Ancient Astrologers didn't always agree

http://www.sevenstarsastrology.com/?p=134

A very good article that addresses the preconceived notion of those unfamiliar with "traditional astrology" that it is a big homogeneous behemoth with no use for experiment,deviation or improvement.

I've got a translation of Masha'Allah in which he rips Valens apart...

tsmall said:

I've got a translation of Masha'Allah in which he rips Valens apart...

Click to expand...

Got details?

conspiracy theorist said:

Got details?

Click to expand...

When I have a chance to look them up. Right now I'm supposed to be working on some other things. :/ Keep getting distracted. But if you have the Dykes translation of Sahl and Masha'allah...

I seem to recall that it had to do with calculating primary directions. Maybe Odds, if still around, can help find it? Beyond that, I have read Valens disqualify others' opinions, Ezra believing he knew the true form, Paulus deciding to calculate profections diferently because he was bad at math, Morinus disqualifying anything the Persians said because he was a bigot, Lilly not understanding what the PoF meant and so not using the day/night forumla for its calculation...the list goes on and on.

Never, ever, did astrologers agree. The best we neo-traditionalists can do is read everything, figure out what the ancients DID agree on, and test the rest for ourselves.

tsmall said:

I seem to recall that it had to do with calculating primary directions. Maybe Odds, if still around, can help find it? Beyond that, I have read Valens disqualify others' opinions, Ezra believing he knew the true form, Paulus deciding to calculate profections diferently because he was bad at math, Morinus disqualifying anything the Persians said because he was a bigot, Lilly not understanding what the PoF meant and so not using the day/night forumla for its calculation...the list goes on and on.

Never, ever, did astrologers agree. The best we neo-traditionalists can do is read everything, figure out what the ancients DID agree on, and test the rest for ourselves.

Click to expand...

Definitely. It's a tired put down to call astrologers who look at the tradition (notice what I did lurkers) somehow rigid and afraid of innovation when many times the people who turned to the tradition are actually critical of the lazy methods that are rampant in the more modern focused (in the majority), and not because of some fear of the "future". Hopefully, people's eyes will open to just how much variety was present at the advent of astrology as we practice it.

http://www.sevenstarsastrology.com/?p=1980

This article may come as a surprise to some folks.

conspiracy theorist said:

Definitely. It's a tired put down to call astrologers who look at the tradition (notice what I did lurkers) somehow rigid and afraid of innovation when many times the people who turned to the tradition are actually critical of the lazy methods that are rampant in the more modern focused (in the majority), and not because of some fear of the "future". Hopefully, people's eyes will open to just how much variety was present at the advent of astrology as we practice it.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Did the ancients have some sort of knowledge we in the modern era are exluded from? I mean, maybe. Certainly things have been lost over time. But we have to remember that they were human, too, and susceptible to the same human falicies that plague us today. What the ancients did do, though, is study what came before them, before they tried to "improve" on it. And they tested. Chart after chart after chart. Which is why neo-trads CAN point to many things and say, "oh, yeah, this means such and such."

consipracy theorist said:

http://www.sevenstarsastrology.com/?p=1980

This article may come as a surprise to some folks.

Click to expand...

Not to me at least. Anthony (sevenstarsastrology) is amazing. And sadly, one of the many astrologers who has turned me down as a student. Sigh.

Oh, definitely. A close reading of Valens Anthologies shows that he was very critical of some of the astrologers he sourced, notably Petosiris for speaking "in mystic riddles" vs. explaining specific techniques that could be used in an astrology practice.

Ancient astrologers often complained in their texts about charlatans, who gave the rest of them a bad name.

conspiracy theorist said:

A very good article that addresses the preconceived notion of those unfamiliar with "traditional astrology" that it is a big homogeneous behemoth with no use for experiment,deviation or improvement.

Click to expand...

Did someone say that about traditional astrologers, i.e. astrologers of yore, or were they referring to the way traditional astrology is practiced in modern times?

sibylline said:

Did someone say that about traditional astrologers, i.e. astrologers of yore, or were they referring to the way traditional astrology is practiced in modern times?

Click to expand...

It's an attitude I observe when many people have when they encounter more traditional techniques. And even within the traditional community, there are a lot of strict adherence to a select few astrologers whereby they are taken as gospel.

The latter part of your statement is also a major part of why I called attention to this article. Progress in astrology can be made if we try to develop and work with the tradition; it doesn't have to be left up to the more modernly oriented, although I'd say one of the things moderns have over a lot of the more traditionally minded is a willingness to step out and innovate.

conspiracy theorist said:

http://www.sevenstarsastrology.com/?p=134

A very good article that addresses the preconceived notion of those unfamiliar with "traditional astrology" that it is a big homogeneous behemoth with no use for experiment,deviation or improvement.

Click to expand...

conspiracy theorist said:

http://www.sevenstarsastrology.com/?p=1980

This article may come as a surprise to some folks.

Click to expand...

Wow, I found these articles really useful. And they've opened my eyes. I guess you could say that I'm the typical "naive modern astrologer" like what he said, but I think my views are expanding everyday. Plus, this is another astrology website that I probably wouldn't have found on my own.

I guess I will pay more attention to ancient astrology and learn the roots. There is probably a ton of information that is lost through the refined modern astrology.

But I still think the outer planets are important!! I don't know how traditional astrologers cannot use them. I can see Pluto not being used, but Neptune and Uranus are important because I've seen them play importance in charts.

I also thought it was interesting that Mercury was referred to as Cancer (lolwut?), and Neptune was referred to Pisces. And omg, I remember thinking Ceres was like Virgo. But I also thought it was weird that Juno was Aquarius because I thought Juno was more Libran. Isn't Juno the marriage asteroid?? I can't really imagine Aquarius doing well in marriage.

tsmall said:

Not to me at least. Anthony (sevenstarsastrology) is amazing. And sadly, one of the many astrologers who has turned me down as a student. Sigh.

Click to expand...

He has students?? Do you think he would teach me?! I actually really want to find an astrologer that will take me as an apprentice because the college I'm going to does not teach astrology.

AppLeo said:

He has students?? Do you think he would teach me?! I actually really want to find an astrologer that will take me as an apprentice because the college I'm going to does not teach astrology.

Click to expand...

While you put in your application, he has a series of articles geared towards absolute beginners which would introduce you to some basic concepts and things you haven't encountered before. Check 'em out

All, I deleted the off topic comments. Going forward if there is a question as to whether a post is appropriate for the traditional forum please pm me and do not derail the thread by quoting or discussing the forum rules. Leave the moderating to the moderators.

Tamara

conspiracy theorist said:

It's an attitude I observe when many people have when they encounter more traditional techniques. And even within the traditional community, there are a lot of strict adherence to a select few astrologers whereby they are taken as gospel.

The latter part of your statement is also a major part of why I called attention to this article. Progress in astrology can be made if we try to develop and work with the tradition; it doesn't have to be left up to the more modernly oriented, although I'd say one of the things moderns have over a lot of the more traditionally minded is a willingness to step out and innovate.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't care if a technique is relatively old or new, as long as it works. I don't think ability to make valid astrological inferences is dependent on the time period one is born.

Some part of the problem I see is the strict demarcations of modern astrologer vs. traditional astrologer (I didn't know these classifications existed until I found this forum). It would prove difficult to innovate if traditional astrology is defined as excluding anything developed in the last couple of centuries.

sibylline said:

Well, I don't care if a technique is relatively old or new, as long as it works.

Click to expand...

Bingo.But in saying that, I've personally found the techniques found in the more ancient branches more efficacious. Others will have differing opinions.

sibylline said:

I don't think ability to make valid astrological inferences is dependent on the time period one is born.

Click to expand...

Agreed. However, it seems by my observation that many are all too willing to throw out the older techniques/philosophies on a matter of principal, as many see old as automatically outdated. I think the standard of modern astrologers would improve if they actually tried to understand the origin of the craft they do, as well as gain an appreciation for the philosophy behind it all. Something like the thema mundi that shows the relationships between signs and their rulers, as well as the nature of the aspects (Oppositions have the nature of Saturn because Saturn's domicile are opposite the luminaries and so on) is just one example of information that may be missed if the attitude towards the tradition is "old and therefore irrelevant."

sibylline said:

Some part of the problem I see is the strict demarcations of modern astrologer vs. traditional astrologer (I didn't know these classifications existed until I found this forum). It would prove difficult to innovate if traditional astrology is defined as excluding anything developed in the last couple of centuries.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, more innovation will start to occur when people start testing the theories through actual chart reading, instead of reading off the various ancient techniques and being self-satisfied because you can gloat that you read Valens or Dorotheus. Same applies for the more modern contingent where there are a lot of stereotypes that are taken as gospel but no actual investigation to see if those stereotypes and views have any validity. (But then most just see astrology as mindless entertainment so I doubt they care.)

conspiracy theorist said:

Agreed. However, it seems by my observation that many are all too willing to throw out the older techniques/philosophies on a matter of principal, as many see old as automatically outdated. I think the standard of modern astrologers would improve if they actually tried to understand the origin of the craft they do, as well as gain an appreciation for the philosophy behind it all. Something like the thema mundi that shows the relationships between signs and their rulers, as well as the nature of the aspects (Oppositions have the nature of Saturn because Saturn's domicile are opposite the luminaries and so on) is just one example of information that may be missed if the attitude towards the tradition is "old and therefore irrelevant."

Click to expand...

I've seen this attitude with a few astrologers who sell their astro services. I've seen astrologers like this reject and twist people's experiences just to be right, (which is pretty silly). The idea of 'one shoe fits all' has always been appealing via trends, so it's not hard to see why that astrology sells. Can anything be done about it? Not really--there are people who need or want these things and since astrology is seen as entertainment in this day and age, we've kind of doomed ourselves for not standing up for it.

Personally, I kind of like that astrology is "hidden" but accessible. It's a silent justice that people who would misuse and sell questionable astrology won't get closer to the truth.

I also don't mind that people's way of getting to the truth of a matter is different. I agree with sibylline, in so long that it works, I'm OK with it.

More on topic--

conspiracy theorist said:

The way I see it, more innovation will start to occur when people start testing the theories through actual chart reading, instead of reading off the various ancient techniques and being self-satisfied because you can gloat that you read Valens or Dorotheus.

Click to expand...

I think anyone who sat through reading Valens or Dorotheus' entire works would want to discuss or test them, lol. I'm a bit doubtful there would be motivation to innovate what the "great William Lilly's" already said on the matter. Maybe people assume their favourite astrologer has it all figured out, as Anthony noted. As a wise man once said twice, "Admiration is the furthest thing from understanding."

Innovations also gotten a bad wrap due to how some astrologers have "innovated" to sell their techniques. Not that I care. I know what it means to conduct a statistical study. I'm going down that road.

sibylline said:

Some part of the problem I see is the strict demarcations of modern astrologer vs. traditional astrologer (I didn't know these classifications existed until I found this forum). It would prove difficult to innovate if traditional astrology is defined as excluding anything developed in the last couple of centuries.

Click to expand...

There is a marked diference between exclusion and questioning of modern techniques. Problem with a lot of modern theorems is that they are usually just corruptions of classical ones. A good example would be the case of how aspects are used, taken as geometric lines instead of interactions between signs.

However, as it was noted, this does happen too within traditional framework. Medieval and reinasance astrologers ignored most of the old hellenistic lots, but then again, what was the sound basis for using the 7 hermetic lots in the first place? its is a very good thing to question these types of things.

Unfortunatly, because of the passing of time, it is almost imposible to know exactly why some stuff in traditional astrology is used (or was used) in such a way.

conspiracy theorist said:

Bingo.But in saying that, I've personally found the techniques found in the more ancient branches more efficacious. Others will have differing opinions.

Click to expand...

For what?

conspiracy theorist said:

Agreed. However, it seems by my observation that many are all too willing to throw out the older techniques/philosophies on a matter of principal, as many see old as automatically outdated.

Click to expand...

I think the same can be said for traditional, i.e. if it's new, it shouldn't be used. IMO, more modern astrologers are willing to work with traditional astrology than vice versa. Most people will find their way of doing things to be the better way, so no surprises there.

conspiracy theorist said:

I think the standard of modern astrologers would improve if they actually tried to understand the origin of the craft they do, as well as gain an appreciation for the philosophy behind it all. Something like the thema mundi that shows the relationships between signs and their rulers, as well as the nature of the aspects (Oppositions have the nature of Saturn because Saturn's domicile are opposite the luminaries and so on) is just one example of information that may be missed if the attitude towards the tradition is "old and therefore irrelevant."

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think there is probably a better way to encourage this though, than the belittling of modern astrologers or their techniques which I sometimes see.

conspiracy theorist said:

The way I see it, more innovation will start to occur when people start testing the theories through actual chart reading, instead of reading off the various ancient techniques and being self-satisfied because you can gloat that you read Valens or Dorotheus. Same applies for the more modern contingent where there are a lot of stereotypes that are taken as gospel but no actual investigation to see if those stereotypes and views have any validity. (But then most just see astrology as mindless entertainment so I doubt they care.)

Click to expand...

Testing could only lead to innovation if any new information learned is applied but if you're applying newer information to the astrology then, as it is defined by some, it isn't traditional.

Dirius said:

There is a marked diference between exclusion and questioning of modern techniques. Problem with a lot of modern theorems is that they are usually just corruptions of classical ones. A good example would be the case of how aspects are used, taken as geometric lines instead of interactions between signs.

Click to expand...

I don't know about "usually". For example, many of the techniques used in newer forms like Uranian astrology or chart patterns could only be considered related to traditional in the very broadest sense or not at all.

All, I have moved this thread out of the traditional forum, since it has become a converstation about modern vs. traditional (again) rather than delete the off topic posts.

As a reminder, the traditional and modern boards were created with the intention of keeping these debates out of threads that dealt with one or the other solely. Neither of the two is the place to have this kind of discussion.

Tamara