of modern astrology with emphasis on choice and the option of self improvement suggests the opposite.

If you look at the practical scenario in the way both branches analyse charts, and the principles they employ, both represent the ancient conflict of predestination vs. free will. However, a lot of astrologers either amateur or professionals will choose or defend one point of view over the other, while practicing the opposite, because they don't seem to even realise the implied dogma of each branch.

Ancient astrologers abide that destiny can be overcome by divine intervention only, and they never suggest that unfortunate periods of time can really be avoided, only deminshed by virtue of knowledge.

Click to expand...

I cannot speak for other astrologers way of using the outers, but in my case, Neptune always gives accurate readings in regards to deceptive, false, fuzzy state of affairs. Uranus sudden change of the situation, and Pluto for stress and balance. The Pluto gets used for World Wars as well by other astrologers, and they make sense.

Without those planets, readings get restricted. In the ancient and medieval times, life was a lot simpler. Maybe the traditional planets would have covered all the situations & possibilities. Now? How fast is it changing and gets more diverse and complicated? - hence the modern astrologers even use comets and astroids in their readings.

Should we not adopt ourselves to the new times and system?

I believe in both pre-ordained world and also free will. With the predictions and readings, the bad destinies could be avoided or bettered. But I don't believe this fate and free will issue should be the main criteria for traditional vs modern astrology.

Dirius said:

Ancient astrologers abide that destiny can be overcome by divine intervention only, and they never suggest that unfortunate periods of time can really be avoided, only deminshed by virtue of knowledge.

Click to expand...

"If you don't see it coming, you won't know what to do when it gets there." Of, course, the more you know about what "it" will be, the greater your chances of knowing what to do.

Senecar said:

Horary is quite psychological process itself, if we think about it. Not just psychological, but also religious and magical too in its methods and belief. But everything under the Sun evolves through time, even our consciousness. It sounds strange to say, the Horary methods shouldn't.
The modern horary is not something which is totally revolutionary or drastic deviation from the traditions. It is just using the newly discovered outer planets and also adding astrologer's intuitive element to the readings, which get richer and more powerful in the readings in some cases.

Calling it non horary, and to get out from the forum sounds childish attitude and low mentality.

Click to expand...

Granting a particular style the title of "horary method" does not make it so. There is a reason why birth, elective, mundane and horary are read in different ways from each other, and follow a certain parameter for each different application.

There is a proper way to read those charts for a reason.

The whole premise of your argument is presented on the mistaken comparison of practical theorems to biological evolution. This is a poorly drafted assumption.

Senecar said:

I cannot speak for other astrologers way of using the outers, but in my case, Neptune always gives accurate readings in regards to deceptive, false, fuzzy state of affairs. Uranus sudden change of the situation, and Pluto for stress and balance. The Pluto gets used for World Wars as well by other astrologers, and they make sense.

Without those planets, readings get restricted. In the ancient and medieval times, life was a lot simpler. Maybe the traditional planets would have covered all the situations & possibilities. Now? How fast is it changing and gets more diverse and complicated? - hence the modern astrologers even use comets and astroids in their readings.

Should we not adopt ourselves to the new times and system?

I believe in both pre-ordained world and also free will. With the predictions and readings, the bad destinies could be avoided or bettered. But I don't believe this fate and free will issue should be the main criteria for traditional vs modern astrology.

Click to expand...

The description you grant to these 3 planets are subjective terms that don't contribute much to any discussion. "Sudden change" has always been my favourite, given it refers to the action that things change through time, and somehow looking at Uranus will tell you why. It is far more competent to look at the context of the chart that is already showing you what changes, by virtue of the movement of the planets through sign representing each thing that changes.

Readings do not get restricted by avoiding those 3 planets, given they provide nothing at all. Many other theorems in place already describe objective situations at a much more accurate degree. The reason they are need to "fill the gaps" with those planets is rather by lack of understanding about traditional theorems. But usually those gaps are filled with subjective meanings that don't really answer the problem.

You are also equating that seemingly the "old" planets can't cover the spectrum of human issues now days. Our problems haven't changed much since those days, people still have marriage problems, people still betray each other, people still have lousy bosses, etc. It makes you seem as if all those things did not exist until the discovery of the outers.

-----
On the free will/predestination comment.

This position is part of the dogma of each branch. Its not a matter of believing, any scholar, even one looking at astrology from a historical point of view (and not an astrology believer himself) can easily point out the implications of the practice.

By practicing a modern view of astrology, in your practice (even if its unintentional) the precepts you use abide to a dogma of freedom of choice. It is the same for traditional and predestination. Its part of the core thelogical aspect of each branch.

Dirius said:

By practicing a modern view of astrology, in your practice (even if its unintentional) the precepts you use abide to a dogma of freedom of choice. It is the same for traditional and predestination. Its part of the core thelogical aspect of each branch.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you believe Astrology is like a religion. I sometimes feel that way about it myself.

Can astrology be studied in a secular, non-spiritual/religious context?
(Pls don’t mention gauquelin thank you)

Bunraku said:

Can astrology be studied in a secular, non-spiritual/religious context?
(Pls don’t mention gauquelin thank you)

Click to expand...

Those who avoid using the names of Greco-Roman and/or Hindu gods and goddesses can.

Dirius said:

Granting a particular style the title of "horary method" does not make it so. There is a reason why birth, elective, mundane and horary are read in different ways from each other, and follow a certain parameter for each different application.

There is a proper way to read those charts for a reason.

The whole premise of your argument is presented on the mistaken comparison of practical theorems to biological evolution. This is a poorly drafted assumption.

Click to expand...

I am not saying horary should be read like birth chart. Including the outers in certain occasions, and using astrologers intuitions when it ticks, is not same as reading birth charts as horary way or vice versa.

Evolution through time is not about comparisons, but it is the universal principle which applies to everything under the Sun - Biology, Psychology, and Astrology .... so on.

david starling said:

Sounds like you believe Astrology is like a religion. I sometimes feel that way about it myself.

Click to expand...

Bunraku said:

Can astrology be studied in a secular, non-spiritual/religious context?
(Pls don’t mention gauquelin thank you)

Click to expand...

It never ceased to be part of it. It was born from the astrotheological religions of the far east, and it was used by the 3 monotheistic religions along their entire run.

Its knowledge was preserved by religious circles during the middle ages, and all of its greatest contributions come from religious individuals, such as Ibn Ezra.

Astrology was downplayed to a mere practice, stripped of its religious implications, by Alan Leo in the early 1900's to avoid fraud charges brought against him in court. From then on, practitioners presented astrology to the public as a mere obscure practice for fun that simply showed tendencies of someone's personality.

Senecar said:

Evolution through time is not about comparisons, but it is the universal principle which applies to everything under the Sun - Biology, Psychology, and Astrology .... so on.

Click to expand...

If you heat liquid water to a 100 °C it will turn into vapor. This particular occurrence of nature seems to have never evolved, which should be contrary to what you have stated.

Some laws of nature in the universe are not subject to change.

Dirius said:

It never ceased to be part of it. It was born from the astrotheological religions of the far east, and it was used by the 3 monotheistic religions along their entire run.

Its knowledge was preserved by religious circles during the middle ages, and all of its greatest contributions come from religious individuals, such as Ibn Ezra.

Astrology was downplayed to a mere practice, stripped of its religious implications, by Alan Leo in the early 1900's to avoid fraud charges brought against him in court. From then on, practitioners presented astrology to the public as a mere obscure practice for fun that simply showed tendencies of someone's personality.

Click to expand...

Few know that the Aquarian Age concept was inspired by, and linked to, the Second Coming.

Dirius said:

If you heat liquid water to a 100 °C it will turn into vapor. This particular occurrence of nature seems to have never evolved, which should be contrary to what you have stated.

Some laws of nature in the universe are not subject to change.

Click to expand...

Yeah but you disregard the fact, that some laws take more time to change too. How do you know, it will take 100.1 C to turn to vapor from next 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years? Also that scientific law is only valid under same physical conditions which is present today. If any of these conditions change, then the law will change too. Telling & believing they don't change eternally no matter what just sounds too naive and short sighted.

Senecar said:

Yeah but you disregard the fact, that some laws take more time to change too. How do you know, it will take 100.1 C to turn to vapor from next 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years? Also that scientific law is only valid under same physical conditions which is present today. If any of these conditions change, then the law will change too. Telling & believing they don't change eternally no matter what just sounds too naive and short sighted.

Click to expand...

First of all /facepalm

Second of all, there is no scientific evidence this will be the case. Universal laws of physics are verified by standard repeated testing, and bound our universe together. Implying that if this conditions changed, would imply our universe ceases to exist as we know it and we wouldn't be having this argument.

Some things don't change just because you want them to.

The "well....what if?" is really a bad response to my example.

Dirius said:

First of all /facepalm

Second of all, there is no scientific evidence this will be the case. Universal laws of physics are verified by standard repeated testing, and bound our universe together. Implying that if this conditions changed, would imply our universe ceases to exist as we know it.

The "well....what if?" is really a bad response to my example.

Click to expand...

It is not simple "Well, if". It is also a scientific inference based on the concrete knowledge that different entities take different time scale for their changes.

Science do use these inferences for establishing the laws.

Senecar said:

It is not simple "Well, if". It is also a scientific inference based on the concrete knowledge that different entities take different time scale for their changes.

Science do use these inferences for establishing the laws.

Click to expand...

Physical established laws are not subject for change in our known working universe. They are not biological entities. Water does not stop turning into vapor because you say "it could happen in a 100 years".

Hydrogren molecules do not "evolve" (which is adapting to different conditions"), because they are chemical compounds that haven't changed since the universe began its existence, so what you propose is certainly unlikely. You can't equate biological adaptions in beings to chemical reactions.

This laws are established by repeated testing under different conditions. So far, no change.

Dirius said:

Physical established laws are not subject for change in our known working universe. They are not biological entities. Water does not stop turning into vapor because you say "it could happen in a 100 years".

Hydrogren molecules do not "evolve" (which is adapting to different conditions"), because they are chemical compounds that haven't changed since the universe began its existence, so what you propose is certainly unlikely. You can't equate biological adaptions in beings to chemical reactions.

No physical condition has ever existed that changed over time.

This laws are established by repeated testing under different conditions. So far, no change.

Click to expand...

My physical condition was better when I was younger. It has changed over time.

Clearly, our technological ability has changed over time.

Dirius said:

Physical established laws are not subject for change in our known working universe. They are not biological entities. Water does not stop turning into vapor because you say "it could happen in a 100 years".

Hydrogren molecules do not "evolve" (which is adapting to different conditions"), because they are chemical compounds that haven't changed since the universe began its existence, so what you propose is certainly unlikely. You can't equate biological adaptions in beings to chemical reactions.

This laws are established by repeated testing under different conditions. So far, no change.

Click to expand...

Changes in physical entity process and condition is not that simple matter. Temperature of the vapor point will change depending on other factors such as pressure and type of liquid etc.

It is not eternal law engraved in stone. There is no such thing.