31
Hello,
As this is yet another parallel universe that engender another squabble on tradition v modern,
No it's not... or at least that's not what it's suppose to be...

My original intention was to see whether those astrologers who currently used traditional/ancient/medieval methods in most of their work still retain any of the techniques they learnt from modern (assuming they did come from "modern" astrology) and if possible, why...

32
Please, i dont want to generate any blood sports, nor would i want anyone to think that i am creating any attack on his holiness, "The Pope", but many records of "The Early Years", are in "The Vatican Archives", and i must say, every day that "The Pope" opens his window on St Peter's Square, the first thing he see's is an ancient relic that has been taken from Egypt.

33
My original intention was to see whether those astrologers who currently used traditional/ancient/medieval methods in most of their work still retain any of the techniques they learnt from modern (assuming they did come from "modern" astrology) and if possible, why...
Astrojin,

What's happening to your stated and restated topic? Dan Brown and the Pope...It's enough to make a poor student of astrology weep. It doesn't take long for the Pope to make an appearance in these hot topics.

34
My original intention was to see whether those astrologers who currently used traditional/ancient/medieval methods in most of their work still retain any of the techniques they learnt from modern (assuming they did come from "modern" astrology) and if possible, why...
Hi Astrojin,

I think this question is a bit difficult to answer. A large percentage of modern techniques have their original basis in traditional astrology. So if we retain things we have learned in modern astrology it is most likely have they a traditional history. I don't think it is a case of completely ditching the modern to go to the traditional. It is more a case of rejecting anything from modern astrology that does not have a strong basis in tradition or just leaving out the adaptations that modern astrologers have made. I personally do not use techniques that do not have a strong grounding in tradition but it is impossible to say that I learned nothing from studying modern astrology.

I found it very easy to move to a more traditional view of astrology. This is largely due to attending some of Deb's workshops in Sydney almost five years ago. What she had to say made such perfect sense that I could no longer see it any other way. I did not struggle at all with letting go of some of the modern techniques I had learned. There never was a time when I had to remind myself that Saturn was the ruler of Aquarius rather than Uranus, for example or that the natural zodiac is a modern adaptation. I was already disillusioned with modern astrology and was ready to give up. I am a historian by profession anyway and have a very strong Saturn in my chart so it will always be easier for me to go this way.

35
I am sorry that i may have left an impression that my comments wasn't in line with astrological thought, which i need to explain.
Our very techneques in astrology follow ancient myths and legends.
The present obelisk in St. Peter's square was brought to Rome by Caligula, who lived the myth of Osiris and Isis.
This obelisk was moved to its present position by Pope Sixtus V in 1586, who's crest of four Lions can be seen to this day on this monument.
The myth of Leo is entwinned with Regulus, so as you see i am contributing to this discussion, and a major myth of Virgo/Leo.

36
skippy wrote:As this is yet another parallel universe that engender another squabble on tradition v modern, I refer to you to Rob Hands immensely well written paper on www.astro.com. I totally endorse this view and have nothing more to add other than what I've said recently on other threads.
thanks Skippy! made excellent reading and food for thought.

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