Cary2
Banned
Most astrologers catagorize their fellow astrologers according to the two catagories, modern and traditional. I use three catagories so I can introduce myself more accurately. What are usually called "modern astrologers", I tend catagorize as conventional astrologers, those who follow the form that was prominent in the 20th century.
True modern astrologers, in my way of thinking, start with Johannes Kepler who actually predates William Lilly. In fact, I believe Kepler was the first so-called psychological astrologer. Kepler perceived the harmonic nature of aspects. So the term "traditional astrologers" does not work for me based on dates or antiquity. Though William Lilly praised Kepler, I don't think he was in Kepler's catagory. Kepler invented the most prominent of the so-called minor aspects, and he was skeptical of his contemporaries and skeptical of the validity of houses.
In my view, Modern astrologers like Kepler, Ebertin, and Seymour-Smith diminish the importance of houses and signs while emphasizing the importance of planetary contacts and configurations. Some ignore houses, but others simply derate them in overall importance. Conventional astrologers, of the 20th century variety, often put house and sign interpretation first followed by other considerations. Traditional astrologers seem to defy definition since they have numerous subcategories; they must qualify themselves accordingly.
Most of the books available on astrology are based on conventional astrology. I'm happy to be here, and I look forward to the forum.
True modern astrologers, in my way of thinking, start with Johannes Kepler who actually predates William Lilly. In fact, I believe Kepler was the first so-called psychological astrologer. Kepler perceived the harmonic nature of aspects. So the term "traditional astrologers" does not work for me based on dates or antiquity. Though William Lilly praised Kepler, I don't think he was in Kepler's catagory. Kepler invented the most prominent of the so-called minor aspects, and he was skeptical of his contemporaries and skeptical of the validity of houses.
In my view, Modern astrologers like Kepler, Ebertin, and Seymour-Smith diminish the importance of houses and signs while emphasizing the importance of planetary contacts and configurations. Some ignore houses, but others simply derate them in overall importance. Conventional astrologers, of the 20th century variety, often put house and sign interpretation first followed by other considerations. Traditional astrologers seem to defy definition since they have numerous subcategories; they must qualify themselves accordingly.
Most of the books available on astrology are based on conventional astrology. I'm happy to be here, and I look forward to the forum.
