home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Robert Hand and Post Modern Astrology
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated