MarkC wrote: Then you have stopped thinking! Your advocating a rigidity that the traditional authorities never practised. As I stated above astrologers like Ptolemy, Ibn Ezra and Morin didn't uncritically accept everything that preceded them. I am not suggesting we dismantle the whole tradition. However, from time to time we have to question things. To act as if nothing has changed at all since these writers wrote their texts is not really sustainable. Whether we like it or not we are all modern astrologers who live in the 21st century.

Sorry if you are so angry with me. It's the second in my life people is angry with me for Luther prophecy.

The point is I'm not so interested in defending one religion, better than the others. I have more a philological interest, if i can call like that, in the signs astrology left in the world and culture and civilisation. I take facts for what they were without judging about who is right and wrong, I believe I cannot be the judge and neither I desire.
So forgive me if i wrote something wrong.

About changing tradition, I believe there is some room for interpreting rules, yes, obvious.
Still my LIMITED - this I know- experience makes me believe that many times when someone says "this or that is wrong" it means he has not understood very well what this or that would mean.
I'm a firm supporter of Darwinian selection in this field- what is really wrong nobody remembers after 10 years.

Forgive me again,
margherita

About my

Sorry if you are so angry with me. It's the second in my life people is angry with me for Luther prophecy.

I am not angry with you at all. What makes you think the Luther prophecy information has annoyed me? I hope you share more of this on the thread I plan to open on the Reformation. That and your knowledge of the ambiguity over Luther's natal data is most interesting.

My post was more of a general frustration with the attitudes that seem to be so prevalent in traditional astrology. Although I addressed you my reply was really a response to all the traditionalists here who criticise ever changing anything in astrological practice no matter how much has changed in the intervening period.

The point is I'm not so interested in defending one religion, better than the others. I have more a philological interest, if i can call like that, in the signs astrology left in the world and culture and civilisation. I take facts for what they were without judging about who is right and wrong, I believe I cannot be the judge and neither I desire. So forgive me if i wrote something wrong.

I see. I think we have misunderstood each other. I had thought as this was the philosophy forum you were also sharing your personal take on the matter. To me philosophy is more than just repeating the arguments of others. Its personaly engaging with the issues. If this had been on the traditional forum I would taken your comments in the spirit you have just suggested. As it was here though I took it you were looking to debate a position you held.

About changing tradition, I believe there is some room for interpreting rules, yes, obvious. Still my LIMITED - this I know- experience makes me believe that many times when someone says "this or that is wrong" it means he has not understood very well what this or that would mean. I'm a firm supporter of Darwinian selection in this field- what is really wrong nobody remembers after 10 years.

I think this issue is double edged. On the one hand some modernists want to ditch everything without even studying the basics. I do think studying the sources is important and enriching. On the other hand I detect a tendency in some traditional astrology that a creative thought is a route to astrological error. You imply this material has only really survived because it really works. In some cases I would agree with you. However, we are now getting access to an immense amount of translated texts from traditional sources. Whether they are all really effective or not is surely a work in progress.

Forgive me again,

Really nothing to forgive. In case you hadn't noticed I like a good debate!

Best regards,

Mark