Tom wrote:If you're looking for internal development, fine, there are some really fine astrologers who apparently do quite a bit this way. As for me, I came, I saw, and I left that kind of astrology unimpressed. Whatever floats your boat.

I am an astrologer who began my studies over 40 years ago and, as most do, took the traditional, event prediction road. The case I mentioned was a turning point in my understanding of what astrology is for, although there were many situations that showed me the truth about astrology's purpose.

You came, saw, and left unimpressed...

I'm curious, how long did you spend with "meaning-prediction" astrology?

How did you get access to classical texts 40 years ago? My first 'real' astrology book was Margaret Hone's Modern Textbook of Astrology, which had already adopted the abecedarian zodiac Zip Dobyns came up with.

It was psychological, in other words.

About all that was around in those days was Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, if you could find a copy. Even Lilly was only a rumour, and certainly unread, until the 1980s - there were perilously few copies of Christian Astrology left in the world. And the Persians were completely unheard of.

Olivia wrote:How did you get access to classical texts 40 years ago?

Connections... ?

Actually, "classical" (the word you used) and "traditional" (the word I used) are similar but not identical.

Olivia wrote:How did you get access to classical texts 40 years ago? My first 'real' astrology book was Margaret Hone's Modern Textbook of Astrology, which had already adopted the abecedarian zodiac Zip Dobyns came up with.

It was psychological, in other words.

About all that was around in those days was Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, if you could find a copy. Even Lilly was only a rumour, and certainly unread, until the 1980s - there were perilously few copies of Christian Astrology left in the world. And the Persians were completely unheard of.

Abecedarian might not be the most appropriate term seeing as the Abecedarians were a 'sect'.

All astrology is psychological Olivia, it's a human construct.

Gunhilde wrote:

Having just experienced a VERY long Pluto transit

I've had Pluto cross my ASC, IC and contact by major aspect every planet in my chart. On only one occasion did it coincide with a life event and that was when I was 8 years old and it was beyond my control. I've never undergone a profound transformation that I know of. Maybe I'm just a case of arrested development.

Due to the configuration of my chart when Uranus transited Aquarius it aspected everything except the Sun and Moon and in one short period (for Uranus) it was conjunct my DSC, Mercury, opposed Mars and then changed signs to conjunct my Pisces Sun. At 8 Pisces Uranus trined my Moon completing the chart. For all the upheaval internal and external that would be expected, this could have been the most peaceful and productive time of my life. Very boring for Uranus.

I have to admit I am really uncomfortable discussing my own chart this way, because when others do it I tend to ignore it. My life experience is not particularly interesting, or is it universal and neither is anyone else's. But I do think that the near complete lack of meaningful events coinciding with outer transit planets is indicative something. We can't verify internal events. "Oh this or that happened and I am so changed." Maybe you are maybe you're not. That's the problem with much of the internal stuff. We have the client's word for it - nothing else.

Contrast this with the "psychology" of Ptolemy's qualities of mind or what we can glean from temperament. Those things are more likely to be apparent to the astrologer during discussions. I'm using the Ashmand translation, Book 3 Chapter 18.

"When Jupiter alone has dominion of the mind and is gloriously situated he renders is generous, gracious, pious reverent, joyous, courteous, lofty, liberal, just, magnanimous, noble, self acting compassionate, fond of learning, beneficent, benevolent, ..."

You can do two things with this. First we can look to see if the native, after determining if Jupiter is the ruler of the mind or significator of the manners as it is sometimes called, and is well placed, has any or all of these qualities. He is unlikely to have every one. Second we can look at these qualities and see if the overall description seems to fit without too much attention on any given adjective or noun. Obviously the better we know the native the easier our task, but something will be obvious at the beginning of the first meeting. Is he courteous? noble? joyous? If so how will these qualities play out in the rest of the chart? During a direction? a transit? The point is there is something that is visible that can be worked with.

amzolt wrote:

I'm curious, how long did you spend with "meaning-prediction" astrology?

I've never heard the phrase, "Meaning prediction" astrology before now. Also I hate resume discussions unless I'm applying for a job. They are always beside any point being made. I do some instruction for my real job. Without going into a great deal of detail, I get involved with major construction projects and on occasion I teach younger employees the proper way to handle complaints. This is important as complaints in projects of the size we usually work with go into 6 figures very quickly.

It is a common practice to try to intimidate younger employees with the ever popular "I've been doing this 20 years" or 30 years or whatever number is imagined to be sufficiently intimidating. I tell them to let those words go in one ear and out the other. Smile and continue digging for information. It has nothing to do with the nature of the complaint. In fact in that business, the guy saying that is likely trying to hide his foul ups.

I have no idea how long I've been doing what. I never kept track. It's not important. In an effort to sate any curiosity: I first took an interest in astrology when I was in college. I graduated in 1970. I didn't do much with it other than buy a couple of cookbooks. I took it up again with some lessons at a local adult school in the early to mid 1980s. I gave it up again for a few years for reasons that had nothing to do with astrology. I came back to it in the late 80s early 90s. I studied with Noel Tyl for a while. At this point I was seriously interested and kept it up for a couple of years, buying books, attending classes, lectures, joining a group etc. At some point maybe 10 years ago maybe longer I discovered traditional astrology and gave up modern "psychological" astrology for good.

I think the tipping point was Tyl's assertion that Saturn Rx in the chart was indicative of am absent, emotionally distant, or tyrannical father or father figure. I tried that out and everyone whose chart I read agreed. Boy did I think I was good. After a while I got suspicious. It was too good, so I tried an experiment. I used the same language with everyone whether they had Saturn Rx or not. Do you have to guess? Everyone still agreed. It seems virtually all of us experience our fathers as emotionally distant and authoritative. That's the way most men are. This occurred about the time I was supposed to be writing all about my Pluto transits. Of course there was nothing to write about. I even asked my brother for help trying to recall events. There was certainly nothing going on inside at that time either. I found horary astrology and from there the leap to traditional and abandonment of modern was as natural as breathing.

I don't believe in "transformation" as a kind of universal or near universal or even necessarily a desirable experience. It is if you're Ted Bundy, but most of us are decent people who experience the usual ups and downs of life. If I were a wildly successful, wealthy, popular, professional athlete with women and financial opportunities throwing themselves at my feet, why would I want to transform? I'll save that for when I'm old, unpopular and broke.

I do believe the life unfolds over time and I think astrology can act as a guide through the unfolding. If the Sun is directed to the MC at an age appropriate time of life, how can we prepare for that? I agree it isn't enough to say, "Oh you'll receive honors in December 2017. You won't if you sit on your butt and wait for them. Other poor uses of astrology:

"When will I meet my soul mate?"
Never, if you don't get out of the house.

"Does he really love me?"
Did you ever ask him or is it just me that you think should give you that information?

"My uncle Timmy just underwent a profound life altering transformation."
No, actually he died.

There are things in the chart we can work with to help order the life. I see that as an important part, if not the most important part of natal astrology. If your head is all screwed up, go to a mental health professional. Want help making decisions? Maybe an astrologer will suffice.

Tom

Tom wrote:There are things in the chart we can work with to help order the life. I see that as an important part, if not the most important part of natal astrology.

I'm glad you see that there are things in the chart that can help order a life. What confounds me about your position is that you don't see how internal transformation can help order the life and you claim that transits show nearly nothing "happening" in your life. I find your position quite interesting.

I'd like your take on this quote of Dane Rudhyar:

"...the meaning and function of all the factors used in astrology are inevitably conditioned by the philosophical approach of the astrologer to the universe, to man and to society. Astrology is, in a very real sense, a 'language'."

I came back to it in the late 80s early 90s. I studied with Noel Tyl for a while. At this point I was seriously interested and kept it up for a couple of years, buying books, attending classes, lectures, joining a group etc. At some point maybe 10 years ago maybe longer I discovered traditional astrology and gave up modern "psychological" astrology for good.

Tyl isn't what's known as a ''psychological astrologer''. It's popular or populist astrology for those who have been unable or disinclined to study depth psychology.

I call it 'agony aunt astrology'.

I don't believe in "transformation" as a kind of universal or near universal or even necessarily a desirable experience. It is if you're Ted Bundy, but most of us are decent people who experience the usual ups and downs of life. If I were a wildly successful, wealthy, popular, professional athlete with women and financial opportunities throwing themselves at my feet, why would I want to transform? I'll save that for when I'm old, unpopular and broke.

I think I'd answer that by saying that transformation is not often a proactive occurrence; it happens, by and large, through external events forcing some sort of change on a person that requires not only the 'dealing with' the external events, but also forces one toward introspection and greater self-understanding.

It's not like I sat down in 1995 and said, "Okay, Pluto has just entered Sagittarius. Time to transform!". It was a slow process punctuated by several external events (having a difficult first childbirth where my child nearly died, for example) that forced me inwards to find ways to cope. I was not raised to be equipped for such challenges; I had to find ways, myself, through much pain and trial and error.

Not everyone will experience these sorts of things; and no, not everyone has a 'transformative' life, either. Some people do just fine, thanks very much, and lead exemplary and fairly simple lives. But saying that you have never experienced any sort of transformations, doesn't mean they don't exist for others, nor does it mean that they aren't necessarily triggered by transits across planets. Maybe you have just picked a life where you tackle things pragmatically without much 'higher' thought given to the meaning of it all. That's fine, and as it should be; but it doesn't mean that the rest of us are either deluded or trying to clutch at straws. I'm not a huge fan of 'psychological' astrology, as you call it; but I do think that there is merit in exploring it. It may never fit 'objective' or empirical criteria, but human beings are extraordinarily difficult to pigeonhole, especially in terms of subjective experience.

GH

And sometimes bad things happen and they just suck. You don't get stronger or wiser or anything else good out of the experience.

Take a tour of my neighbourhood and you'll see what being too ground down can do to people. It's not nice.

I also - and I never thought I'd see myself saying it - hate the concept of evolution as it's bandied about these days, mostly on account of the theosophists attempting to recreate astrology in Darwin's image and tacking on the idea of 'more' or 'lesser' evolved souls.

Just strikes me the wrong way. We're all here, we're all struggling, and we're all human. Or maybe it's just that I both dislike and disagree with Heidegger's idea of meaning.

Who knows? Yes, there's temperament and kinds of psychology in classical astrology (as there is in Judaism, Buddhism, and any number of philosophies and religions that have stood the test of time - I pick those two as they don't require a belief in gods and are largely concerned with the here and now, not the hereafter), but it's not the same stuff Jung wrote about.

We haven't changed all that much. And I don't believe we're on the cusp of an era now where we'll change to the point that whoever comes after us won't be recognisably human, either. But reading transformational astrology and psychological astrology, it sometimes seems that's what they're saying.

Even new ages tend to go in cycles - always have done. But here we still are.

PS: Sometimes Saturn-Uranus oppositions coincide with influenza epidemics in mundane astrology - that's one of the things that's probably worth keeping an eye on.

It depends on one's self-observation and one's perception of, and interest in, the passage of time. A person who looks out the window at events from an assigned chair often isn't inclined to a switch of position.

This assumes that one's perceptions and self-observations are correct. Or to put it more specifically, that one's perceptions and self-observations can operate in an 'objective' manner, free of the influence of events both past and present.