From a traditional perspective the notion that a lack of an opposition is a 'problem' is a bizarre concept. Its not as if we are short of negative indications in traditional delineation! The creation of what are presented as problems like this seems a good example of how disconnected modern astrology can become from fundamental astrological principles.

Yes it is a strange concept from a traditional perspective because the traditional perspective is pretty black and white, which reflects the fact that people did not in general have the choices nor the psychological perspective in the past that we have today. I realize that "psychological" is a dirty word to a lot of traditional astrologers. But we are more psychological creatures than we were, and we do have more choices, better health care, longer lives, more freedom of movement, etc. etc. Traditional astrology has to evolve to reflect the facts of modern life.

Hoping I don't reap the wrath of Ptolemy on this one ...

Tara

Tara wrote:

Yes it is a strange concept from a traditional perspective because the traditional perspective is pretty black and white, which reflects the fact that people did not in general have the choices nor the psychological perspective in the past that we have today. I realize that "psychological" is a dirty word to a lot of traditional astrologers. But we are more psychological creatures than we were, and we do have more choices, better health care, longer lives, more freedom of movement, etc. etc. Traditional astrology has to evolve to reflect the facts of modern life.

Hoping I don't reap the wrath of Ptolemy on this one ...

I dont deny there things have changed a lot societally since astrology developed in the ancient and medieval world. I also agree people (at least the priviledged minority in the developed world) have a lot more choices than in previous historical periods. And yes astrological concepts can be worked with psychologically rather than literally and fatalistically. The best traditional astrologers do this anyway. For example Deborah Houlding teaches a fully traditional approach to horary which is also psychological in focus.

However, I think you have misunderstand what is at stake here. Its not about working literally or psychologically. Its whether we work with the core founding principles of astrology or throw them out in a misguided sense of creativity, innovation or 'evolution'. From the earliest astrological sources the opposition aspect is presented as conflictual, separative and disruptive. As William Lilly said ' You must understand amongst these Aspects, the Quadrate Aspect is a sign of imperfect emnity'; and that the Opposition is an aspect or argument of perfect hatred'', Lilly is primarily discussing this in the context of horary astrology but the idea is clear enough. Planets in opposition are constantly battling against each other. In psychological terms this polarity is like an erratic see-saw going on in the psyche. In hellenistic texts the aspects are presented associated to planets. The sextile to Venus, the square to Mars, the trine to Jupiter and the opposition to Saturn. The idea that we need an opposition to function in a balanced , harmonious way is not found in any traditional sources with good reason. To suggest we need to abandon guiding principles that have underpinned astrology for 2000 years is not only arrogant but philosophically misguided. This is not a peripheral issue. Its fundamental to basic astrological principles in my opinion.

Mark

I must agree with Tara's last post and disagree with Mark.
It is difficult to correctly understand 2000 year old language that has been translated into modern day English. Those alive today have such a different perspective on their world; are so much more nuanced and psychologically sophisticated. We can't put ourselves into the same mind-set as contemporaries of Ptolemy so that even if we had a perfect translation we would still struggle to understand it. Phrases like "perfect emnity" can be understood several different ways. I resist literal interpretation. Perhaps that itself is a product of the psychological age. I tend to think metaphorically and not literally. And I have no time for a 2000 year old set of rules that leaves no opportunity for progress, change and an expanded viewpoint.

Since I posted my first I've read more of this site and realize you come from a particular point of view that does not tolerate my point of view so I will look for a different site where I will fit in and not cause waves.

Hi Kent,

~Kent~ wrote: It is difficult to correctly understand 2000 year old language that has been translated into modern day English. Those alive today have such a different perspective on their world; are so much more nuanced and psychologically sophisticated.

True, such things require interpretation and an attempt to understand where it is they were coming from, and we do have fundamental differences in perspective from the people before us, but honestly, how can you believe that they were somehow less sophisticated? I don't think it is possible to assert this, having any knowledge of them whatsoever; different, yes, but lesser?

~Kent~ wrote: We can't put ourselves into the same mind-set as contemporaries of Ptolemy so that even if we had a perfect translation we would still struggle to understand it. Phrases like "perfect emnity" can be understood several different ways. I resist literal interpretation. Perhaps that itself is a product of the psychological age. I tend to think metaphorically and not literally.

We need to struggle, but it is not impossible, if rather uncomfortable. These people were also not complete literalists, again I think you haven't looked deeply into this matter.

~Kent~ wrote: And I have no time for a 2000 year old set of rules that leaves no opportunity for progress, change and an expanded viewpoint.

People are still born and die; they are still Homo sapiens, mostly hairless talking monkeys. Gravity is still in effect, and we can always use some more money or go watch a performance. Things are different, but not much different.

~Kent~ wrote: Since I posted my first I've read more of this site and realize you come from a particular point of view that does not tolerate my point of view so I will look for a different site where I will fit in and not cause waves.

Now, what is not much tolerated here is flaming and digressions on modern astrological material, not opinions. The idea that you can't even be here is not quite a reflection of our tolerances but more a reflection of your biases. I'd recommend continuing to read and post here and, quite possibly, expanding your own viewpoint.

Gabe

Throwing my own 2 cents in on the issue of oppositions. I don't agree that they show "perfect enmity", unless I'm not apprehending that phrase correctly; the square would be better described that way, as showing two planets acting at cross-purposes, with one probably overcoming the other due to its position. The opposition, I feel, shows two planets going toward equal but opposite directions, less enmity and more hostile disregard for each other.

There is also the curious idea, I think out of Antiochus, that planets in opposition both look upon (the province of the faster moving planets) and strike each other with rays (the aspects of the slower planets).

Gabe

Since I posted my first I've read more of this site and realize you come from a particular point of view that does not tolerate my point of view so I will look for a different site where I will fit in and not cause waves.

Hello Kent,

I'm sorry you see it that way. The fact I hold a view completely at odds with yours doesn't mean I cant respect your right to your own opinions. The way you present us here we sound like the villagers who chase Dr Frankenstein out with pitch forks and torches!

Its common to debate our views here on Skyscript. This part of the forum is for natal and general astrology so there is no expectation whatsoever that you accept or adopt a traditional approach to astrology. Nevertheless, those of us with a more traditional outlook are at liberty like anyone else to share our views. Personally, I think the dialectic can be useful as long as both sides are open enough to have their position challenged without taking it personally. As you will see even those with broadly traditional approach often disagree with each other on points here so there is no monolithic party line here.

If you think about it this serves a useful purpose in illustrating a productive opposition at work between us.

Mark

Throwing my own 2 cents in on the issue of oppositions. I don't agree that they show "perfect enmity", unless I'm not apprehending that phrase correctly; the square would be better described that way, as showing two planets acting at cross-purposes, with one probably overcoming the other due to its position. The opposition, I feel, shows two planets going toward equal but opposite directions, less enmity and more hostile disregard for each other.

Hello Gabe,

I am quite surprised to hear you stating this. The view that the opposition is the most difficult of all the ptolemaic aspects is fairly consistent in classical and medieval astrology. The notion that the square is the most difficult aspect only became predominant in modern astrology.

For example, in the Carmen Astrologicum , Dorotheus refers to the trine as an aspect of much love and to the square as one of a medium amount of love. No such friendship is indicated by the opposition.

Going back to Pythagorean number symbolism the opposition is based upon the divisive symbolism of number two, which is the epitome of separation and enmity. Only occasionally is it taken to represent agreement - usually between conflicting parties who strike up an unstable alliance.

This has been my experience of the opposition in horary astrology where the traditional view has been personally validated for me in chart after chart. I accept the dynamic is different in natal astrology. The person has a lifetime to resolve the internal and external dynamics symbolized by an opposition. Nevertheless, this does not change the very challenging nature of the opposition.

In his Astronomica Manilius acknowledged a fundamental similarity between opposing signs because of their common gender, but added that more obvious differences predominate:

''... sign facing sign they shine opposed, yet because of their nature they are oft borne in alliance and a mutual sympathy springs up between them, linked as they are by the tie of sex:.... but over this tie the seasons prevail: Cancer resists Capricorn, though females both, since summer conflicts with winter.., wonder not at the signs so situate doing battle.''
Astronomica, 2.4 10; (Loeb p.115).

The opposition is not only unfriendly, but a very strong and forceful aspect because the planets have a clear and direct view of each other.

Mark

Mark wrote: .....The creation of what are presented as problems like this seems a good example of how disconnected modern astrology can become from fundamental astrological principles.

Mark

Mark, this is a fallacy of over-generalization. Any system of astrology has merits and problems. Please don't get me started on some of the bizarre comments and wrong predictions of astrologers of days of yore!

Modern astrology contains the good, the bad, and the ugly. So does Hellenistic, Medieval, Vedic, Uranian, you-name-it astrology. A lot of modern astrology does have fundamental principles: they're just different than the traditional ones. An example would be rulerships involving the outer planets. I am active in two "modern" astrology websites and I seldom see anyone using the Liz Greene style of psychological astrology, which seems to be the particular bane of most modern astrology's critics. On the other hand, if we believe psychology does have something to offer the study of human behaviour and personality today; then surely it does share at least some common ground with astrology.

We need more astrologers sharing their insights across the divides, not raising the barricades.

I have a bunch of oppositions in my chart, including Saturn and Pluto opposite my sun. These were pretty challenging, and psychology did have something useful to say about projection, splitting, and shadow material in terms of how they functioned in my life. IMO the best way to handle an opposition to one's sun is to see the positive traits of the opposing planet as one's greatest teacher. Saturn, for example, teachers hard work, self-discipline, resourcefulness, and perseverance. So it has had a positive side, as I can see now--at an age somewhat past my second Saturn return! So in my case, a modern perspective was extremely helpful.

this is a fallacy of over-generalization. Any system of astrology has merits and problems. Please don't get me started on some of the bizarre comments and wrong predictions of astrologers of days of yore!

To be honest and with no rancour intended the only fallacy here is your perception of what I stated.

Note the quote you selected again!

this seems a good example of how disconnected modern astrology can become from fundamental astrological principles.

I wasn't seeking to encompass all of modern astrology in that statement. The generalisation is therefore yours not mine.

A lot of modern astrology does have fundamental principles: they're just different than the traditional ones. An example would be rulerships involving the outer planets.

True but my emphasis in my reply to Tara was as follows:

Its whether we work with the core founding principles of astrology

Clearly, what I see as 'core' founding principles of astrology are not important to some people here. Thats fair enough. I can live with that and sleep soundly. However, this is a specific thread discussing a quite specific point. The basic way the thread developed it was being assumed that the lack of an opposition was a serious gap or lack in a chart. I simply sought to support the view expressed by Kirk that that notion is simply not consistent with most of the understanding of aspects throughout history. The implicit assumption being proposed was that the opposition was a positive feature of the chart much to be much desired. I'm afraid I couldn't sit on my hands and lets such comments pass without putting forward the counter-view.

I am active in two "modern" astrology websites and i seldom see anyone using the Lize Greene style of psychological astrology, which seems to be the particular bane of most modern astrology's critics. On the other hand, if we believe psychology does have something to offer the study of human behaviour and personality today; then surely it does share at least some common ground with astrology.

I have no personal issues with Liz Greene. Its not the kind of astrology that interests me but then neither is Uranian, Huber, Noel Tyl etc. That doesn't mean I dont think astrology doesn't have a psychological dimension. The whole assumption modern astrology =psychological, traditional =technique orientated is a myth in my opinion.

We need more astrologers sharing their insights across the divides, not raising the barricades.

To be frank that feels like a rather cheap and easy parting shot. I am quite open to sharing my views with others and being challenged on them. However, expecting us all to agree on everything is quite unrealistic in my view. You seem to be upset that I have firm views that dont coincide with the modern perspective you uphold. Underlying these kinds of discussions are differering philosophical evaluations of the value of 'progress' vs maintaining core founding principles as a starting point.

I have a bunch of oppositions in my chart, including Saturn and Pluto opposite my sun. These were pretty challenging, and psychology did have something useful to say about projection, splitting, and shadow material in terms of how they functioned in my life. IMO the best way to handle an opposition to one's sun is to see the positive traits of the opposing planet as one's greatest teacher. Saturn, for example, teachers hard work, self-discipline, resourcefulness, and perseverance. So it has had a positive side, as I can see now--at an age somewhat past my second Saturn return! So in my case, a modern perspective was extremely helpful.

I agree that anything difficult in our chart can ultimately be a teacher and something we can work through. I am not a supporter of fatalistic, negative astrology. Without insight and reflection traditional can be presented that way. Keep in my mind much of my comment relates to my experience of horary or electional astrology. I do think the situation is different in natal astrology. I just feel when something is hard and difficult (like Saturn) we should not fool ourselves into considering it soft and cosy. However, we can all only uphold our own experience in astrology. Clearly what is valid in my experience may not be yours.

Edited: For forum members, the reason I am temporally locking the thread is to give members a time for cool down.

The topic is about oppositions in natal charts. These topic was artificially sidetracked to seem like some kind of great debate over traditional vs modern astrology. It is not.

The lock down will be over in two days. Until them I remember forum members to adress ideas and not the people.

best regards and let?s remember that mercury is retrograde.

I?ve just returned from a conference, and as yet I?m barely functioning, but I?m currently looking out the window at an almost full Moon, feeling that Yuzuru was wise to force us to just ?think? about this thread for a while.

Discussions in this forum very often ?reveal? the nature of the topic under focus, which can make dialogues on difficult aspects tense at times ? but that?s what gives us the opportunity to understand the tension of those aspects. In a way it is interesting to notice how this thread has become polarised; that?s what oppositions do, and its not always easy to integrate conflicting principles.

I think this thread was created to explore the pyschological implications of having no oppositions in the birth chart, so (when re-opened) it ought to go back to that focus. I don?t see any reason why members can?t discuss that from various perspectives though, and bring the benefits of different experiences together.

To stop and think about it, this forum brings together a lot of differing perspectives ? siderealists, tropicalists, advocates of various specialised techniques and styles of astrology. It would be difficult for anyone to remain a member for long unless there was a willingness to tolerate alternate opinion and show basic respect towards other experiences. Sometimes breathers are required, but overall, I think the membership as a whole does amazingly well to be as diverse and generallly obliging as it is

Deb

PS - Have noticed a couple of threads that I'd like to post to, and will do so in a day or two, when I am more organised.

I am in complete disagreement with the idea that the square rather than the opposition is more indicative of ?perfect enmity?. Mark quoted Lilly. Here are a couple more quotes for those who may be interested in what some of the old astrologers had to say.

From the 9th century CE: Abu Ma'shar, The Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology (tr. Burnett), p. 22:

?To the fourth and tenth sign is the aspect of the quartile [square] and of antagonism. . . . To the seventh from it is the aspect of opposition and of enmity.?

I like this way of putting it ? the antagonism of the square increases to the enmity of the opposition.


From the 12th century CE: Ibn-Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom (tr. Epstein), p. 82:

?The strongest of the aspects is the aspect of the opposition. Next in strength is the quartile aspect, then the trine aspect, and the weakest of all is the sextile aspect. The opposition aspect is complete enmity and the quartile aspect is of semi-enmity. The trine aspect is complete friendship and the sextile aspect is half a friendship.?


As I wrote in my first post we have plenty of polarity to work with in astrology. All charts contain indications of polarity. What is not necessarily present is problematic polarity. That's what the opposition aspect points to. A human life doesn't require such openly conflicting forces, but some lives do indeed have plenty of it.