61
James M wrote:
hi mark,

i went and re-read your comments. as i understand you, lilly used minor aspects only when looking at the primary direction data with regards to natal astrology.. let me know if i am still getting it wrong!
No that?s right James. However, I really feel we are now going over and over the same points on Lilly. I have really said all I want to say on this subject and then some!

James M wrote:
mark, i realize we have moved away from the focus of your thread - origin of aspect patterns. many aspect patterns that i am familiar with include the use of these same minor aspects too though, so it makes some sense to take a closer look at the history of their use and how they would have been a step in a different direction astrologically from the classical approach.. this is a diversion also but can you tell me if hellenistic and medieval are lumped together under the term 'classical approach'?
I really don?t know what you mean here James. It might be easier to pick such points up on the new thread Michael Sternbach has created on aspects.

James M wrote:
tony louis seems like an astrologer who is building bridges between a few different astrological approaches, so i am not surprised he has used minor aspects. i wonder if he still does?
No idea. Why don?t you ask him? I know you read his blog.

James M wrote:
you might be right about the astro community having lost interest in harmonics. heaven forbid they lose interest in arabic parts too since zollers work, or any of the other very special popular interests of a small community of astrologers who contemplate these types of idea/techniques.. this is off track too, but i get the impression the astrological community is not growing gangbusters, or even growing much.. it might be a fairly small sized group in the west.. banyan book store in vancouver has about the same size of space for astrology books on it's shelves as i believe it did about 20-30 years ago so far as i can tell.. maybe more people are reading e astro books! ben dykes would know. the reason i mentioned arabic parts in passing is from noting some similarities with harmonics and arabic parts, but i don't know that many in focused on a 'classical approach' want to even consider this. i left an article here a year or more ago discussing just this, but it wasn't taken up by anyone. here it is again for anyone curious.
http://www.astrosoftware.com/arabicparts.htm
I am not so sure astrology teachers are necessarily that in touch with what is going on on the ground. They have their core of students, and clients, and travel from astrological conference to conference. But I suspect that can often give a rather artificial view on what is actually going on. I would guess people like myself, that run astrology groups, are more in touch with how strong astrology really is in local communities. I know the feeling from most of the group organizers I have spoken to is that astrology is in decline across the UK and has been for decades. The problem many groups identify is a lack of younger people coming through. As a community we are getting older. Not a good omen for the future. In the UK you don?t find astrology on anything but Sun signs in regular bookshops today. I recall 30 years ago they often sold more intermediate books too such as Derek and Julia Parker's books. Although, online book buying is increasingly common so quite possibly that interest is being met that way nowadays. People also seem to come to astrology more through the internet rather than books these days. The ?solitary astrologer? seems to be a more common phenomenon which I think is rather sad.

James M wrote:
going back to lilly and how much he did or didn't use minor aspects. i don't think lilly is the be all and end all of everything. i would be happy to stop talking about him and minor aspects too! my question to others including yourself who might still be reading this thread - who uses minor aspects? how does one discount their use if they never give them a serious attempt by incorporating them for a time?
Lets please stop talking about Lilly. I think its been discussed to death here! On the philosophical issue can I suggest we take that discussion to Michael Sternbach?s new thread on aspects?

Mark wrote:
Your not explicit James but the underlying implication I take from your comments here (and many of your comments in this thread ) is that those that follow a traditional astrology today have closed or rigid minds. Earlier in this thread you described traditional astrology as a mental 'straightjacket'. This is a fairly common prejudice amongst those following a modern or eclectic approach about traditional astrologers.
James M wrote:
i would say that is a fair characterization of me. i might put it down to an overly sensitive awareness/attitude of being on skyscript where modern approaches always play 2nd fiddle to traditional ones while being subject to ridicule too.. do you think that is a fair characterization of skyscript generally? i think it might be changing for the better too thanks to more diversity in the membership here at skyscript at present... these are my own relatively subjective impressions..
Your missing the bigger picture James. The vast majority of the internet is dominated by modern astrology. Modern astrologers are not some small persecuted minority. They dominate the scene. On many modernist sites traditional astrology is received with all kinds of inaccurate prejudices. And our ideas are often described as plain weird, ?outdated? or ?fatalistic?. So Skyscript is like an oasis for those of us more traditionally or historically orientated.

I accept on say the traditional forum that may make you feel a bit of an outsider at times. However, try and see it from a traditionalists' perspective if you can. I cant discuss many of the issues I raise here anywhere else. Modern or eclectic astrologers like yourself have many other sites or forums to choose from. That is not a suggestion to stop posting or participating here though! You have become a familiar 'regular' in our little astro community here!

Perhaps in reaction to modern astrological prejudicial attitudes some people studying traditional astrology can go too far and become evangelical about it or even bigoted themselves. I would never defend such narrow minded attitudes. Astrological supremacists of any variety are an anathema to what a successful forum is about. They are like a cancer in the astrological community as I see it.

I never consciously tolerate posts like that as a moderator and challenge it whenever I see it. I always encourage members to raise such complaints with the moderators or failing satisfaction that way Deb herself. However, I should state that you yourself have made derogatory comments on aspects of traditional astrology you don?t personally resonate with. So ?ridicule? of others can be a two sided coin! You might want to reflect on that......

Fundamentally, I think we all need to respect astrological diversity and the right of others to think differently from ourselves. I think the problem is that people often want to see their personal astrological views validated by the wider court of astrological opinion.

To be brutally honest James, I do think you can be a tad oversensitive to perceived slights at times here. For example, I recall one comment of mine you thought was an attack on modern astrology when it was not even remotely on my mind!

Mark wrote:
You seem to view traditional astrology as a deficit model missing options you consider crucial e.g. minor aspects, harmonics, midpoints etc. However, a traditional astrologer may see modern astrology in a similar light. Modern astrology is missing out on many features a more classical astrologer might regard as crucial to basic delineation.
James _M wrote:
this would explain why i am more attracted to an eclectic approach that can incorporate ideas from either. i don't think of these 2 areas as mutually exclusive, but perhaps some in these separate camps do.
This is actually a big topic which I think I will skip here for reasons of time.

Mark wrote:
So who is limiting their options more here? Isn?t it fairer to avoid judgmental and simply accept there are different valid options available? Ultimately, we all end up being selective regarding what astrological philosophy and techniques we choose to adopt.
James M wrote:
i think anyone who wants to box themselves into a particular category - traditional or modern - is limiting themselves. this might be an example where saturn or limitation is your friend, or not! regarding being judgmental- i think you're right.. i will do my best to avoid being judgmental and see if i can ignore it when i feel like i am witnessing it too..
I could argue against eclecticism if it ends up in what could create a confused, smorgasboard of astrological techniques that have no philosophical consistency. That doesn't mean I think all eclecticism is ill conceived if the astrologer has a clear idea of what they are trying to do both practically and philosophically. However, it?s a discussion in itself I have no further time or taste for at present.

Mark wrote:
Also not all of us think eclecticism is necessarily the best way forward on a practical basis. Some may feel working within a particular tradition has its strong advantages over mixing up techniques from different times and places with contrasting underlying logic and philosophy. If we compare astrological options to menu items we might say some prefer to eat Indian cuisine on its own rather than mix it with Italian pasta or Japanese sushi! Hence someone might decide to work with say Morin?s method or in a more Hellenistic style.
James M wrote:
i understand this.. i am curious though if you think there is room for innovation in a traditional approach? an aspect pattern is either an innovation or a concept that has no relevance, depending on whether one adheres to a particular tradition or school of thought, or allows room for innovation.. tell me if i have that wrong. thanks..
That is as much a philosophical as practical issue. I would rather look at this on a separate thread on the philosophy forum. Such questions are much easier to ask than give considered answers to.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

62
hi mark,

thanks for your comments here. there are a couple of ''you'' statements that i find challenging to go along with or accept, but overall i appreciate your ongoing desire to engage me! i have no desire to get involved in countering some of the comments you've made here either! i had meant to respond to this thread earlier, but got caught up in many responsibilities.

i will address some of my thoughts that relate to this thread on michaels thread on aspects that i feel go directly into your question about these astro patterns.. i can't say i know the origins of the names of them, but i think it has to do with a shift in thinking about astrology where aspects are very central to the approach. i plan on taking up michaels thread in the next week when i find the right time for it.

cheers james