Is it true traditional astrologers exclude modern planets?

[david starling]

Amazingly "those Babylonians" considered that
and I quote from the link posted

'.....Light is the primary medium for communication of the stars.

Light is the object of sight and sight is our primary sense.
The stars emanate their essence outward into Light and let us know them thereby.
The more shiny a star, the stronger.
The steadier its light, the steadier its nature.
When it shines on Earth for the most part of the night
(un-annihilated by the solar light)
then the peak of its influence.
When the star cannot be seen, then the trough of its influence.....'

But, the light isn't necessarily the Causal Effect. It's a good pattern for explaining the Correlations, but Correlation is not necessarily Causation. Modern Materialistic Science will never agree that starlight affects human feelings, thoughts, health or behavior; or that that it can be used to predict future events.It also views the Zodiacal images as primitive and fanciful.

 

[JUPITERASC]

But, the light isn't necessarily the Causal Effect.
It's a good pattern for explaining the Correlations, but Correlation is not necessarily Causation.
Modern Materialistic Science
will never agree
that starlight affects human feelings, thoughts, health or behavior; or that that it can be used to predict future events.
It also views the Zodiacal images as primitive and fanciful.

"Modern Science" is not omnipotent
and furthermore
according to some
and I quote

The next step in bringing astrology up to date
is to adopt a Sidereal Zodiac, this will make it more acceptable
to scientifically educated people.

One of the main criticisms of astrology by scientists
is the lack correspondence of signs and constellations
due to axial precession of the Earth.

QUOTE
The picture of the celestial firmament
directly observed by the unaided eyes of the astrologer
is the essence of Babylonian Astrology.
No ephemeris, no books, no computer program is Babylonian Astrology. Each and every point on the sky
with its luminosity and color
is an integral part of the picture.
And what we see on the firmament with our own eyes only
is what is important.
Some Reflections about Babylonian Astrology

 

[david starling]

QUOTE
The picture of the celestial firmament
directly observed by the unaided eyes of the astrologer
is the essence of Babylonian Astrology.
No ephemeris, no books, no computer program is Babylonian Astrology. Each and every point on the sky
with its luminosity and color
is an integral part of the picture.
And what we see on the firmament with our own eyes only
is what is important.
Some Reflections about Babylonian Astrology[/QUOTE]

What other picture did they have, since they lacked telescopes and cameras?
Modern Materialistic Science is not only only NOT omnipotent, it's severely lacking in understanding. And, it too shall pass.

 

[Michael]

What other picture did they have, since they lacked telescopes and cameras?

The important point here is that we have forgotten to watch the actual sky.

Modern Materialistic Science is not only only NOT omnipotent, it's severely lacking in understanding. And, it too shall pass.

The current obscurantism of tropical astrology shall pass. Science will return to it's roots.

 

[aquarius7000]

Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
If Saturn is sitting on your ascendant it's going to get extremely personal.

That's because it's affecting the most personal of Indicators. But, it's doing so in an impersonal way.[IMO]

Saturn is just as personal as the Asc. because it rules a sign (actually 2), and, thru it, a house in every chart. That is why it is personal. Not just because it transits the Asc.

 

[JUPITERASC]

"Modern Science" is not omnipotent
and furthermore
according to some
and I quote


QUOTE
The picture of the celestial firmament
directly observed by the unaided eyes of the astrologer
is the essence of Babylonian Astrology.
No ephemeris, no books, no computer program is Babylonian Astrology. Each and every point on the sky
with its luminosity and color
is an integral part of the picture.
And what we see on the firmament with our own eyes only
is what is important.
Some Reflections about Babylonian Astrology

What other picture did they have, since they lacked telescopes and cameras?
Modern Materialistic Science is not only only NOT omnipotent, it's severely lacking in understanding. And, it too shall pass.

If by "they" you refer to BABYLONIANS
then clearly
"they" had
just as we have today
the seven VISIBLE classical planets, as well as Fixed Stars, comets
and

The important point here is
that we have forgotten to watch the actual sky.
The current obscurantism of tropical astrology shall pass.
Science will return to it's roots.

 

[Oddity]

I think you're doing both astrology and psychology a disservice if you're just pushing a psychological agenda and using the planets as a cover. If you want to be a psychologist, then be one. Don't pretend to be an astrologer whilst handing out psychological advice.

Modern psychological and transpersonal astrology has helped astrology be relevant in the modern world. There is no doubt about that, but there is also a place for the traditional branch.

The next step in bringing astrology up to date is to adopt a Sidereal Zodiac, this will make it more acceptable to scientifically educated people.

One of the main criticisms of astrology by scientists is the lack correspondence of signs and constellations due to axial precession of the Earth.

 

[Michael]

I disagree. Astrology was an important tool for doctors in the Ancient world (Galen) and the Renaissance (Paracelsus). It's clear an astrologer can go beyond most psychologists. Some psychologists are using astrology to get deeper information. There is no incompatibility between both.

If there is such thing as medical astrology, then there can be psychological astrology.

 

[Oddity]

Medical astrology is used to find a diagnosis, or at least the system afflicted when allopathic medicine can't do that.

I assume by psychological astrology you mean identifying a psychological problem and then referring the querent to a psychologist?

I disagree. Astrology was an important tool for doctors in the Ancient world (Galen) and the Renaissance (Paracelsus). It's clear an astrologer can go beyond most psychologists. Some psychologists are using astrology to get deeper information. There is no incompatibility between both.

If there is such thing as medical astrology, then there can be psychological astrology.

 

[Michael]

Yes, astrology can do that. It can also help people solve it by themselves, if they want to.

 

[Michael]

As an aside, my thread on Ayanamshas was moved from Modern astrology to Vedic astrology. Showing how obscurantism is not just a problem of "Traditionalists" but of so called "Moderns" too.

The subject of Ayanamshas is important for many Western astrologers, not only for the Jyotish. Cyril Fagan and his followers, like Ken Bowser, are not "Vedic" astrologers.

It seems most astrologers are interested in preserving the Statu Quo.

 

[waybread]

Katy, you're aware that modern astrology is not a continuation of traditional astrology, yes?

Trad astrology nearly died out in the late 1600s, owing to a lot of things, the English civil war and the rise of professional societies chief among them. You couldn't have lunatic astrologer doctors like Culpeper running around, writing in English, telling people that falling sickness was a disease of th brain and nerves, when scientists knew it was a heart problem. Worse still, the herbals. In English. When proper medical treatment involved painful doses of mercury. He was tried for witchcraft, you know, on account of being so heretical.

Anyway, Alan Leo was a competent horarist, and it was against the law in Britain to tell fortunes, at least if you got them right, and he did on several occasions. Enough that he was going to be sent to prison.

Out of this, modern astrology was born, as character assessment, with no hint of fortune-telling. I can't blame the guy, who knows what I would've done if I'd been facing those charges? But that's where modern astrology came from, it was essentially an entire rewrite, not an advancement.

....

Oddity, you may be referring to Patrick Curry's research on the impact of the British civil war on the demise of English-language astrology. This is top-drawer stuff. But in addition, astrology died out on the continent due to a variety of factors, such as criticism by both the Catholic and Protestant churches, the Enlightenment, and medicine's divorce from medical astrology.

Let's face it: neither traditional or modern astrology has a perfect track record in predictive and diagnostic success. These criticisms were so strong in astrology's past that the old trads spent a fair bit of ink countering them, but not always successfully.

Your excellent point on Alan Leo really bears repeating. Both the US and Britain had strong laws against fortune-telling in the 19th and 20th centuries. Astrology actually fell under a 1740s British law against witchcraft. Part of this was to discourage the Roma (Gypsies) from entering a town and making a living from fortune-telling; but part of it was because of real quacks passing themselves off as professional astrologers.

It was a whole lot safer and more in keeping with the entire project of modernity as a cultural movement for astrologers to emphasize the interpretation of human personality and improvement.

See, for example: https://www.afan.org/inside/legal/the-law-and-astrology/

There were also the famous trials of Alan Leo and American astrologer Evangeline Adams for violating anti-fortune telling laws.

Frankly, I think modern astrology ca. 1900 saved astrology's bacon. As I mentioned above, depending upon how one practices modern astrology, at least a third of it is identical with traditional astrology.

And there is no problem ca. 1990 with traditional astrology revitalizing itself in a safer political climate. I just wish all of the acrimonious knee-jerk criticism of modern astrology would give way to some deeper historical-cultural understanding. I would love to get into a deeper discussion of modern astrologers' use of harmonics, midpoints, horoscope patterns, and the upgraded research in mundane astrology.

 

[AppLeo]

People who don't acknowledge the outer planets are like people who don't acknowledge germs because you can't see them.

 

[waybread]

And, vice versa, actually even more so. What good are Uranus, Neptune and Pluto without the first 7 planets that have been used for centuries before the 3 musketeers came along

However, there are still astrologers that do astrology without the outers.

Michael, it is not traditional astrology that is "fatalistic", no, not at all, unless you take rules to be fatalistic. On that account, then so is Maths fatalistic because it is very set in its ways: 2 + 2 can only be 4. I don't think it is fatalistic at all. It is precise. It gives you exact guidelines. It gives you a strong and solid fundament. Think about it.

What though can be fatalistic is how the tool (traditional or modern) is used by astrologers and put across to natives/clients. For instance, if I can see clearly that a person will not have a steady job, or may have long periods of unemployment, do I have to tell the native: hey, you are going to be unemployed for perhaps half your life. Or can i turn around and say, when he does consult me on that issue and is perhaps even presently unemployed, that his chart says that he has to develop the ability to work hard and try to stick to his job, learn to save for a rainy day. In short, convey the message differently, so I still convey the message to him, but indirectly and 'non-fatalistically'.

See just like you are saying that trad. astro is fatalistic, I could turn around and say in the same breath that modern astro is too wishy washy... anything goes... it is too fluid and imprecise. But then how does a tit for tat help us?

What, in my opinion, is important and is my advice to all novices out there, is that don't accept any of the two schools at face value or because somebody tells you so. Read on both the schools and see what makes sense to you personally, what can you work with: trad. or modern? Or, perhaps, like I do, use strictly trad. rulerships of signs (because I tried both and am convinced now by trad. r'ships), but consider the outers if they are in tight aspects to the first 7 planets.

I don't know of any modern astrologers who ignore the 7 traditional planets. Possibly Jeffrey Greene, who's written extensively on Pluto in the context of evolutionary astrology, but I don't think he's got many disciples.

More to the point, which "wishy washy" modern astrologers do you have in mind? Sure, anyone can call him/herself an astrologer and start a blog, but of the major English-language modern astrologers today, which are your especial targets?

I wonder how much solid modern astrology you've actually studied. Then what do you make of "hybrid" astrologers like Demetra George? Have you read Henry Seltzer's recent book on Eris? I think it's top-drawer. Do you use CEO Carter's horoscope patterns (like the "bucket" and "bundle")? What do you think of John Addey's research and the use of the quintile and septile? Have you read David Cochrane's work on harmonics? (I disagree with some of his approaches but find him to be a most provocative researcher.)

My particular interest in traditional astrology is in its Hellenistic origins, so I can confirm that the major literary astrologers of that period were at great pains to criticize the softie and ill-informed self-styled astrologers of their day. For example, Ptolemy's (ca. 150 CE) defense of astrology was probably written in response to Cicero's De Divinatione written in 44 BCE.

The literary sources I've read from the Hellenistic period are highly fatalistic. Part of this is because they came from a culture in which the concept of fate (and the Fates, or Moirae) went back a milenium. This mythological fatalism got reinforced by Hellenistic astrologers' adoption of Stoic philosophy.

I'm not sure there is a difference between what you and I might tell a horoscope native, other than I say ithat I practice a choice-centered astrology. We both know that any given planet in a sign, house, and aspect has multiple interpretations that are all valid within the conventional--traditional-- meanings. It is never true to say that someone is about to lose his job, using strictly astrological techniques. It could be true to say that he is about to enter a difficult, unsettled period regarding his job.

 

[waybread]

This is neither exclusively a modern sub-forum nor a trad.

There are just certain facts that all astrologers have to accept. Traditional Astrology forms the roots of Astrology. Without the roots, nothing grows, so you cannot ignore it. We cannot, no matter how much we might despise the word "traditional", do any form of Astrology without the luminaries. Try it as much as you want to. I am not even considering the likes of Merc. and Venus, let alone the fixed stars.

However, you can practise Astrology and describe a native or an event, predict events, practise Horary, etc. all without the outer planets.

All that said, why criticize Astrology at all? Any form of Astrology. You just have a wider spectrum of planets today. Use what you like as long as you can understand fully what you are doing there, and only then try predicting events so as to not mislead anyone or anything. As long as we can deal responsibly with what we are practising, it is fine. It would just be a big shame and certainly not good astrology if we were to call traditional garbage or despise the outers just to serve our own ego.

The only thing that bothers me is, if I am honest, is when some start using two planets as ruler for some signs, but are fine with just one ruler for the rest of the signs. How can that be or at least what is the explanation for that. There has to be some sensible reasoning, right? You can't just use something because it exists or has now been discovered.

It might be worth inserting another history lesson here. When I first began studying astrology there really was little or no English-language traditional astrology to study. You could find some of the classics in print, but little else. Then in the 1990s, traditional western astrology began to have a renaissance.

Part of the problem, however, was that some of the early trads like John Frawley couldn't just make their case on the basis of their new-found love of western traditional astrology. They tried to make their case on the basis of a vicious attack on modern astrology. See, for example:

John Frawley, The Real Astrology, 2001; and The Real Astrology Applied, 2002.

This type of attack subsequently caught on with newer astrologers who had never even come up through the ranks of the now-older modern astrology.

I would love to learn: of the staunch critics of modern astrology here, apart from Oddity, how many of you had a solid grounding in modern astrology before switching over? How much of the younger trads' critique of modern astrology as too "wishy washy" is based upon second-hand reports?

For a more thoughtful, conciliatory approach, I highly recommend the opening chapter of Benjamin Dykes, Traditional Astrology for Today: An Introduction. Dykes, a foremost medieval astrologer and translator, sees the principal difference between modern and traditional as one of emphasis, not of two antagonistic pitched camps with nothing in common.

I use both the modern and traditional rulers in natal chart interpretation, but not in horary, where the rules are so different. Why?? I'm a pragmatist. I learned the modern rulers back-when there was little serious traditional astrology out there. They worked well. When I experimented with traditional rulers of Pisces, Aquarius, and Scorpio, they worked well, too.

Not a problem. Many children grow up with two parents.

 

[aquarius7000]

What purpose does it serve to pick on each and every post that as much as just about touches upon the strengths of traditional Astrology? Is it because the very mention of traditional astrology is so disturbing? So disturbing that one doesn't even care to consider the context or read carefully what is actually being said, before one embarks upon remarking on a fragment of a post critically?

Let us get some examples here now:

I don't know of any modern astrologers who ignore the 7 traditional planets. Possibly Jeffrey Greene, who's written extensively on Pluto in the context of evolutionary astrology, but I don't think he's got many disciples.

Who said modern astrologers ignored the 7 trad. planets?? I implied quite the opposite: "What good are Uranus, Neptune and Pluto without the first 7 planets that have been used for centuries before the 3 musketeers came along" Thereby implying that modern astrology canNot be practised without the trad. planets try as one may. Not all the harmonics, midpoints, chart patterns can help a modern astrologer do astrology without the trad. 7 planets. That said, the reverse is quite possible. The reverse is mentioned in one of my above posts, actually just in the very post - out of which you picked out some fragements.

More to the point, which "wishy washy" modern astrologers do you have in mind?

Again, where did I say "modern astrologers" are wishy washy? Did you even try for a second to understand what was being said there and why I said it? In what context I said it, or was the mere mention of wishy washy and modern astro enough to rile you up so much that you ignored everything around it, even the context - the most important of all? I said that to make Michael understand that if he can simply say that trad astrology is too fatalistic (when all it is, is precise), then a trad astrologer can also turn around and say that modern astrology (not astrologers - which is what you said) is too wishy washy. "See just like you are saying that trad. astro is fatalistic, I could turn around and say in the same breath that modern astro is too wishy washy... anything goes... it is too fluid and imprecise. But then how does a tit for tat help us?"

Sure, anyone can call him/herself an astrologer and start a blog, but of the major English-language modern astrologers today, which are your especial targets?

I have no "especial targets", but feel like I am your especial target

I wonder how much solid modern astrology you've actually studied.

I have often wondered that about you, too.

Then what do you make of "hybrid" astrologers like Demetra George?

I have a healthy regard for Demetra darling. That is because I am sort of hybrid myself, as I have said so in many posts of mine.

Have you read Henry Seltzer's recent book on Eris? I think it's top-drawer. Do you use CEO Carter's horoscope patterns (like the "bucket" and "bundle")?

Yes, I have read it, and no, I do not use patterns - they are quite a waste of time, but then that is my opinion to which I am entitled.

Have you read David Cochrane's work on harmonics? (I disagree with some of his approaches but find him to be a most provocative researcher.)

I have been on the harmonics for quite some time and something that I actually find of value especially when looking deeper at a particular area of life, harmonics can be helpful.
Quintiles and Septiles, not so helpful. The main aspects (together with house rulers and other constellations) help me glean enough.

Now, did I manage to impress you?

The literary sources I've read from the Hellenistic period are highly fatalistic. Part of this is because they came from a culture in which the concept of fate (and the Fates, or Moirae) went back a milenium. This mythological fatalism got reinforced by Hellenistic astrologers' adoption of Stoic philosophy.

That is a discussion I would rather not get into with you because it could completely derail the thread because our opinions there differ as day and night.

I'm not sure there is a difference between what you and I might tell a horoscope native, other than I say ithat I practice a choice-centered astrology. We both know that any given planet in a sign, house, and aspect has multiple interpretations that are all valid within the conventional--traditional-- meanings. It is never true to say that someone is about to lose his job, using strictly astrological techniques. It could be true to say that he is about to enter a difficult, unsettled period regarding his job.

Here I will gladly disagree, although I do agree to a small part of that quote which is that yes, a house/sign...spoken generally... can have more than one meaning. However, and this should not be taken personally, with some thorough and strong astrology knowledge, more precise information can be gleaned when looking at a chart. I have been able to do so myself, too. Also, I have examples where other, more experienced astrologers than my petty self, have been able to say to a tee when requested for a yearly (solar reading) as to what was to transpire and in which area of life, without leaving a doubt in my mind as to what it could be. If you would like an example, here goes - and this is a true story. A traditional astrologer in Germany, told me exactly that I was going to leave the country that particular year and that it would be job-related, but somehow linked to the job I was in at that point in time (it was an intra company transfer).

Like I said, one is free to practise what one pleases as long as it makes sense to oneself. I was stuck to Uranus ruling Aquarius for a no. of years before switching to Saturn. I have stuck on to the latter for years now also and continue to do so because it makes sense to me and I am convinced by it. However, I do not completely disregard the outers, but they play but a small role for me and that certainly not as sign rulers, just as planets in aspects to inner planets or sitting on one of the 4 main angles. I also look at their house placements in natal charts.

 

[waybread]

A lot of research went into modern astrology.

A lot of the studies were based upon professional astrologers' client files, or on in-depth studies of a few charts.. Nowadays, astrologers like David Cochrane are starting to use the Astro-DataBank and to subject large files to quantitative analysis.

I don't see how a chart could possibly show "that Neptune rules Pisces." (A chart couldn't possibly show that Mercury rules Gemini, for that matter.) Rather, you might find in now-obscure astrology journals from the early 20th century, research based upon multiple mundane and natal charts that showed a connection. Alan Leo's books show an interesting progression in his thinking about Neptune.)

(One really bad technique is the interpretation of planets' discovery charts, because old telescopes had to focus on the midheaven, on cloudless nights, with the moon under or near the horizon, so they are artifacts of the telescopes of the day.)

Astrologer Kim Farnell wrote an interesting article on how Uranus became associated with Aquarius:

http://skyscript.co.uk/ur_aq.html

Modern astrology, perhaps it's fair to say, is research-oriented. That research can be highly subjective, but it's not based upon retrieving centuries-old techniques.

The outer planets work really well-- for anyone willing to explore them with an open mind. Which is why a lot of traditional astrologers use them as supplementary data points.

 

[waybread]

Because computers require maths, logic, and deal heavily in communication.

Astrologers were once ruled by Mercury because we were intellectuals. Uranus ruling astrologers, and seeing us instead as cranks, is somehow apt these days.

NB: Traditionally, going back to at least the Greeks, Mercury was seen as a separative and destabilising planet. This hasn't changed.

Not exactly.

Hermes (Mercury) supposedly gave astrology to the Greeks and was its patron. In ancient Alexandria, Hermes was also associated with esoterica, some of which related to astrologers.

Ouranos (Uranus) was the primordial god of the starry night sky. Oftentimes his name was used to signify the sky proper. In this way, he's a fitting patron of astrology.

http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Ouranos.html

(BTW, if anyone interested in mythology is unfamiliar with the theoi website, I highly recommend it.)

Sure, IT is about communication, as much as runners on foot carrying messages were in the Roman world. But IT and messengers are also very different in important ways, and it is the differences that astrological Uranus captures. Uranus also rules aviation and sudden change.

 

[waybread]

When did this happen, David? I don't recall any earth-shattering discoveries that created a new astrology. Just a guy desperate to avoid going to prison rewriting astrology to make it toothless.

This isn't entirely accurate. If you mean Alan Leo, his project was to bring astrology to the masses. A lot of his cookbook delineations are negative and deterministic enough.

Define "toothless."

 

[waybread]

Aquarius7000, apart from people whom I routinely tune out on the grounds that rational conversation with them is impossible, I actually read what people write. It is entirely possible that what people write is open to interpretations that they didn't intend. In which case a reasonable response to an off-target interpretation is to return to the initial comment and to explain it more clearly.

I could certainly go back through this thread and excavate verbatim your personal attacks on me and on modern astrology, but that would be far too tedious.

Let's just say that anyone who dishes out hard comments has to be prepared to take them in return. If you find some aspect of modern astrology to be rubbish, of course you are entitled to your opinion, but then it is only fair play to anticipate modern astrologers responding in kind.

I've been traveling for 10 days, just now home. Most of this time I had little or no Internet so I've tried to catch up with this thread quickly, when and how I could. If I didn't respond to everyone's liking, I will just have to live with it.

BTW, I have tried to answer a number of your specific questions about modern astrology. I don't know if my answers caught your attention.

As I have indicated multiple times, modern astrology is my stock-in-trade, but I have tried to educate myself about the outlines of traditional astrology. If you see how I read horary charts, you'll get some idea of my progress. So no, I do not find traditional astrology in any way disturbing-- just the assault on modern astrology.

Just tonight, in fact, I said that I thought Benjamin Dyke's more conciliatory approach to modern astrologers in his book, Traditional Astrology for Today, suggests that our main differences are ones of emphasis. Wouldn't you agree?