skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
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

Does unburied Tradition pull Modern astrology back?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3438
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In fact horary and natal specializations very rarely go together.
Given the reliability of birthtimes in 17th century was quite low, it's natural for those astrologers to focus on horary.


1)Astrology is astrology regardless of which method we are practicing at the moment. A sound basis in horary is, in my opinion, a prerequisite for a sound basis in natal astrology. They are not exclusive of each other.

2) A lack of accurate birth times does not mean the astrologer is lacking in skill. Yes, it's true that the world's finest astrologer will not give accurate readings if he or she doesn't have accurate data, but that is not a reflection of their skill, only of the lack of decent data.

3) Lilly used to give life readings based on horary charts. In other words, he would take a horary chart and describe the individual and the areas of concern to that individual in much the same way a natal astrologer would use the natal chart. See CA page 129 - 134.


Quote:
Tom, what do you consider the most valuable of traditional approaches?


I'm not sure what you mean by traditional approaches. I take the tradtional aproach period. It isn't simply a question of technique. I'm not much on being eclectic. Some people see that as some sort of a goal. I like chocolate and I like Italian food, but I don't put chocolate ice cream on my veal parmigiana.

If you want a technique that I find particularly valuable in natal astrology it would be the determination of temperament. Some moderns use this or that to get a basic outline of the native, e.g. Marc Edmund Jones and his planetary patterns, but I find the determination of temperamnet to be a better way to do this.


Quote:
Can you provide examples of perfect perfomance of traditional method in contrast to modern techniques' failure?


God is perfect; the rest of us flounder. See John Frawley, The Real Astrology pages 11 - 16 for some insight. I never claim perfection for anything other than my charm. Wink

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Boris



Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 22
Location: Moscow

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Astrology is astrology regardless of which method we are practicing at the moment. A sound basis in horary is, in my opinion, a prerequisite for a sound basis in natal astrology.


Medicine is medicine, but sound basis in acupuncture would hardly help you in doing surgery Tongue Out

Quote:
A lack of accurate birth times does not mean the astrologer is lacking in skill


yes, this just means that an astrologer is most likely became horarist Leery
Quote:
If you want a technique that I find particularly valuable in natal astrology it would be the determination of temperament


OK, what do you do with the obtained information on temperament further on?
or you just pass it along to a client?
are you sure that ancient astrologers used "temperament" the same way as you?
Confused Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1634
Location: California, USA

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Boris,

I think that the most useful thing I have learned so far is to use the original ruling planets when looking at a chart and to view the outer planets as significant, but not as rulers. charts just seem to make much more sence when I look at Jupiter as the ruler of Pisces. I've always thought they had Pluto and Neptune backwards if you were going to assign them rulerships to begin with, and really the generational planets just dont fit in well as sign rulers... In my opinion of course, i know others vary. I also think in modern astrology some of the planetary symbology has gotten mixed up with sign and house symbology, I feel as though I'm getting a much better handle on some of these differences. (I really like the way Deb has laid out this type of information on this site)

I cannot comment on Rob Hands comment as I have no idea in what context you found this quote, it certainly doesn't sound like Rob... I dont recall reading a whole lot of natal anything in Lillies CA, so it would be difficult to consider the question with any accuracy, I think. I'd have to agree with Tom in that, I find it hard to believe that anyone who is that good at horary would have difficulties in reading any natal chart... Very Happy

Granny Leery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3438
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Boris,

Quote:
Medicine is medicine, but sound basis in acupuncture would hardly help you in doing surgery


This comparison would be valid, if I were comparing Western and Eastern astrology as you have compared Western and Eastern medicine. However, when you use the same planets, same signs, same aspects etc, it is good training to learn horay first. In horary we only use a few planets and a single chart. In natal we use all the planets and a single chart plus a few other charts now and again. Ditto electional. In mundane we use lots of charts. So there is a hierarcy in astrology, and they are not exclusive.

In the US it used to be common practice for general practioners to perform minor surgery (The MD who took out my tonsils all those years ago was a GP). The human body, like astrology is fairly uniform.

There are a lot of competent natal astrologers who know nothing of horary, but should they decide to study horary, they don't start at the level of absolute beginner. The reverse is also true. There are strong common threads.


Quote:
yes, this just means that an astrologer is most likely became horarist


Correct, but it doesn't mean they are not very good natal astrologers. This is an example of market forces at work. If you want to make money at astrology, you need to provide the service most in demand. It doesn't make the astrologer poor in the other areas any more than a general practioner is incapable of surgery or a surgeon incapable of general practice.

Quote:
OK, what do you do with the obtained information on temperament further on? or you just pass it along to a client?
are you sure that ancient astrologers used "temperament" the same way as you?



1) The temperament is, in John Frawley's word, the cloth from which the rest of the judgment is cut. It is what we are underneath it all, which can be tempered by the chart of course, but not changed. A sanguine type does not become choleric because he lifts weights and bulks up. He is a sanguine with muscles. It figures into physical descriptions, and can figure into health and career issues as well. We wouldn't take a strong choleric and advise him to study accounting or suggest to a strong phlegmatic that he become a soldier. It isn't that either would be incapable or that there are no phlegmatic soldiers or choleric accountants. It is just that neither seems a good fit.

2) I don't know that all ancient and medieval astrologers used temperament the same way as each other, much less if what I do is in agreement with any or all of them. I do know they all didn't use the same formulas to determine it. Perhaps it would be better if astrology were monolithic, but the fact is, it isn't monolithic. We have splits between Ptolemy and Firmicus, just to pick a beginning point, and disagreements in the family all along astrology's history. I use it as a background characteristic that needs to be kept in mind when reading the rest of the chart. I imagine that what I do is consistent with some or perhaps many ancient and medieval astrologers.

What I do or don't do is not the standard by which all others are measured. Perhaps it should be :-). I do the best I can with what I've got, and I have reasons for doing what I do. If Rob Hand or anyone else wants to believe Lilly is a poor natal astrologer, they are free to do so. "Poor" is a value judgment anyway. It is easy to label someone "good" or "great" or "poor." Two people can come to opposite conclusions about the same individual. In the US we do that on a national scale every four years. But labels are just that, labels, and nothing more. If we want to get to the bottom of Lilly's ability as a natal astrologer, then we have to find examples and point out consistent failure on the part of the astrologer.

Opinions (value judgments) are like noses; everybody has one. Can Hand's opinion be backed up with examples (a single mistake does not make one "poor." ). I doubt Hand or anyone else can do that objectively. Selectively we can prove anything. But if you're going to make such a statement about such a renowned figure, you should be willing to substantiate it.

Best wishes,

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Boris



Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 22
Location: Moscow

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,Tom!
Thank you for the comprehensive answers.

My stand on astrological tradition is that it ought to be carefully explored and reformulated in terms of our reality.
As symbolic language astrology is highly context -sensitive.
Thus, a new context requires new interpretations.

Agree?

sincerely,
Boris

Granny, thank you Leery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3438
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My stand on astrological tradition is that it ought to be carefully explored and reformulated in terms of our reality.
As symbolic language astrology is highly context -sensitive.
Thus, a new context requires new interpretations.


What struck me as I read more and more of Christian Astrology was the fact that the concerns of the people in the 17th century are the same as the concerns of most people today. When talk radio psychologists were all the rage several years back, one of them spilled the beans. People are interested in three things: love, money, and health. When one of those are out of balance there is a problem and the trick is to brig it back into balance. This could be said of the bulk of the studies in CA.

In other words this business of their reality, our reality, my reality your reality is wildly over stated. I've never put any stock in it. The goal of astrology, or one of them, is to get to the truth (and spare me the "who's truth" bit; that's the stuff of pointless undergraduate bull sessions and about as substantive). If two astrologers can do that by different techniques, in the end it doesn't matter which route was taken. Therefore there is no justification or reason for "reformulating the astrological tradition." The implication is that the tradition is obsolete and must be changed for the better.

I agree with historian John Morill who said:


Quote:
“the greatest lie of all in the sciences and metaphysics: that we are the product of a process of maturation, in which all our knowledge is superior to that of all other cultures; and that we have refined ourselves out of and beyond most of the nonsense that held back previous cultures.”


Traditional astrology reflects reality quite nicely. Not just my reality, not just your reality or the reality of one billion Chinese; just reality. It ain't broke; there is no need to fix it.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In other words this business of their reality, our reality, my reality your reality is wildly over stated. I've never put any stock in it. The goal of astrology, or one of them, is to get to the truth (and spare me the "who's truth" bit; that's the stuff of pointless undergraduate bull sessions and about as substantive).


I will spare you the “who’s truth” bit. I want the nitty-gritty: What is the truth? And why such derision for the undergraduates? Young people have been exploring their world for centuries. So have the wise old ones. Should we also ridicule the beginning astrologer who is looking at these same reality and truth issues?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Boris



Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 22
Location: Moscow

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gobsmacked
Quote:
Traditional astrology reflects reality quite nicely


Tom, I 've been to New Jersey last Fall, indeed there are locations that encourage one to think that all these stories of Rapidly Changing World are just much ado about nothing Tongue Out

Let me give just one example.

When I ,living in Soviet Union in 1984, consulted people who wanted to emigrate I have been looking in their charts for dignified Jupiter rising and ruling 9th house+one of the luminaries in 12th + one of the outers (esp.Uranus) in 4th , etc in order to give a positive answer.

Nowadays the mere Ascendant ruler in 12th is quite enough.

That's only 20 years gap !
And you speak of centuries Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3438
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk,

I didn't mean anything personal, it's just that I remember those sessions and I see them a whole lot differently now. As for the truth, let's just say that if the truth is relative, it seems to me that we haven't learned anything, ever, because there is no truth. And if there is no absolute truth, then the statement "the truth is relative" isn't absolute either. I have a hard time with that. Furthermore, if all ideas are the same because we don't know the truth, Hitler's ideas are as good as anyone's. I have a real had time with that

Boris,

Just to shift gears a bit, you say you "used" to put Uranus on the fourth, I assume you're speaking of elections, as in electing a time to emigrate. Since the outer planets are regarded, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, as a pretty malefic lot (When was the last time you heard someone say "Oh good I'm having a Uranus transit!"), why would you want Uranus there (end of the matter) in an election? Perhaps you have an example or two. I'm a little weak in this area and your response would be appreciated. Thanks.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1634
Location: California, USA

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Several thoughts came to mind while reading some of these replies one of them was an old saying of many anthropologists, which is so popular it made it INTO an indiana jones movie "this class is about facts, if you want the truth, Philosophy 101 is down the hall." truth is relative, fact is usually a bit easier to pin down. Wink

That being said I think Astrology is also very much under the same umbrella as truth, while planetary position and such are fact, interpretation is very subjective and when taken out of context is unlikely to make any sense what so ever.

Also, I think Boris that your original question has got naught to do with what you really want to know, which seems to be something about how needs change over time??? Toms answers to your origianl question are very astute and on target, In my opnion, but it doesn't seem to be the answer you were looking for.

I know Toms answers can be a tad ascerbic on occaision, but they are also generally on target. again in my opinion. he's taken a bit of getting used to, but now I find I miss his responses when he's away for a bit.
Smile

Granny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Tom,

Is anyone able to define truth? I can't say I have seen a definition that means anything. Personally, I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute truth and I agree with you that by saying that, it could logically follow on that there is no such thing as relative truth. But I don't see that it follows on that this would mean all ideas are the same because we don't know the truth. Hitler's ideas are as good as anyone's in one sense because they are merely a reflection of the collective at the time. Do you really think that Hitler had that sort of power that he could persuade huge numbers of people if they were not resonating to the ideas already?

I was interested in your idea that traditional astrology reflects reality quite nicely. In what way? And does it do this in a way that modern astrology can't? I'm not sure I can agree that reality is just reality regardless of who we are but I'd like to know more about how you (or anyone else) see it in terms of traditional astrology or whether you think modern astrology is unable to do this in the same way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does astrology reflect reality or do the interpretations of the astrologer do the reflecting? After all, the goal is not knowing the astrological techniques but coming to insights through those techniques. Traditional astrology seems to have some clear and tight methods that help the astrologer come up with clear interpretations. As a personal example, the modern thought of planet=sign=house was one of the worst things to happen to me when I was first trying to learn astrology. After doing a few Sun, Leo, 5th house circles, I would put the books away for another year. Deb’s work on the houses has been a huge help.

I must admit my discomfort at tossing around the phrase “traditional astrology”. Is the 17th century too late to qualify? A lot of incorrect translations seem to have crept in during the Greek to Arabic to Latin voyage. Should we be purists and stick with Hellenistic times? As with ideas of truth and reality, the simple idea of a traditional astrology makes me uneasy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3438
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk Writes:
Quote:
As with ideas of truth and reality, the simple idea of a traditional astrology makes me uneasy.


Me, too. I think, in very broad terms, that traditional Western astrology is the astrology that was practiced prior to 1700 (roughly). Within that time frame we have Hellenistic astrology, medieval astrology, and what I'll call early modern astrology to describe the era of Lilly et al. Within each of those we have differences in ideas and technique. So, you're right, no one set of techniques or ideas can be called "tradtional astrology."

However, I do think there is a distinct difference between what came before our arbitrary date of 1700 and what came after particularly from the late 19th century on. Contemporary psychological astrology bears very little resemblence, in my view, to the astrology practiced in Lilly's day for both philosophical reasons as well as technique and goals of the astrologer. The common threads of pre- 1700 astrology are stronger than the common threads of post 1700 astrology which seems to have taken off in a variety of directions starting with Theosophy and ending up with psychology, and including all sorts of other things, such as the use of hypothetical planets. So when I say "tradtional astrology" I'm refering to the earlier period but I admit it is still a pretty broad term.


Sue writes:


Quote:
I don't see that it follows on that this would mean all ideas are the same because we don't know the truth. Hitler's ideas are as good as anyone's in one sense because they are merely a reflection of the collective at the time. Do you really think that Hitler had that sort of power that he could persuade huge numbers of people if they were not resonating to the ideas already?


If truth is relative, then it follows, according to those who use this line of reasoning, that one idea is as good as another regardless of what it is. To cite the oft used cliche' "Who's to say I'm wrong?" Well that brings us to the problem of Hitler or any other evil one wishes to cite. I am judging (oh what a hateful word that has become) Adolph Hitler's ideas (Aryan superiority to name one; the usefulness of genocide as another) as utterly contemptible regardless of how many people he persuaded otherwise. I think it is perverse to argue that one idea is as good as another for this reason. Hitler's ideas, are repulsive to a civlized society. This is a truth. No rational person could argue otherwise, and therefore it is not relative.

I wonder how many of the "truth is relative" squad will give George W. Bush the benefit of that doubt? Not many I'd wager. The idea that the truth is not relative, does not mean we know everything there is to know, or that reasonable people cannot reasonably disagree, or that we have it within our power to know everything. It only means that manknd has discovered some truths and still seeks others.

The other point, which I will not dwell on, is the use of the word "reality." If we find it elusive to define that term, then of course we can be as relative as we want. This is the sort of thing that makes sophists what they are or were.

Granny writes:

Quote:
I know Toms answers can be a tad ascerbic on occasion,


You don't mean acerbic, you mean charming, right? Smile

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Hitler's ideas, are repulsive to a civlized society. This is a truth. No rational person could argue otherwise, and therefore it is not relative.


Well, naturally I couldn't agree more with this. My point is that they are not Hitler's truths but the truths of the collective at a particular time. Otherwise, this would not have happened. And this is not 'Truth' as such.

I've been thinking about this a lot today but I am away from home so will have to get back to you on it. For me, it's not the concept of there being an absolute Truth that I have a problem with but how we can define what it is. It just seems like such a lame word to describe a concept that is so powerful. After I had been pontificating on this for some time I went back to reading my book. I was reading a book by Frances Yates when I came across something interesting. She was quoting from one of the parts of the Corpus Hermeticum where Trismegistus is talking with his son Tat. Tat asks him what Truth is. He replies 'that which is not polluted, which has no limit, no colour, no form, is motionless, naked, shining, which can only be apprehended by itself, the unalterable Good, the Incorporeal.' It goes on to say that Truth cannot be perceived by the senses and can only be known by the effects of its power and energy, which demands that a person must be capable of understanding birth in God.

This is more like it. To speak of whether George Bush is speaking the truth or John Kerry or whether anyone is speaking or comprehending the truth of any given situation is to miss the point of 'Truth' in its pure form.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Boris



Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 22
Location: Moscow

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I assume you're speaking of elections, as in electing a time to emigrate. Since the outer planets are regarded, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, as a pretty malefic lot (When was the last time you heard someone say "Oh good I'm having a Uranus transit!"), why would you want Uranus there (end of the matter) in an election?


Tom, I meant natal charts , not elections.
In fact in 1984 KGB left not much room for elective activity Cool Confused

However, were I in a position to do elections in those days ,Uranus in the 4th would be a choice - "swift and easy roots' disruption "
I am afraid your attitude towards Uranus is a bit traditional Leery
After all don't you see that it's Uranus who Tongue Out Tongue Out makes our conversation possible!

Hi, Granny!
Quote:
what you really want to know, which seems to be something about how needs change over time???


Originally, I was curious about someone's attempts to figure out how outdated world-view of ancients was reflected in their astrological thinking.
My take on astrology is basically temporal.
Do you agree that Astrology is intrinsically the Science of Time?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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