37
I just read the Hand article referred to above and strongly recommend it. There is a lot of food for thought, and more than a few things I would disagree with. That's not the point. It is a well articulated position and at the same time a challenge to astrologers who wish to take our art seriously. In fact it is a good starting point for astrologers of all pesuasions to begin to get their acts together (and that is far more important than deciding whether or not Ceres rules Virgo). Read it. We should take parts out and discuss it on a different thread.

The suggestion that astrology take books, copy them and put them online, like the Early English Books Online project is fantastic, and I would love to see it done. We need to support projects like this.

Tom

38
Hello again,

I was tempted to come back to challenge Tom's view of Gnosticism but I can see I unintentionally provided a pretext for the Anti-clerical lobby to get in their bit. Enough already.

On the Robert Hand article I am confused. Is this 'Towards a Post-Modern Astrology?' This was the talk given by Rob Hand at the British Astrological Association conference last year right? If so the link Skippy gave has been discussed on Skyscript quite a bit already. Kirk posted this link a while back under the News, Notices, Books & Links section of the website. The thread is entitled Hand's Talk: Towards a Post-Modern Astrology. Lots of people contributed to that thread discussion. As Tom suggests Hand's article is an excellent contribution to the traditional/modern astrology debate. Nevertheless, it contains the odd conclusion which is open to debate.

I suggest that people who haven't seen or contributed to that earlier thread take a look at what has already been posted on this topic.
Last edited by Mark on Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

39
Is this 'Towards a Post-Modern Astrology?' This was the talk given by Rob Hand at the British Astrological Association conference last year right? If so the link Skippy gave has been discussed on Skyscript quite a bit already. Kirk posted this link a while back under the News, Notices, Books & Links section of the website. The thread is entitled Hand's Talk: Towards a Post-Modern Astrology.
Yes it is the same, and I should have made that clear. I do think that there is so much in that talk/article, that we could spend more time on other areas to good effect, but you're correct, lets not reinvent the wheel.

Also, I have enormous respect for Robert Hand, but as he has said himself, "Don't believe it just because I say it." That sort of honesty and humility is just too rare to be unappreciated, it also opens the door for anyone to feel free to agree or disagree with whatever he says, and there is so much in this article that we haven't touched.

Tom

41
MarkC wrote:. Kirk posted this link a while back under the News, Notices, Books & Links section of the website. The thread is entitled Hand's Talk: Towards a Post-Modern Astrology. Lots of people contributed to that thread discussion. As Tom suggests Hand's article is an excellent contribution to the traditional/modern astrology debate. Nevertheless, it contains the odd conclusion which is open to debate.

I suggest that people who haven't seen or contributed to that earlier thread take a look at what has already been posted on this topic.
I cannot find it through search, perhaps you would be kind enough to supply a link?
I am sure there are NEW and different people responding since the last time.

We all digress in long threads and I truly enjoy being involved or just passively reading ya'all's posts because this is the ONLY forum I have found that is not almost entirely responded to by table top astrologers.
Most (if not all) here are serious practitioners......that is a TREAT!

Monk, come back. if there are those who don't understand your rather eclectic style, that should not matter, for there are those of us who do.
I for one, enjoy it.....it stirs the spirit.

as for the main topic:
I use mostly traditional.......I get results.
What I have kept from modern is that which was originally traditional (as I have learned it......and continue to learn).
I do keep notes on the outer 3, especially in electional, mundane and horary. In natal charts I leave them out of the chart but note them elsewhere towards gleaning "essense" and strengths, debilities of them whic someday-perhaps when I retire and the children have gone on their own- I will compile and study them.

I make exercise with charts that other "in the public eye" astrologers interpret and I will delienate those charts using traditional ways to see if all those extra's were even necessary......or if perhaps I arrive at a totally different outcome.
Sometimes I give up when it just makes no sense (to me) and will probably go back over it in the future after events unfold.

I will use harmonic's in mundane charts and sometimes I look at the different house systems in natal, but rely on whole sign houses for that which I have questions or trouble on/with.
I do not use progressions but I do use transits in conjunction with returns, profections and firdaria. Primary directives are still confusing to me in delinating them.
Traditional is a lot more work but I have found it is worth it.
I cannot read minds nor am I psychic and usually don't want to know what someone else thinks since I believe action's speak louder then words. And as a female I'd get caught up in "intentions" rather than results and if one thing my degree in psychology has taught me is that "that labyrinth has no exit and you end up where you started" (pun intended).

Otherwise, that's about it.

42
I cannot find it through search, perhaps you would be kind enough to supply a link?
I am sure there are NEW and different people responding since the last time.
Hello Carnna,

Here is the link to the thread on Hand's article first posted by Kirk back in April 2006:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1523

I accept there are always new people joining Skyscipt. I just thought people should know the link & discussion are not new even if some of the people coming across Hand's article are!

On top of this I see Tom has just started a whole new thread on Hand's article under the Philosophy & Science section on Skyscript.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1800

Mark

43
As the basis of this thread, which i wasn't aware of, has a new location, i feel that it would be ok to express an area of study that gets to the heart of how the balence is formed between psychic intuition, our brains ability to soak up information, and the undoubted brain power that is required to be a great astrologer.
I admit that i come from a background of psychic studies.
Also i dont really know where to put a new thread like where my thoughts are taking me, thus i am continuing at this point.
The cliche regarding female intuition has a basis of merit, that i wish to bring forward later in this thread, but feel the need to see what response i get from a student paper from Bryn Mawr College, although you will have to go to other web-sites to get other information, as the web-link that hopefully will work, is only dealt with in general.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/n ... iadis.html

45
Hey astrojin!

I'll will try to keep my response simple. My main area of practice has been 'madness.' That was an accident by the way but it does show how and why I have stuck with the techniques I do. When it comes to interpretation, modern astrolology seems to focus on and work in the psycological areas of life. I do, believe there is a place for this, especially in my area of study. A psycolocical situation (in the madness arena) can be more indicitive of significant time periods to be aware of than any actual events. Also, surprisingly, there are not that many resources for 'madness' so I kinda have to go it alone.

I always use traditional rulerships, dignities and traditional house meanings, Secondary progressions, Returns and traditional aspects. I do believe these techniques are all rooted heavily in tradition (including progressions) and I also believe that there is solid theory there.

I use (still hold on to) the aspects forming patterns. When two quincux aspects form the Yod as a pattern I still pay attention. I believe it's ignorant to ignore the outer planets and say things like "They don't matter to the individual". I think comments like this would have our predecessors rolling in their graves. At the same time, I do not believe we have studied them long enough to come to any absolute interpretations or conclusions. Sadly, I will most likely not be alive to experience my outer planet returns:(

Having said this, I hold on to outer planets but try to be careful in interpreting specific events related to them and will only cross that line when the traditional 7 back it up.

Oh yes, a number of positions being visible in order to interpret a truth. I think that that is a modern idea. More than 3 indicators to the same event. I definitely use that.