The Traditional Planets in Modern Astrology

Eddy

13 by Eddy

Deb wrote:I really don't get this recent fashion to demonise Ptolemy. He was a great astronomer; and a great intellectual who offered a rationale for astrology which preserved its status as a reputable study, (which helped protect many subsequent astrologers from prosection).

Perhaps this is from modern astrology. Dane Rudhyar in 'The astrology of Personality (p.6 http://books.google.nl/books?id=dApyUYh ... en#PPA6,M1 ) wrote: "If we want to understand the living essence of astrology we must forget Ptolemy and the type of medieval astrology from which present-day astrology mostly derived, and reach to the earthly vital depths of archaic mankind." (what ever this last may mean

)

Then in Chapter 7, The signs of the zodiac Rudhyar continues on Ptolemaic astrology as erroneous because of his emphasis on the zodiac signs. p.242. He contrasts the "ancient systems" as "collective" with his "new" conception with the Jungiang concept of "individuation" It seems that this must have lead to the emphasis on houses of nowadays astrology. I didn't like it.

Perhaps this article on Ptolemy (sorry, it's another jstor article and thus only availabla after paying or at university libraries) comparedwith is contemporary astrologers is interesting.

the article wrote: "Not only in astrological methods and organization can we see differences
between Ptolemy and some other astrologers, but also in their attitudes
towards their colleagues: Ptolemy, for whatever reason, shows few signs of the
animosity toward fellow professionals which is so evident in ancient literary
society. Literary polemics by one professional sophist against another are
well known.35 These men "denounced each other with wit and erudition" as
befits their rhetorical attainments."

p.250
Theoretical and Practical Astrology: Ptolemy and His Colleagues
Author(s): Mark Riley
Source: Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 117 (1987), pp. 235-
256
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283969

According to the article, Ptolemy saw many things differently but didn't explicitly denounce (or only modestly) his fellow astrologers.

Eddy

14 by Eddy

Eddy wrote:
Deb wrote:I really don't get this recent fashion to demonise Ptolemy. He was a great astronomer; and a great intellectual who offered a rationale for astrology which preserved its status as a reputable study, (which helped protect many subsequent astrologers from prosection).
Perhaps this is from modern astrology. Dane Rudhyar in 'The astrology of Personality (p.6 http://books.google.nl/books?id=dApyUYh ... en#PPA6,M1 ) wrote: "If we want to understand the living essence of astrology we must forget Ptolemy and the type of medieval astrology from which present-day astrology mostly derived, and reach to the earthly vital depths of archaic mankind." (what ever this last may mean )

Then in Chapter 7, The signs of the zodiac Rudhyar continues on Ptolemaic astrology as erroneous because of his emphasis on the zodiac signs. p.242. He contrasts the "ancient systems" as "collective" with his "new" conception with the Jungiang concept of "individuation" It seems that this must have lead to the emphasis on houses of nowadays astrology. I didn't like it.

Perhaps this article on Ptolemy (sorry, it's another jstor article and thus only availabla after paying or at university libraries) compared with his contemporary astrologers is interesting.
the article wrote: "Not only in astrological methods and organization can we see differences
between Ptolemy and some other astrologers, but also in their attitudes
towards their colleagues: Ptolemy, for whatever reason, shows few signs of the
animosity toward fellow professionals which is so evident in ancient literary
society. Literary polemics by one professional sophist against another are
well known.35 These men "denounced each other with wit and erudition" as
befits their rhetorical attainments."
p.250
Theoretical and Practical Astrology: Ptolemy and His Colleagues
Author(s): Mark Riley
Source: Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 117 (1987), pp. 235-256
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283969

According to the article, Ptolemy saw many things differently but didn't explicitly denounce (or only modestly) his fellow astrologers.

JohnR

15 by JohnR

Jung was proposing an understanding of mythological archetypes from the position of psychology in concert, somewhat, with Mircea Eliade was with archetypes in terms of the anthropological. What both were doing was trying to highlight the idea of mythological symbolism in the human psyche. Which is a modern way of trying to understand.

To the peoples from whom the ancient astrologers arose, there was no ?mythology? in the modern sense. This was a matter of everyday conscious thought and how they related to the world around them. This was their reality.

In there world, from what they observed, Jupiter contained all the symbolic elements of Pisces that we now shunt off on to Neptune. They, from their perspective, understood making Jupiter the ruler of Pisces, from all its perspectives. The God Jupiter ruled Pisces as he did Sagittarius and the aspects of his temperament fit with the symbolism. The same with Saturn and Aquarius.

If the God Jupiter is not a part of your everyday world and how you view it, then it is of course not going to be easy to see it the way they did. If you are not coming from a pagan?s position, it is hard to see a pagan?s perspective.

Traditional astrology is not just a technical term. It is a way of thinking that arose in its origins from a way of being.

During a time of Jupiter/Neptune conjunction, in Aquarius as it is, this is the time to try to bring the ideas of the two planets together and understand, not their apparent contradictions, but their hidden similarities. But, to do so, you have to think like the ancients and relate to them not only as the symbolism of the planets of Jupiter and Neptune, but as the temperaments of the Gods Jupiter and Neptune. That was the mind of the ancient astrologer.

16 by Deb

There seems to be an a lot of unprovable personal opinion in your posts John, and I wonder if this sort of discussion is really appropriate in the traditional forum. I think the policy is that the discussion should connect with traditional philosophies, opinions and techniques that can be referenced to historical astrologers and historical astrological works.

GR

Re: The Traditional Planets in Modern Astrology

17 by GR

JohnofManomet wrote: That is ?hate speech?. It is hateful to witches as worshippers of the ?Old Religion? and especially to women as worshippers of the ?Devine Feminine?.

But it is accurate when considering that a witch was considered in the old days to be either a poisoner or a fantasical being, and only later became something more convienent to the likes of "witch-hunters", old widows who own too much land. There is some interesting and reliable research being done now that shows that there were some considerable survivals of pagan religion into the late medieval period, but I would hold off on calling it Ye Olde Religion just yet. That and the fact that most of the witchcraft I've personally known about is done by Catholics and Pentacostals.

Gabe

Tom

18 by Tom

That is ?hate speech?. It is hateful to witches as worshippers of the ?Old Religion? and especially to women as worshippers of the ?Devine Feminine?.

This is the most idiotic response I've ever seen on Skyscript. Witches in the sense that Lilly meant them is precisely what I said and what I meant. As for "Old Religion. There is no historical basis for that only a claim by Gerald Gardner.

As for the erst of this diatribe and the ones that came before it: The thread is closed, and John, go elsewhere.

To all the others that tried to make this an intelligent thread, I apologize for this interruption. I hope you'll continue as you all have in the past.

Tom