The defining moment was 1543 with Copernicus's publication ... and Appollian revolution that deposed Jupiter as the Principal of the Olympian to its Central Fire and thus discovered the SOLAR system.

Prior to the Copernican vision ... the spacial centrality of the Sun redefined the Weltanschuaang of Heavenly as drastically as Columbus redefined the worldly

The defining moment was 1543 with Copernicus's publication ... and Appollian revolution that deposed Jupiter as the Principal of the Olympian to its Central Fire and thus discovered the SOLAR system.

Prior to the Copernican vision ... the spacial centrality of the Sun redefined the Weltanschuaang of Heavenly Spheres as drastically as Columbus redefined the earthly plane.

Which would be early modern, vs. post-modern.

delete

I wouldn't put things quite as strongly, Varuna2-- we can critique written histories and hegemonies of the past without resorting to strong, emotionally-freighted language. You know the saying, "History is written by the conquerers."

The main thing with studies of the past is to back up assertions with solid evidence.

You are no doubt familiar with many revisionist histories. A good way for a young up-and-coming historian to establish a reputation is to overturn the "accepted wisdom" about the past. Revisionist histories have been written pretty much forever, so there is nothing new about new generations reinterpreting events of the past, for good or for ill.

The ancient Greeks knew that the world was round. They greatly under-estimated its size, but they drew upon several lines of evidence. Ptolemy's map is a truly amazing representation of the earth's surface as it was known in later Antiquity. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic church rescripted views of the earth and cosmos better to symbolize biblical passages.

What post-modern historians seek to do is precisely to revise our views of a taken-for-granted worldview and understanding of history.

Just came across the following take on post-modernism by Irish astrologer Bill Sheeran:

www.radical-astrology.com/articles/arti ... post5.html

Traditional astrologers criticize modern astrologers for their playing fast-and-loose with astrology's time-honoured techniques. However, after about 1970, we might consider that their "anything goes" attitude is in keeping with post-modern sensibilities.

This is why I think Hand's use of the term "post-modern" is unfortunate.

delete

waybread wrote:Just came across the following take on post-modernism by Irish astrologer Bill Sheeran:

www.radical-astrology.com/articles/arti ... post5.html

Traditional astrologers criticize modern astrologers for their playing fast-and-loose with astrology's time-honoured techniques. However, after about 1970, we might consider that their "anything goes" attitude is in keeping with post-modern sensibilities.

This is why I think Hand's use of the term "post-modern" is unfortunate.

Hi Waybread,

Not sure I understand your "why": is it because Hand misappropriated the term, which is more applicable to thinking like Sheeran's, or is it because there is something seriously wrong with the latter that compromises Hand's (somewhat simplistic) proposal?

-Ed

Good morning, Ed! I was thinking more that the term post-modern is pretty well known in the academic humanities, arts, and social science circles. It has generated more than a cottage industry of research in these fields. In some departments, post-modernism (including its pals post-structuralism, post-colonialism, critical theory, &c, &c) is really the primary paradigm today.

So I think Hand's article makes astrologers look isolated (yet again) to define post-modernism as neo-traditional astrology; which is anything but post-modern in the conventional sense.

Like Humpty Dumpty saying to Alice, "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less.'"

This sort of works in children's fiction.

So this is a different concern than analysing Hand's article.

waybread wrote: So I think Hand's article makes astrologers look isolated (yet again) to define post-modernism as neo-traditional astrology; which is anything but post-modern in the conventional sense.

.

Is he doing this?

My reading of the article suggests he is being more matter of fact here and using this term to label an 'ideal' approach to Western Astrology which has manifested after, and needs to include some of, his 'modern'. Modern astrology for him is folks like Leo, Ebertin and Rudhyar. Not all that recent or modern in 2012, effectvely the type of stuff out there in the period 1900-1970 or thereabouts.

What I found interesting in this piece is his:

''Modern astrology has had one really tragic flaw in addition to its inarticulate language: its complete lack of a philosophical foundation rooted in any coherent philosophical or spiritual tradition of the world, except in the case of Jyotish.''

What the bugger is he on about here? I suspect in the company of a few of the academically inclined astrologers knobbling about today he might be taken to the dry cleaners with this notion.

Another curio is from the 'fate free will' section onwards he basically puts the Psychological Astrologers position on the table as his ideal, which is also in his terms a post modern astrology but does not reference his ideas as corresponding to or stemming from this movement. I've noticed him doing this on other occasions. One wonders why ?