Hello Tom,

Perhaps it was a bit unfair of me to discuss my quibbles with John Frawley's book if we are simply discussing it as an introduction. Especially as I would recommend it to beginners.

However, I don't completely agree with you when you state:

''On the other hand, to be fair to John Frawley, it is not reasonable to expect teachers to teach methods that they don't use, when they are successful in other ways. ''

My problem isn't that John Frawley doesn't teach methods he disagrees with. That would be inauthentic and confusing for students. The issue is rather his tendency to completely ignore a view he disagrees with.

Philosophically, I fundamentally disagree with a teaching style that doesn't allow room for different perspectives outside the teacher. As a former student of Noel Tyl I am sure you know what I mean!

Of course I only have John's three books in English to judge by.
I haven't studied with him as you have. Perhaps these more debateable areas in the tradition are left for more advanced studies?

Anyway, I can see this is a discussion for another thread and to go into this further would rather distract from the focus of this discussion about horary books so I will stop here.

Horary is best for newbies because they get an answer to their delineations very quickly, and therefore learn faster. "Will I get the job?" Well you will or you won't, and the astrologer will be right or wrong and know quickly. Compare that to delineating the career from a natal chart. It might take a lifetime to get the answer.

Ha, ha! This is so true! I only JUST found the career I was looking for, and it was there all along in my chart! An astrologer once told me I should be an astrologer, too, hmmm...

We don't use the parts (or lots) that much in horary. I've probably used the part of marriage in horary more than any other. In natal astrology they can be of immense value

Oooh, I've been twiddling with the use the Parts a LOT (so to speak) in horaries lately, just to see what extra little tidbits they give me. They are most enlightening! Part of Love, Part of Divorce, Part of the Realization of Needs/Desires, all sorts. I haven't tried Part of Cucumbers and Melons yet as I haven't had the opportunity. I've actually used them LESS in natal astrology, but maybe I just haven't gotten there yet, as I find horary more engrossing right now.

If I were hired to teach someone from the very beginning, I would start with horary, and to make natal easier to grasp, I'd start without using the three outer planets. The idea is to build up to complexity.

Okay, okay, I will yield to your wisdom on this, as I definitely see your point.

Hi Mark,

Anyway, I can see this is a discussion for another thread and to go into this further would rather distract from the focus of this discussion about horary books so I will stop here.

Teachers, books - same thing. This thread has wandered so far from its original intent it doesn't seem to matter any longer what we discuss here.

Philosophically, I fundamentally disagree with a teaching style that doesn't allow room for different perspectives outside the teacher. As a former student of Noel Tyl I am sure you know what I mean!

Since I am a former student of Noel Tyl's I wonder if you knew that, and your observation was meant for me, or is it your experience, or both? Both I guess. Here's my problem, while philosophically it might make sense to expect teachers to incorporate different perspectives in their courses, in terms of writing a short book or teaching a correspondence course I'm not sure how that could be done effectively. It could be done in, say, a semester length college course, but the format we are talking about makes it much more difficult. Let me explain.

Richard Tarnas (an astrologer, but that has nothing to do with what follows) wrote a book titled The Passion of the Western Mind. I read this book many years ago, but what stuck with me was the depth of Tarnas understanding of the subject. and his ability to communicate his understanding effectively. He takes the reader on a journey of philosophical history beginning with the ancient Greeks. At each step his explanations of the various philosophies are so profound that the reader finds himself "nodding" and thinking 'Yeah that's it. That guy nailed it, " until we get to the next philosopher, then we think, "Oh I see; yeah this guy's got it," and so on. What Tarnas is doing is explaining the various schools of thought so well and from their perspective that we are persuaded over and over again of the correctness of each. In short, this man must be one hell of a teacher, and this may be what you're looking for. Unfortunately astrology isn't as "neat" nor did it evolve in the same way Western Philosophy did.

Tarnas' book approaches 500 pages in length, and lets face it, 500 pages in the history of Western philosophy doesn't even scratch the surface. An astrologer may have an equally daunting task trying to explain the various differences in approaches to astrology (not to mention that we are still digging them up and translating them). He couldn't do it in 500 pages, either. Of necessity some would be left out, and that would leave the astrologer open to criticism for omitting them. "Well he only mentioned the ones he agrees with or the ones his favorites agree with. In short no one can cover most of it, much less all of it. No matter what is covered, the author is open to criticism for leaving out this or that. Faced with this sort of thinking, it is much easier to stay the course and ignore the other stuff.

Secondly, Frawley approaches astrology as a craft in much the same way that Lilly did. His approach is: "this is how you do it." He is entrenched in what he thinks, as is Noel, but I'm not sure that being an advocate for a particular point of view is any worse than being an eclectic. Who needs to be taught by a wishy washy astrologer?

You're right I did study with John, and I can assure you that there is a lot more going on in his courses than Lilly. Students spend a lot of time, with Al Biruni, Al Khayyat and Dorotheus as well as Ptolemy and Lilly and others. The student is exposed to a gamut of authoritative astrologers, so even if he or she sticks rigidly to John's thinking throughout the courses, there is sufficient exposure to the thinking of others that the student can then go out on his or her own with a solid foundation. I'm old fashioned. Teachers teach; students learn. Students don't learn by being showered with all sorts of schools of thought without mastering at least one of them.

Now Noel is a bit of a different story as his students are exposed to his books period. Furthermore they're discouraged from looking elsewhere. John was teaching before his (John's) first book was published, although he recommends reading the books and his magazine, they are not mandatory. Perhaps the horary text is now mandatory. I don't know.

In short, if I'm going to pay someone to teach me, I want him to teach me what he knows best. I'll find my way elsewhere with little or no help. This may not be suitable for everyone. This is why there are so many kinds of teachers. John teaches horary and natal astrology his way. Lee Lehman teaches horary her way, and Robert Zoller goes a different route with his natal and mundane work. The best teacher is the one that works best for you.

Best

Tom

Hi Tom,

First of all let me clear something up...I am not comparing John Frawley to Noel Tyl. That would be a hideous distortion!

I do log in here regularly so I am aware you studied with Tyl at one point and subsequently with John. I have also heard both of them speaking and there is no comparison! John has a fantastic aptitude for writing clear , concise, no-nonsense astrology. He also has an admirable sense of humour which seems to be in short supply in some astrology circles.

I guess I used Noel Tyl as the extreme position of the 'exclusivist' teacher or monolithic teaching approach. Ironically, you cleverly used my own argument back at me by arguing for diversity between teachers in what approach they adopt. I agree life is short and so are astrology books. Noone can be expected to cover everything in one book. As I understand it your position is a pragmatic one ie better to have the tried and tested wisdom of one astrology teacher distilled than the 'wishy-washy' round the block descrption of the last 2000 years of tradition. If my position was that simplistic I would have to agree with you!

I am not arguing for an astrology teacher to be like James Holden in his history of astrology covering the whole tradition. However, where there are major areas of disagreement in the tradition ( such as the Void of course Moon) I think a teacher should highlight these vitally important differences in astrological practice. That doesn't mean they need to teach a differing approach but simply acknowledge its existence. Somehow Louis manages it in his book. My own teacher manages it too and she is not in any sense wishy-washy. Clearly a balance needs to be struck.

I guess if everyone was like you Tom there wouldn't be any problem here. People would continue to read and study and incorporate new ideas constantly. My concern I guess is the new student who has no other experience than one teacher's approach set out in a book. Alternatively the student who has studied with a teacher like Frawley who doesn't continue to study new ideas once they complete 'the training'.

Because of his increasing influence through his writings John Frawley is having an enormous effect on traditional astrology across the world. In many ways that has to be a big improvement on the astro-babble that has been out there. Still, I do feel this imposes additional obligations on an astrologer like John to try and indicate present areas of genuine disagreement among practitioners. Without, this we risk a generation of astrology students only taking 'The Frawley line' on various issues since they see this as the 'orthodox' position on everything.

Maybe, I am asking too much of a jobbing astrology teacher who feels she/he is being true to their own experience and insights. Maybe its unfair to blame a good teacher for lazy students. Still I keep thinking of the biblical line about teachers 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. If a teacher doesn't encourage an inquiring /questioning approach when someone is learning with them is their not a danger of inducing intolerance/ignorance of other views? And surely the most vital stage is the very beginning of our studies..ie the first books we come across?

I'm not that interested in paying anyone a lot of money to tell me what to think about astrology. What I would want to learn is how best to think about astrology so that I can come to my own understanding, not someone else's. I'm not interested in a one way relationship where someone tells me stuff and I absorb it. I'm not interested in being a clone of some astrologer just because I have paid them money. Astrology is so much more than learning a bunch of techniques. I would rather someone who would engage me in a two way discourse. In fact, bring back the seven liberal arts, I say. If someone was trying to tell me what to think I would have to disagree with them just on principle. I may as well read a book.

I have to agree with Mark on the responsibility of astrology teachers to make students aware of some of the conflicts with certain issues. None of the astrologers mentioned stick to traditional techniques without applying their own differences and sometimes even opposite ways of doing things. Mark mentioned VOC Moon, which is one, as is reception. We have already had a long discussion about the fact that John Frawley uses reception in a different manner from the way it was used traditionally. This is entirely his prerogative and he is well within his rights to do this. However, it would be remiss of him to not explain that this is not the generally accepted way of doing it. Of course, this works both ways and teachers who profess to use only traditional methods should explain differences of opinion and allow students to make up their own minds.

Having said this, William Lilly was a prime example of going his own way and changing traditional techniques. And he certainly didn't explain many of them. I agree with some of them but with others I see absolutely no good reason for him to have changed them and am always surprised when most people blindly accept his choices yet jump down the throats of astrologers who do the same today. In his day, Lilly was a modern astrologer who changed many of the techniques of traditional astrology. Why is this so much more acceptable than others changing techniques?

Tom, have you read the latest from Richard Tarnas? It is called 'Cosmos and Psyche' and is more or less a part two of 'Passion of the Western Mind'. I read an interview with him (in The Mountain Astrologer I think)where he said that his new book was the original one he wanted to write but that he needed to write 'Passion' in order to explain some of the concepts. Basically the book is a look at the cycles of history from an astrological perspective. He has looked at the planetary cycles of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto to explain history. It's over 600 pages. I haven't got very far yet because I haven't had the time but I certainly liked 'Passion' and am looking forward to the time to read 'Cosmos'.

Hi Guys,

Based on what I've read, there is a lot less disagreement here than meets the eye. With that in mind I'll make a couple of points because keeping my mouth shut isn't my strong suit.

Mark writes:

First of all let me clear something up...I am not comparing John Frawley to Noel Tyl. That would be a hideous distortion!

Ahhh Noel. What would contemporary astrology be without him? I understood your point entirely. Sometimes that doesn't come through in a post.

Mark writes:

My concern I guess is the new student who has no other experience than one teacher's approach set out in a book. Alternatively the student who has studied with a teacher like Frawley who doesn't continue to study new ideas once they complete 'the training'.

And then Sue wrote:

I'm not interested in a one way relationship where someone tells me stuff and I absorb it. I'm not interested in being a clone of some astrologer just because I have paid them money. Astrology is so much more than learning a bunch of techniques.

I agree with both thoughts. But we wandered a bit, and that's OK because this thread started out asking about books and wandered to teachers. We wandered from beginners to more advanced students without noting the break. My point is that it does no good whatsoever to delve in to the more subltle and sometimes not so subltle differences in astrology's schools of thought if we don't first get the basics down. It's like teaching algebra before the student has mastered arithmetic. Sue, Mark, Archergirl, and I all want teachers to engage us and bring out our best, but we can't do that if we don't know the difference between Saturn and Mercury. Of necessity a teacher is going to have to give us the fundamentals they way he or she undersands them and uses them and then once the student has grasped what is done. After a certain level of mastery is achieved, then the student and teacher if that is the nature of the course, can go elsewhere. My point is that we shouldn't put the cart in front of the horse.

And I see this as a problem in both modern and traditional astrology. Yes we're all eager to learn quickly, but beginners shouldn't be bogged down in the theories of house construction before they know what the 12th house means. We build up to those things. The first question is always: why are we hiring this teacher? If we are hiring him or her because we want to learn the basics of horary, then fine. We'll get Lilly, Regiomontnus houses, and lots of practice. If we want to get deeply into "divination" or whatnot, do it after we've completed this course. It's not that we won't bump into alternative views along the way; we just won't emphasize them.

Now to Mark's point about the exclusiveness of Noel Tyl. Yes a teacher can go way too far with this and I agree it is to the detriment of the student. Noel mentions other astrologers and even gives an occasional nod in the direction of Morinus, but its little more than name dropping. . Just look at his insistence or redefining "peregrine" and "final dispositor," and expecting the entire astrological world to accept it. That is a bit over the top.

On the plus side, Noel teaches a system of chart interpretation. Students aren't left looking at the glyphs bewildered and wondering where to begin. There is a definite starting point and logical progression in the chart reading. That is a big improvement over gathering around a chart and looking for patterns: "Oh I see a yod." Look, look there's a T-square!" Or the other favorite past time: "Let's see what Neptune is up to, since it is the only thing in the chart that matters." Do modern astrologers even bother to put Mercury in their charts?

I might not think psychological astrology offers the best approach, but at least Tyl trys to organize and condense all the information in a chart. Whether he succeeds at the highest levels or not is another discussion.

Tom

Hello Tom & Sue,

Sue's point about Lilly is interesting:

''In his day, Lilly was a modern astrologer who changed many of the techniques of traditional astrology. Why is this so much more acceptable than others changing techniques? ''

Its probably true that all the great astrologers have adapted techniques to their own experience. I have no problem with any traditional astrologer doing that as long as they are transparent about this. I do have a problem though when an astrologer appears to change techniques without acknowledging they are doing it! Take the example raised by both Sue and I of mutual reception. If John Frawley simply said 'look guys I tried the traditional approach to mutual reception but my technique works even better in practice...trust me' thats one thing. However, thats not what he is saying. He is not claiming to have invented a new approach to MR but rather stating he has a correct understanding of the traditional approach. Beyond that he is not distinguishing his different take on this from the majority of traditional astrologers. This is only one illustrative example of course. Other teachers such as Lee Lehman could be similarly picked up on points.

This issue isn't fundamentally about John Frawley its about the issue of teaching traditional astrology full stop.

Clearly Sue and I are on the libertarian end of this discussion. For both of us I think critical thinking and the ability to discuss ideas in a spirit of free enquiry is more important than simply following the set ideas laid out by a teacher. Tom clearly favours a more deferential approach to learning where the teacher is the sovereign font of astrological practice.

Tom also suggests I may have strayed from books to teaching methods..but aren't they all part of one continuum of learning?

For Tom getting into issues of controversy and debate among practitioners is 'putting the cart before the horse' since the student needs to go through a process of learning before they can really engage with a teacher. Obviously, we need to learn the basics. However, what kind of training is it that leaves someone after 2-3 years with only their teachers understanding of technique? As Sue said doesn't this risk creating clones of the teacher with this approach?

Look at the Faculty of Astrological Studies for example..a world renowned astrology organisation. If I sought to complete a diploma with them where would I stand as a traditiionalist wanting to use traditional rulerships, houses, aspects and dignities? Of course I would be expected to toe the 'modernist' line.

I guess if people are fabulously wealthy they can do as Tom suggests and shop around studying with different teachers with diverse approaches accepting the primacy of each teacher to give their version of truth. However these courses are expensive. Indeed I hear John Frawley's prices are now astronomical! If people are laying out all that money don't they have a right to expect a bit more than the ideas of just their teacher and his/her chosen sources? Shouldn't they be informed of areas of controversy in traditional practice?

Moreover, wouldn't it be better for all astrology teachers to respect students as unique human beings with a right to have their own views? I am not talking about trad students wanting to use asteroids or Uranian astrology planets! An example Sue raised in an earlier post was round the 5 degree rule in placing planets in the following house. If she has studied the sources and feels thats works better for her (as it did for Morinus) why shouldn't a good teacher respect that?

I do agree with Tom that I want my astrology to be tried and tested and not just idle intellectual speculation. I think a teacher should share what techniques they favour and what works in their experience. However, that shouldn't exclude a student exploring other techniques and ideas for themselves.

Incidentally does this thread win any prizes for being the most tangental from the original post?

Oh and Tom do you you have any hot gossip on Frawley's new horary book?

Hi,

Sue, I forgot to mention that I have seen Tarnas latest book, but my reading list is burgeoning, so he'll have to wait.

Clearly Sue and I are on the libertarian end of this discussion. For both of us I think critical thinking and the ability to discuss ideas in a spirit of free enquiry is more important than simply following the set ideas laid out by a teacher. Tom clearly favours a more deferential approach to learning where the teacher is the sovereign font of astrological practice.

Not at all. I just want to put first things first. We crawl before we walk and we walk before we run. Open discussions are fine once a certain level of mastery has been acheived. Physics students don't begin with relativity. They work up to it.

In order for a beginner or someone relatively new to a field of inquiry it is in their best interests to learn those basics before they challenge them.

Tom also suggests I may have strayed from books to teaching methods..but aren't they all part of one continuum of learning?

There is a little misunderstanding here. That remark of mine wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. It was only noting that the subject of the thread had switched and I thought that was OK.

For Tom getting into issues of controversy and debate among practitioners is 'putting the cart before the horse' since the student needs to go through a process of learning before they can really engage with a teacher. Obviously, we need to learn the basics. However, what kind of training is it that leaves someone after 2-3 years with only their teachers understanding of technique? As Sue said doesn't this risk creating clones of the teacher with this approach?

Controversy and debate is perfectly acceptable after people know what they are talking about. If we take a beginner and ask him his opinion of whether Schmidt is correct about horary dating back only to the middle ages, then we're putting the cart before the horse. After several years of study opinions have been formed and debate and controversy are part of the fun.

If people are laying out all that money don't they have a right to expect a bit more than the ideas of just their teacher and his/her chosen sources?

Sure and this is done as any business arrangement is done. You ask up front and then quit if you don't like the direction the course is taking. This is what I did with Noel. He didn't mislead me; I just didn't care for what we were doing. Debating him would have been silly, as I wanted to go in a direction that he wasn't heading.

We have no right to demand a particular teacher teach a certain way. We don't go to Noel Tyl to learn Bonatti nor would we go to John Frawley to study Ivy Jacobson Goldstein. If you don't know the difference between Bonatti and Goldstein you need a beggining course, and you need to listen. If you do, then you ask the prospective teacher if that is what he or she does. If you want to spend valuable class time discussing Goldstein with a traditionalist that is trying to teach basic horary using Lilly, I think the student and teacher are at cross purposes and no one is well served.

If people are laying out all that money don't they have a right to expect a bit more than the ideas of just their teacher and his/her chosen sources? Shouldn't they be informed of areas of controversy in traditional practice?

What I"m getting from this is that the student should be writing the course outline, and the teacher following it. I don't think so. There is nothing wrong with an advanced student having a particular idea of what he wants to learn or even how he wants to learn it, but it is not up to the teacher to change to suit the individual tastes of each student, unless he wants to. Try that at a University.

As for fields of controversy, unless the student is lvinging one of Plato's caves, he'll find them and probably bring them up with the teacher.

Oh and Tom do you you have any hot gossip on Frawley's new horary book?

Nothing. I saw John when he was in San Francisco back in February, but haven't heard from him since. All I've heard is that it is a supplement to the Horary Textbook consisting of charts illustrating what is in the first book. I'm looking forward to it.

Take care,

Tom

Hello Tom,

I am not seeking to deny the obvious point that you need to study and listen extensively before you can fully begin to discuss and debate controversial issues in an informed manner. Of course you do. And the more you do the greater your ability to engage, discuss and debate issues with a teacher. I am not suggesting some role reversal approach to study.

I therefore cannot accept your suggestion that the approach I am suggesting be so open that the student sets the course curriculum. I am sorry but I have to use strong language here...balderdash!

You can teach people the basics and while doing that ,make people aware of important differences of opinion in practice. I know this can be done because I have been taught traditional astrology in this way by my own teacher. I therefore don't feel my point is hypothetical. From what you are saying Tom there seems no obvious point where this would ever begin.

An inclusive teaching style should include information on the the ideas of other contemporary teachers when they have something really significant to say. That doesn't mean an exhaustive coverage of everything going on.

Naturally, teachers can and will teach what they want. I am simply expressing my view of what I regard as best practice.

Moreover, this is all relative. If I go to Robert Schmidt I understand he isn't going to teach me the intricacies of Christian Astrology. Similarly Robert Zoller will not be the best source of information on Valens. That kind of selectivity is the responsibility of the student. However, ensuring that a course of study covers fundamental areas of difference in practice is the responsibility of a good teacher in my view.

It seems clear though that you prefer a funnelled approach to learning where the teacher only presents their vision of astrological practice.
Isn't one of the dangers of such an approach that it does not encourage a critical quality in the student? If someone is used to being 'spoon fed' only their teachers interpretation isn't there more danger of this breeding an intolerant approach to other ideas when they are finally encountered?

I think that we can`t find any "traditional" teacher today who is able to interpret or to unite all the differencies among traditonalists.
A begginer has a lot of possibilities to learn from books to get fundamental knowledge and then to take (expensive) lessons with a teacher.
An average student can find great discussions on different approaches on internet forums /Skyscript,Angelicus Merlin.../
So - read, read,read!

Trojan

Hello Trojan,

I agree with you no one teacher can encompass the whole of traditional astrology.

I wasn't personally suggesting that teachers should try and cover everything. Rather, that they should highlight (not exhaustively describe) controversial areas of practice. Clearly, I would expect them to give primacy to their own experience and chosen techniques in that process.

For example, it makes a real difference to a horary judgement whether you use applying aspects out of sign or not. That will have a fundamental effect on your judgements and is a crucial area of differing practice amongst contemporary practitioners.
To me a teacher that claims to be teaching 'the tradition' and never even points out that important difference of practice is letting their students down.

I accept teachers nowadays don't exist in some information bubble with resources like the internet and the increasingly availability of good books from all periods. Books are an invaluable resource. You don't have to be a biblophile to be a traditionalist but it seems a disproportionate number of us are! I was trying to find the beautiful quote from Cardan on this on one of the online links but it seems to have gone.

I suspect many students want certainty and a secure structure to begin their studies with. I think that is part of the appeal of someone like Noel Tyl. His certainty and self confidence in his methods can be very attractive to some people who are confused and are looking for the Moses type teacher who brings down the astrological clay tablets for his students to use. Whatever else you might say about Tyl he does offer clear cut techniques people can use. Thats quite different from much of the nebulous psycho-babble out there.

Maybe a similar search for certainty partly explains why people seek out traditional teachers that offer their distilled version of practice. I guess if you just use that as the basic scaffolding to develop your wider studies that is fine. With both teacher and student I think retaining a critical/open attitude is the crucial thing.

Mark,

It seems clear though that you prefer a funnelled approach to learning where the teacher only presents their vision of astrological practice.

I'm sorry but you're putting words in my mouth and making value judgments about what I'm saying by using words like "funnelled" that I never used. I have stated in this thread precisely the opposite of your judgment. Obviously students should be encourged to think critically, and I never said or implied otherwise nor have I experienced that with John Frawley. My only objection is to a method that presupposes that the student knows best before he's taken the course. Anyone is free to pick the method or teacher they prefer.

Tom