Is it true traditional astrologers exclude modern planets?

Oddity

Well-known member
The problem with traditional astrologers is that they are slaves to tradition.

Very nice. Very helpful to the conversation. Perhaps you understand, or simply don't care that we have a traditional board. But you decided to troll anyway.

For example, they swear by an obsolete 12th house system, without realizing it was done for practical considerations, to make the calculation of aspects simpler. Not because it made sense from a timing perspective.

You know how placidean houses work, right?

Many of the old techniques were created according to the needs and possibilities of the time. Hellenistic (and Roman) mathematics were very limited, until the they got the number system and other numerical tools from the arabs.

Do you know how the Greeks calculated aspects? They only took into account the relative positions of planets in the houses, not their accurate positions.

Aware of this. Aspects depend on signs more than they do degrees in many ways. Is it a sextile from 29 Aquarius to 1 Taurus, or a square? The answer is going to depend on which system you follow.

P.S. The research of Michel Gauquelin invalidates much of traditional astrology, in specific the house systems. He found special significance on the angles instead, not the traditional houses.

Pretty sure astrology (the traditional kind, anyway) has emphasised the angles as powerful points in charts.
 

Michael

Well-known member
Oddity said:
Very nice. Very helpful to the conversation. Perhaps you understand, or simply don't care that we have a traditional board. But you decided to troll anyway.

No, I actually had a point to make. Most high profile traditional astrologers: Hand, Zoller, Frawley, Houlding use the outer planets in their natal astrology work. Even Hellenistic astrologers like Chris Brennan are doing it.

You are simply out of touch traditionalists. Even the western Vedic tradition is using outers.


Oddity said:
You know how placidean houses work, right?

Yes, Placidean houses (and all other 12th house systems) divide the chart in an arbitrary way, thinking in space divisions. While the system proposed by Fagan and Guinard, divide it into time zones, respecting the angles.


Oddity said:
Pretty sure astrology (the traditional kind, anyway) has emphasised the angles as powerful points in charts.

Actually, no. The traditional house systems are arbitrary, as noted by Kepler and others.
 
Last edited:

Oddity

Well-known member
So the placidean system isn't based on planetary hours? Guess you learn something every day.

There are time based, space based, and space-and-time based house systems.

As for making a point, I doubt it. People who try to make points can usually do it without being abusive.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
No, I actually had a point to make.
Most high profile traditional astrologers: Hand, Zoller, Frawley, Holding
use the outer planets in their natal astrology work.
Even Hellenistic astrologers like Chris Brennan are doing it.

You are simply out of touch traditionalists.
Even the western Vedic tradition is using outers.
Frawley is not a traditional astrologer :smile:
Zoller is ill and not practicing astrology currently
and Robert Hand speaks for himself
at
http://theastrologypodcast.com/2013/12/09/robert-hand-reconciling-modern-traditional-astrology/

Chris Brennan states clearly that it is
important for astrologers to
get a good grasp of the 7 traditional planets on their own
and not be overly dependent on the outer planets, like a crutch.
http://theastrologypodcast.com/2016/02/24/significations-of-seven-traditional-planets/
 

Oddity

Well-known member
If Zoller used the outer planets in natal work it's news to me - and I studied with him.

Presumably Michael has evidence of this to present? I won't disagree for the sake of disagreeing, but I find it unlikely in the extreme.
 

Michael

Well-known member
Oddity said:
So the placidean system isn't based on planetary hours? Guess you learn something every day. There are time based, space based, and space-and-time based house systems.

Interesting, thank you. But they still divide the chart like the others, in an arbitrary, space based way. Not a time based system.

Read this to understand what I mean: Cyril Fagan: The Oktotopos


Oddity said:
As for making a point, I doubt it. People who try to make points can usually do it without being abusive.

Good call. I am sorry if I offended anyone. My goal was to question why the traditional board forbidded the mention of outer planets. It didn't make any sense.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Michael, not much time at the moment, but I took a quick look at the Cyril Fagan link, and don't immediately see how the 12 House systems run counter to the Zodiacal Signs. That is, if you hold the Signs in place, the Ascendant moves through them in the Zodiacal direction, bringing the Houses along with it. The reason for holding the Ascendant in place on the Eastern horizon is to get a picture of the sky as seen from a particular location, making it clear what was visible above, and invisible below, the horizon line, and whether it was day or night, based on the Sun's position. What am I missing?
 

Michael

Well-known member
A system that runs clockwise (East -> West), makes more scientific sense, since the zodiac goes in the same direction. So the current system is synchronized to work in an unscientific way.

The house system proposed by Fagan would run clockwise (like the zodiac) and each house correspond to the adequate human activities. Right now, the hours corresponding to each of the traditional 12 houses is out of rhythm with the actual human activities.

Furthermore, he emphasized the need to use a sidereal zodiac to enforce a scientific attitude in astrology, in place of the current obscurantism.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
The problem with traditional astrologers is that they are slaves to tradition. For example, they swear by an obsolete 12th house system, without realizing it was done for practical considerations, to make the calculation of aspects simpler. Not because it made sense from a timing perspective.

Many of the old techniques were created according to the needs and possibilities of the time. Hellenistic (and Roman) mathematics were very limited, until the they got the number system and other numerical tools from the arabs.

Do you know how the Greeks calculated aspects? They only took into account the relative positions of planets in the houses, not their accurate positions.

P.S. The research of Michel Gauquelin invalidates much of traditional astrology, in specific the house systems. He found special significance on the angles instead, not the traditional houses.

And now we finally reveal the true objective of your post. You call it an obsolete 12 house system, and that is ok. You re free to consider it obsolete, and you do not have to use it. And you can think we are slaves to an old doctrine, you can call us fools even if you like.

And yet, it works so good for predictions, that some moderns use traditional techniques. And no, you still can't use the outers in the traditional section.

:cool: Deal with it kid.
 
Last edited:

Michael

Well-known member
No, the true objective was to know why the outers were banned on the Traditional Board. Of course, I was expecting the obscurantism and anti-scientific attitude so prevalent with most astrologers today, including the so called traditional astrologers.

I am not surprised your predictions work. Even the Tarot works. But astrology is much more than a tool for making predictions.

Astrology is a science, it was considered a branch of mathematics by the Arabs. It's supposed to be a leading intellectual discipline, not some "occult" thing.

P.S. Most western astrologers today use the 12th house system and the tropical zodiac, not just the "traditional" astrologers.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member


No, the true objective was to know why the outers were banned on the Traditional Board. Of course, I was expecting the obscurantism and anti-scientific attitude so prevalent with most astrologers today, including the so called traditional astrologers.

I am not surprised your predictions work. Even the Tarot works. But astrology is much more than a tool for making predictions.

Astrology is a science, it was even considered a branch of mathematics by the Arabs. It's supposed to be a leading intellectual discipline, not some "occult" thing.

P,S. Most western astrologers today use the 12th house system and the tropical zodiac, not just the "traditional" astrologers.
Nothing obscure regarding the fact that traditionally
the so-called "outers" are absent from TABLES OF ESSENTIAL DIGNITIES :smile:

simply view TABLES OF ESSENTIAL DIGNITIES

and the reasons are obvious
it's not rocket science

FURTHERMORE

for reasons explained multiple times succinctly by Oddity, Dirius et al
"outers" are NOT "banned" from traditional techniques
"outers" simply are unnecessary/extraneous


 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Very nice. Very helpful to the conversation. Perhaps you understand, or simply don't care that we have a traditional board. But you decided to troll anyway.
Odd, few quality modern make sense and now you have the proof for it. I would rather be a "slave" to tradition than to gibberish that can hardly be sensibly explained. That is why attack is their best form of defence because they don't really have substance to defend.
 

Michael

Well-known member
Odd, few quality modern make sense and now you have the proof for it. I would rather be a "slave" to tradition than to gibberish that can hardly be sensibly explained. That is why attack is their best form of defence because they don't really have substance to defend.

The problem is because something is old doesn't mean it's right. It's true traditional astrology has more history, a more articulate language and meaning than most modern astrology. But then it doesn't mean everything in it is wonderful and great for us now.

Cyril Fagan was a "traditional" astrologer who was not a slave to tradition. He could make predictions (very powerful ones) and he also used the outer planets, including Pluto. While creating the western sidereal tradition of astrology.

Other examples of traditionals who where not slaves: Morin, Regiomontanus, Kepler. Just following the crowd is not scientific.
 
Last edited:

muchacho

Well-known member
If you're of the belief that modern science will eventually validate your form (or any form) of astrology, I fear you'll be waiting a very long time.

As I've already put forth, astrology is old science. There's an entirely different worldview attached to it.

I suppose you can argue that it's all post-modern cognitive hops, skips, and jumps to make the stars seem to say something relevant (out of their random patterns?), but that isn't what the guys who started this stuff were doing. And we do them a disservice if we try to look at them with our shiny new ideas instead of trying to understand how they saw the world.

Who cares if modern science approves of astrology? I don't. Do you?
Well said. Yes, science in its current form can't explain astrology. Its current models of reality make it ill-equipped. Scientists still can't answer existential questions. Astrology can. So science can't be a voice of authority or reason on such matters.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
The problem is because something is old doesn't mean it's right..
Can you show me one post where that reason - the one you put in quotes - has been given to mistrust or put down modern astrology? Time and again, we have asked questions, real astrological questions, or questioned belief-systems, history, etc.., but I don't think anyone has said that only old is gold. I mean I personally do believe that (could be that my Cap Moon is stronger than all my Aqua energy), but I wouldn't dare to use that reason to attack modernism.

Now that truly is a "strawman fallacy". You will find the definition in a couple of Waybread's posts. I'm too lazy (that is my Leo Asc).
 
Last edited:

Oddity

Well-known member
So...you studied traditional astrology, either you didn't get it or you didn't like it. We're okay so far here.

Just do something else. Nobody's going to care.

Or...you studied traditional astrology, you didn't like it, you thought you found something better, so in order to share that with people you decided the best course was to insult them. That they'll realise how much better than them you are, and listen to you?

You've got a lot to learn.

The problem is because something is old doesn't mean it's right. It's true traditional astrology has more history, a more articulate language and meaning than most modern astrology. But then it doesn't mean everything in it is wonderful and great for us now.

Cyril Fagan was a "traditional" astrologer who was not a slave to tradition. He could make predictions (very powerful ones) and he also used the outer planets, including Pluto. While creating the western sidereal tradition of astrology.

Other examples of traditionals who where not slaves: Morin, Regiomontanus, Kepler. Just following the crowd is not scientific.
 

Michael

Well-known member
[URL="http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/member.php?u=6843" said:
aquarius7000[/URL]]Can you show me one post where that reason - the one you put in quotes - has been given to mistrust or put down modern astrology? Time and again, we have asked questions, real astrological questions, or questioned belief-systems, history, etc.., but I don't think anyone has said that only old is gold. I mean I personally do believe that (could be that my Cap Moon is stronger than all my Aqua energy), but I wouldn't dare to use that reason to attack modernism.

Actually, yes, so called modern astrology is an attempt to defend obsolete systems: the tropical zodiac and the 12th houses. Because science can't explain or help, so everything is valid.

Modern astrology is justified by this anti-scientific attitude. While traditionalists are starting to reap benefits too. At least traditionalists have a culture to rely on, but moderns can say, everything we do is fine, because it's relative.

I mean it's good we go back to our roots, but if we stay there we are no better, no not even equals to out predecessors.
 
Last edited:

muchacho

Well-known member
I think perhaps there even might be some confusion for some that everything that is 'modern' automatically is also scientific or more scientific and so also must be more intelligent and make more sense.

Actually, traditional Astrology does a wonderful and quite an intelligible job of explaining its dictums. I find that lacking sometimes in some of the modern concepts.

And, no, I don't abhor the outers or modern Astrology. In face, I sometimes even use the outers in native astro., though not as rulerships because the way the planets are assigned to signs make complete sense to me and is so satisfying that I don't feel the need to experiment there (at least not anymore).
What I see most modern astrologers intuitively understand is the 'as above so below' principle which is closely related to Law of Attraction (aka that which is like unto itself is drawn). I can't say that about traditional (including vedic) astrologers though. They seem to rather go by the book (no matter how outdated or ridiculous) instead of grasping the underlying principle and then putting the books aside. And I think that's the actual point of contention between modernists and traditionalists. The traditionalists accuse the modernists of taking liberties with the ancient texts to a degree that it is unrecognizable while the modernists accuse the traditionalists of taking the ancient text all too literally and often to the degree of dogmatism.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Actually, yes, so called modern astrology is an attempt to defend an obsolete system,...
"Obsolete"??? Please. Perhaps it is too deep and strong a system for some to understand, or some are too obstinate to not understand it for fear of being proven wrong, hence they call it obsolete. Again, that quote/ attack only proves my previous post - attack is the best form of defence for some modernists.

Modern astrology is justified by this anti-scientific attitude. While traditionalists are starting to reap benefits too. At least traditionalists have a culture to rely on, but moderns can say, everything we do is fine, because it's relative.
Yes, "relative", where precision has taken its flight. If Jupiter don't work, bring on Neptune. If Saturn don't work, bring on Uranus... how exciting... make your pick as it suits. If it still don't suit, make it suit some how because, as you said, "moderns can say, everything we do is fine, because it's relative." And that is where the problem lies.

I mean it's good we go back to our roots, but if we stay there we are no better, no not even equals to out predecessors.
It all depends on how deep and convincingly strong the roots are.

At the end of the day, you believe what you are convinced by and I believe what I can trust. To each, his own
 
Top