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

John Frawleys Horary textbook now available

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> News, Notices, Books, Links
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tom
Moderator


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

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:46 am    Post subject: John Frawleys Horary textbook now available Reply with quote

[Somehow, (no one’s quite sure how), the original post to this thread has disappeared.

It was a notice that John Frawley’s new Horary Textbook is now available and can be purchased online from John Hayes Bookstore at http://www.johnhayes.biz/store/ . Sorry about that John, I'll put the info here and what's currently the bottom of the thread - Deb]



Hi,

I've been away for a few days and found John Frawley's The Horary Textbook had arrived. I've only read about 30 pages, but I can see it is what one would expect from John: erudite, crammed with common sense, wide experience, good humor and a bit of controversy.

Quote:
Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto ... have not a fraction of the importance with which they are invested by most contemporary astrologers.


Is there aother textbook of horary that answers the question: "What signifies the person who told the cops about your secret life as a criminal mastermind.?"

No, of course not. You'll have to buy it to get the answer.

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



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny you should bring up the outer planets Tom. As you know, I am a traditional astrologer and so use the outer planets sparingly. But when looking at Ficino's chart a couple of days ago, I couldn't help but wonder what he would have made of it if he had known about the outer planets. He talks at great length about his chart, particularly the strong Saturnian influence. His ascendant was Aquarius and Saturn was conjunct in the first house. He had a Capricorn Moon and what he believed to be Mars in Aquarius although it was still in Capricorn. He may have felt better if he had known that Mars was in Capricorn since it is exalted there. However, he had Sun opposing Uranus with an orb of 25', Moon in partile opposition to Pluto and Neptune in conjunction with Jupiter. Pretty strong aspects. Probably would have made him even more miserable about his chart than he already was. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


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

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Sue,

You caught me just before I was heading up to bed. John's quote pertained specifically to horary, but I know his attitude isn't much different when it comes to natal or other types of astrology.

And I recall Fincino tended to blame his Saturn for everything. Morinus blamed his 12th house for all his problems.

As for the outers if known by earlier astrologers, I wonder about that myself. It is one thing for contemporary traditionalists to abondon something they once used, and most of us began using the outers and God knows what else, but after the discovery of Uranus astrologers wondered what to do with it; they didn't urge abandonment. It is also true by the late 18th century there was a disconnect with what we know call traditional astrology and a desire to incorporate astrology into the new worldview. So they may have felt obligated to include the planet(s) that seemed to preclude astrology from serious study. Today it is almost the reverse. There is so much space junk out there that ignoring things we can't see is easier than trying to include it all.

As for Fincino, well, he had a depressive personality, so if he were consistent, he mayhave seen his chart just as gloomily as he did without the outers.

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



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read an interesting article recently on astrology's demise in the 17th century and its bearing on the decline and death of beliefs. In the article, the author describes Galileo’s response to the criticisms of an astrologer regarding his discovery of the four moons of Jupiter. One astrologer responded by saying that such planets, if they exist, remain ineffective because of their smallness. Galileo’s response to that was to suggest he lodge a complaint against nature and God and not against him. Smile But he goes on at great length to express a belief that small things and invisible forces can exert powerful influences. From memory, I think Nick Kollerstrom talks about this in his article on Galileo on this site. And, of course, it is because of Galileo and others like him that we are able to know that the other planets and celestial bodies exist. However, the whole system of traditional astrology is based on the seven planets. It is unlikely that Ficino would have been interested in the outer planets for the reason that his astrology relied heavily on the whole philosophy around seven planets. His astrology was centred on the correlation of the seven metals, seven celestial spheres, seven planets etc. He was particularly interested in the correlation between seven planets and the body. The talismans that represented the seven planets had been developed for centuries and required a deep understanding of these energies. I have yet to see anything that incorporates the outer planets with the same sense of understanding that this system has. And this is one reason I am not interested in the way scientists call for scientific proof and attempt to use reductionist techniques to pull apart a system that has no business being pulled apart. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. You can’t scientifically prove a system like that. I agree completely with something François Trojani said, which I quoted in one of my articles saying, 'for all its great usefulness, science is a very limited, very fragmented, and not very profound way of trying to investigate the mysteries of the universe.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
However, the whole system of traditional astrology is based on the seven planets.

I have seen the Sun, Moon and the traditional planets (except Mercury). But you know, I have looked to the east many times and never have seen a sign that says “Ascendant here” , nor have I looked up and seen the MC. I have yet to see the tropical zodiac spread across the sky. The invisible is already at the foundation of traditional astrology.

Quote:
It is unlikely that Ficino would have been interested in the outer planets for the reason that his astrology relied heavily on the whole philosophy around seven planets.


Now I don’t want to be too argumentative here, but let’s give the man a chance. His philosophy was based on what was known then. We don’t know what adaptations he may have come up with. What they didn’t know becomes our tradition. That doesn’t work for me. But neither does the modern fear and trembling before the outer planets, along with the overuse and overemphasis of them. They seem to offer a lot of people the opportunity to write a lot of sheer crap about them.

The Frawley book is undoubtedly good. I have yet to purchase his other books. Powell’s bookstore (of powells.com fame) is 2 miles from me, but I haven’t allowed myself in there for 3 or 4 years. Row after row, room after room, of books. Absolute hell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


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

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What they didn’t know becomes our tradition. That doesn’t work for me.


Oh, I see, our tradtion is based solely on ignorance. And what we don't know becomes someone else's tradition, and therefore what we know doesn't work either? Or do we know it all now and safely dispense with the past? Or perhaps "they" didn't know anything at all of value? We are an amazing culture having come so far despite being held back by so much ignorance. My arm aches from patting myself on the back.


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.” -- John Morrill


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



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wrote the following in reference to Ficino and the outer planets:
Quote:
His philosophy was based on what was known then. We don’t know what adaptations he may have come up with. What they didn’t know becomes our tradition. That doesn’t work for me.


In Ficino’s time the outer planets weren’t known of, therefore the astrology of the past consisted of the lights and 5 planets. In the current age children around the world learn in school about Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. This is basic knowledge about our solar system. Other ages weren’t aware of the outers, we are. I feel it is up to us to incorporate them into the traditional thought. Expansion, not rejection, of the tradition.

My criticism is of present-day astrologers. The astrologers of the past didn’t use the outers because they weren’t aware of them. Some astrologers of the current age don’t use them because they choose to ignore them. However, they sometimes use them grudgingly when faced with a prominently placed one which just won’t go away. That is what doesn’t work for me. We must sincerely and fully accept them, and learn how to use them. Some of the most interesting and exciting thoughts in that respect come from modern “traditional” astrologers. The integrated philosophical basis of the tradition provides a solid foundation for the addition of new elements. That is truly progressive astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The astrologers of the past didn’t use the outers because they weren’t aware of them.


The astrology of Ficino and those of his time was closely tied to hermetic and Neoplatonic philosophy. Their philosophy was based on the belief that the past was always better than the present and that the earliest thinkers walked more closely with the gods than the rationalists. When the Corpus Hermeticum was rediscovered, it was Ficino who translated the treatises into Latin. In these treatises, the cosmological framework was always astrological. The material world was under the rule of the stars and the ‘seven Governors’ as the planets were called. The beliefs of the Renaissance astrologers were not so much based on the factual knowledge of the time that there are seven planets but on the traditions of the ancients to whom they looked for their understanding of the universe. If, for arguments sake, the three outers were discovered in the lifetime of Ficino, he would not have been able to incorporate them into the already existing system. It would have required the development of a completely new system, and one that had no solid foundation to support it. I don’t believe this is always properly understood by astrologers who use the outer planets.


Quote:
The integrated philosophical basis of the tradition provides a solid foundation for the addition of new elements.


Actually, I don’t believe this is true. As an example, if you read Deb’s articles about the traditional rulerships she explains how this is a complete system in itself and doesn’t allow for the addition of the outer planets. Modern astrologers who give rulership to the outer planets are disregarding the principles behind the philosophy of rulerships. In the same way, attempting to incorporate the outer planets into the traditional philosophy of astrology is disregarding the integrity of the system as it stands.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some comments on a few of Sue's points:

Quote:
The astrology of Ficino and those of his time was closely tied to hermetic and Neoplatonic philosophy.

And that Hermetic and Neoplatonic philosophy is still there and is a major part of the foundation, but I don’t see the necessity for us to be as closely tied to it as they were. I’m stepping into the history of astrology, where I admit my knowledge is still unclear, but wasn’t their astrology already a blend of Neoplatonic thought and Mesopotamian roots? And as Robert Schmidt and others have pointed out, astrology had made some major changes between Hellenistic times and the Renaissance. Change and incorporation happened in the past and can still happen.

Quote:
The material world was under the rule of the stars and the ‘seven Governors’ as the planets were called.

We can still work with that. Visible planets and the material world. Invisible planets and...? That looks to me like a clue in how to use the outers appropriately. For me this ties in with keeping the traditional dignities. The outer planets are a different category of planets astrologically. They are beyond the linkage of visible planet and material world. I can see the category of the outers as an “add-on” which could be integrated into the existing structure. Let’s not assume that the outers would then have to be worked into the dignities scheme. That was the mistake of modern astrologers which was done out of ignorance, or lack of understanding and appreciation, of the traditional system.

Quote:
he beliefs of the Renaissance astrologers were not so much based on the factual knowledge of the time that there are seven planets but on the traditions of the ancients to whom they looked for their understanding of the universe. If, for arguments sake, the three outers were discovered in the lifetime of Ficino, he would not have been able to incorporate them into the already existing system. It would have required the development of a completely new system, and one that had no solid foundation to support it.

If the Renaissance astrologers looked to the ancients for their understanding of the universe, and if Ficino would not have been able to incorporate new planets into the already existing system, isn’t that an indication of the limits of Renaissance astrological thought.? Is it a good thing to build a philosophical structure that can’t change? Do we want to simply look to the thought of the Renaissance, which looked to the ancients? I say we can still look to them and use the foundation they provided, but we can also build on it.

I want to mention again how the new planets are often looked at by some “traditional” astrologers when they are just too prominent to ignore. This shows an insincere, incomplete and ultimately ineffective astrological philosophy. As much as I don’t like the idea, it would be more honest to ignore those planets completely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Somehow, (no one’s quite sure how), the original post to this thread has disappeared.

It was a notice that John Frawley’s new Horary Textbook is now available and can be purchased online from John Hayes Bookstore at http://www.johnhayes.biz/store/


(Sorry to interrupt the discussion - Deb)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Change and incorporation happened in the past and can still happen...I can see the category of the outers as an “add-on” which could be integrated into the existing structure...I say we can still look to them and use the foundation they provided, but we can also build on it...I want to mention again how the new planets are often looked at by some “traditional” astrologers when they are just too prominent to ignore. This shows an insincere, incomplete and ultimately ineffective astrological philosophy. As much as I don’t like the idea, it would be more honest to ignore those planets completely.


You might perhaps find the Orcus 2004DW discussion between Kevin and me of some interest...

Do attempts to incorporate the outer planets into the traditional philosophy of astrology disregard its integrity? It seems to me that this depends upon which outer planets one might wish to incorporate, the underlying rationale for their selection and inclusion, one's understanding of what constitutes a traditional philosophy of astrology (not to mention one's selection of one's preferred astrological system and philosophical worldview), whether one's understanding of traditional philosophy is rigid and inflexible or pliant and adaptive, the latitude of interpretation one permits oneself in articulating an understanding of tradition, and whether one's practice is congruent with one's convictions (or if indeed this latter state of affairs is at all important).

For example, in ancient mythology Uranus ruled all the heavenly spheres, and was the father of Saturn. Its period of eighty-four years is the product of the number of the signs multiplied by the seven planets over which it 'rules,' i.e., 12 x 7 = 84. Some astrologers have believed that Uranus is a higher octave of Saturn, Lord of Form and Time (or, in the words of Edgar Cayce, "Lord of Change"), Lord of Intellect and Invention. Whether or not one accepts the idea that "Uranus is a higher octave of Saturn," there is at least an underlying rationale for incorporating this notion into a traditional astrological system (please note: *a* traditional astrological system, not *the* traditional astrological system). An "underlying rationale" may be congruent or incongruent, consistent or inconsistent with the rest of one's argument, and one is free to accept it or to reject it as such. No big deal.

(Oh, speaking of which, I am currently in the process of writing a self-help manual, tentatively titled "I'm Less Arrogant and Self-Congratulatory Than You Are, You're More Arrogant and Self-Congratulatory Than I Am." It should be on the bookshelves sometime before Armageddon.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> News, Notices, Books, Links All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
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