The more philosophically developed and truly dedicated Astrologer-Philosophers appear to be more reticent and cautious, often having something built in that prevents them from so quickly jumping into the fray. They aren't nearly so involved in Internet discussion groups.

Interesting idea. Is this based on any evidence though or is this just a theory? I mean how can you be sure this silent group of astro-philosopher-kings is out there if they remain largely silent?

My own experience makes me a bit sceptical. I am active in an Astrology Association and have spoken to astrology groups. Most students of astrology are looking for something really practical. What they largely want is an astrology that will help them understand their relationships, family and friends better. That is probably how many of us enter astrology. I have often been frustrated by how few students of astrology are really interested in the WHY? question at all.

I also regularly organize events with professionals. Professionals are obviously a mixture of types. However, I dont see very many interested in deeper philosophy. Not least as astrology can be very time consuming as an occupation in itself. Most seem to adopt an agnostic or mysterian position to such big issues. Maybe its another example of British pragmatism or the relativism that predominates in much of modern culture.

Still there have been very interesting books by by English astrologers such as The Cosmic Loom by Dennis Elwell or The Moment of Astrology Geoffrey Cornelius. Maybe continental Europe has more of the thoughtful, reclusive astrologers you describe. For example, Guiseppe Bezza's Cielo e Terra. In Britain and the USA the trend towards academic opportunities for astrology students, in recent years, with institutions such as Kepler, and Lampeter have opened up more opportunities for astrologers to reflect on such issues more deeply.

I mean how can you be sure this silent group of astro-philosopher-kings is out there if they remain largely silent?

I beg your pardon? Some of them are queens, you know. Largely silent, but not completely so. They make themselves known through occasional writings, conference appearances or Internet postings, or are referred to by those who've met them or have learned from them.


The Internet provides easy access with plenty of readers, so many of those that we are calling astrologers are merely enthusiasts/hobbyists/dabblers with opinions who want to make a big noise if they are crossed. Skyscript is a little different with it's presence of well-known professionals and authors. I don't have facts or figures to prove anything, but I think it's possible to get the feel for who we are dealing with.

I think that a good number of 'professional' astrologers are those who, frankly, didn't want to be secretaries or insurance salesmen. They are the 'Hey! I'll be an astrological consultant' crowd. They may see the need to be knowledgeable and usefully productive in their line of work, but that doesn't necessarily make them deep thinkers, scholars or serious searchers. You will find them at conferences and workshops because astrology is their line of work. I personally see them as being more concerned about marketing their services than going beyond the occasional reflection on fate and free will. When we get in a hot debate we may in truth be getting all worked up over something written by a fugitive salesman who has a professional interest in his preferred astrological occupation.

So who are we talking about when we talk about astrologers? A whole bunch of folks, many (most?) of whom aren't interested (or interesting) enough to have much influence on astrological thought. I see most publicly prominent astrological discussions as being among followers rather than leaders.

kirk

I see most publicly prominent astrological discussions as being among followers rather than leaders

.

Thats why we are so spoiled on Skyscript. Some people dont know how fortunate they are. For example newbies arguing horary with Deb

I do think I know the kind of people you are referring to. One person that comes to mind is Dorian Greenbaum. There is little denying that careful, erudite academics do not gravitate to internet forums.

Anyway, I better get back to replying to Philip and doing some more Astro dabbling....

I did read some erudite comments here recently written by Robert Schmidt then they disappeared. Which was odd and a little discouraging.

I did read some erudite comments here recently written by Robert Schmidt then they disappeared. Which was odd and a little discouraging.

Its not that uncommon for a member to decide to delete a post here. The moderator can then come along and remove it completely. Still, I agree it would be extremely interesting to hear Robert Schmidt's views both as a philosopher and astrologer.

Mark

I agree, Mark. It would be very interesting to see Robert Schmidt's response to some of the themes raised in this thread for a start. Having said that, I would hate to drag him away from his very important work for Project Hindsight.

Kirk, I think there may be multiple different reasons underlying your observations about different participation levels in Internet discussions on astrology. Here are a few considerations that spring to mind:

1) Academics in teaching posts are exceptionally accountable for their public words on any topic that they teach, and may therefore be a little more cautious when it comes to expressing views or getting involved in debates than others;

2) Much less on Skyscript than elsewhere, but in Internet forums as a whole there is always a potential risk of disagreements of opinion becoming quite heated or even degenerating into personal slanging matches of various kinds, subtle and not so subtle, which for many people is a very unpleasant experience, and such people in general might be shyer of Internet forums as a result;

3) I think there is a wide range of different personal preferences and temperaments when it comes to written communication generally, and in particular to the sharing of thoughts, views and knowledge through written communication in publicly accessible parts of the Internet. Some may be comfortable with submitting research and astrological analyses to a printed magazine or into a book, but less so doing so in an online setting where they come under instant scrutiny from a host of readers. Some may prefer to study, practise and develop their own astrological philosophies with minimal involvement in the online world; others with considerable involvement.

Overall, I think it may be a mistake to judge that those who do get involved in astrological forums are necessarily less serious astro-philosophers than those who do not. I think it is very possible that for all those you see posting in online forums, there are many less serious 'dabblers' who for reasons of their own also stay away from the forums, preferring to study offline in various ways, and the ratio of online participants to non-participants among these 'dabblers' might not be as dissimilar to the equivalent for the most serious astro-philosophers as you seem to be supposing.

However, from past experience as an astrological forum manager, one thing I would have to acknowledge is that those of a more advanced degree of knowledge and serious research and learning inclination are often less interested in participating if they feel they have nothing new to learn from the other participants in the forum, which reminds me obliquely of the old cynical adage 'If you find you're the most intelligent person in a room, leave the room'.

There are equally a good many practical astrologers who are quite happy playing a teacher, leader and help-giver role to learners on Internet forums, however, without being motivated by professional sales. You might perhaps call these dabblers, but their calling to astrology is nonetheless sincere and they are very committed to it.

One final point arising from your thoughts that I'd like to make is that in centuries past there was seemiongly no greater accolade for the leading astrologers such as Lilly than 'Student in astrology'. Being an opinion-former and philosophical exponent was not necessarily where 'it' was at. Being an honest, humble student of the classic works and the tradition was many an astrologer's greatest aspiration and source of pride.

Mark wrote:In discussions here on Skyscript I am often struck that while threads often focus on a specific issue or technique underlying this is often a more fundamental set of philosophical assumptions.

I have noticed this kind of issue especially in discussions regarding modern versus traditional astrology here on Skyscript over the years. While I am in danger of reifying the issue between over -simplified polarities I do think there is some validity in this kind of description. Modernist astrologers tend to put implicit faith in the 'newness' and innovation of contemporary astrology. There is often the assumption that ancient and medieval astrology is 'outdated' and no longer relevant to us today. Another common assumption is that traditional astrology is pre-psychological and therefore trapped in a more fatalistic , event focused perspective. At the other extreme traditional astrologers can typify modern astrology as a diluted or corrupted version of an earlier 'golden age' where astrology had attained a higher level of technique and philosophical self consistency. However, there is no consensus when this 'golden age' occured. Various periods are selected to epitomize this period. For example, Classical astrology, Persian/Arabic, Latin medieval astrology, Renaissance or Early modern astrology. There is often an implicit faith that older techniques are preferable to anything developed in the modern era.

Does anyone else recognise these kinds of attitudes? Do we accept these kinds of assumptions are built on myths? If they are what are the implications for how we view other approaches to astrology? Ultimately is this an issue of subjective taste and temperament rather than any objective criteria?

Mark, you raise some good questions. I am a retired academic (yes, tenured, &c.) and a self-taught amateur astrologer. I use a nickname here because of the negative attitude toward astrology in the academy. Yet astrology is my passion. I do "modern" astrology because that was the only sort available in New Age bookstores before the Internet made other schools of astro-info so widely available.

"Modern" to me isn't some kind of cult or union card. It is what I learned, but I am open to expanding my repertoire. If a technique works, I'd like to use it, regardless of which school claims it.

Similarly, I would hope that "traditional" astrologers would be open to new ways of thinking. We don't do very much else in society the way it was done in Hellenistic or Medieval times. While I can understand personal loyalties, I don't quite understand the exceptionalist argument made for traditional astrology.

I was browsing in a New Age bookstore a couple of years ago and picked up a book by John Frawley, thinking I might find a primer in traditional astrology. Au contraire, it was loaded with pot shots against modern astrology. Well, I can make up my own mind about astrological writings, but I wonder if his over-the-top negativity set the tone for many other traditionalists.

I really wish the divisiveness between traditional and modern astrology would go away. Society as a whole thinks astrology in general is bunk; and the thought of these different schools of thought sniping at each other makes no sense to me....well, maybe unless some particularly ill-founded snipe at modern astrology seems to warrant a rebuttal for the sake of balance.

One criticism of modern astrology that I find particularly inapt is the conflation of it with psychological astrology. I learned a lot by reading Liz Greene, Howard Sasportas, &c.; but as someone with no psychology credentials, I also found Greene's insistence that psychology is necessary to the sound practice of astrology to be both self-serving and overlooking of the many paradigm changes in psychology in recent times. [Her own psychology credentials are suspect, BTW.]

I don't think the "newness" of modern astrology itself is compelling. But I will say that astrologers of the past did not inhabit anything remotely like my world. Social history indicates how different our worlds truly are. Oh, take family life and marriage, for example. Or the status of women and options open to us.

So this is why I think traditionalists and modern astrologers should be building more bridges than barricades.

Waybread wrote:

I was browsing in a New Age bookstore a couple of years ago and picked up a book by John Frawley, thinking I might find a primer in traditional astrology. Au contraire, it was loaded with pot shots against modern astrology. Well, I can make up my own mind about astrological writings, but I wonder if his over-the-top negativity set the tone for many other traditionalists.

I've never had much interest in reading or owning a Frawley book for that very reason. It's too much even for me. A few years back I realized I was hearing that Frawley voice all over the place coming from other mouths. The Frawley phenomenon has passed and the voice has faded quite a bit. I'm sure his negativity was a damaging influence. Alas, I was also influenced by it. Oh well, I've been corrupted ? I'll be nice in my next life.

I really wish the divisiveness between traditional and modern astrology would go away.

Out-of-control antagonistic divisiveness doesn't do us much good, but the hard reality of the very different beliefs and approaches between traditional and modern astrology must be acknowledged and allowed to vent. I'm worried about an ugliness that has crept in, a fear of saying anything that may be taken as critical and divisive. Here at this site, which is mostly haunted by traditionalist astrologers, both sides are welcome. But I detect a lurking pressure to not mention traditional astrology in the General Astrology Forum for fear of offending someone or appearing to be preaching and converting (well, sometimes the poster is preaching and trying to convert). I think it's indicative of the general state of things in the larger astrological world.

Just as the former unified gay liberation movement now has to distinguish between gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered folks (wittily referred to as GLBT, [or LGBT if you believe the lesbians should come first]), so are astrologers at risk of binding themselves with their diversity banners, with everyone mumbling safely bland comments.

But I will say that astrologers of the past did not inhabit anything remotely like my world. Social history indicates how different our worlds truly are. Oh, take family life and marriage, for example.

Yes ? They experienced marriage and family life, just as we do now! They had financial hopes and worries; they argued with neighbors and dealt with thieves; they had good health or poor. Then they died.

The idea of things being different now is a prime point often made by those who are oriented toward modern astrology; it's rarely voiced by traditionalist astrologers. Could it be that it's indicative that those who favor modern astrology tend to view intellectual and philosophical concepts on a progressive time line, tying in with the common belief of the modern age that the present is a more desirably advanced state, with the past as something outdated and to be left behind? The traditionalists, I believe, see more continuity, with the present age containing and fulfilling the past. I don't see the traditionalists as looking back to a golden age, but to a worthy foundation that should be maintained and fleshed out.

Kirk

Frankly there are pot-shots on both sides of the isle. I was talking to an astrologer recently about Neptune. I mentioned I don't use the outer planets, so I have no idea where they even are in my own chart. It's been too long. She gave me a smirk and said "out of sight out of mind huh?".

John Frawley can be irritating for a number of reasons. He has some interesting nuggets here and there, but I'm tired of hearing about how THE TRUE TRADITION (C) has to be monotheist Christian or Jewish - i.e. you have be Jewish or Christian do the kind of astrology he advocates. Ugh.

For me, and this has always been true of all of my metaphysical interests, I like internal consistency. For me I don't do traditional astrology because it's more "correct". I do it because there's a rule for everything. I'm not going to say it's 100% perfect, but at least there's somewhere to start. Often in modern astrology, you'll hear a question like "wouldn't it be great if we could xyz", and then there's tons of guessing of how to do that thing. In traditional astrology I at least have an existing technique or techniques to start with.

An example of this process is marriage. I've been very successful with delineating marriage in natal charts using traditional techniques. Frankly they're more detailed than what you'll find in pretty much any modern book. On the other side, many traditional character defining techniques can be weak, so often we'll have to dip into modern techniques, which is much more detailed in that area. Even though I do this, I still tend to approach it in a traditional way - i.e. I might approach significators and their placements a little differently than many modern astrologers do. In fact I took my cues here from Robert Zoller who, as strict as he is, used a little modern astrology in character delineation and physiognomy. I tend to do the same thing.

Basically I try to understand my tools.

On the other hand, I'm very strict with horary. Whenever I've seen modern astrologers try to modernize horary, it seems to be pretty horrible and vague. I've seen some use modern rulers which don't have the full spectrum of essential dignities, so in effect you have no way to gauge the quality of the significators of the question. It pretty much ruins the reading I think.

Hello Philip

I am conscious that the discussion I started with you on magical vs scientific astrology is a bit off track from the main thread theme-although there are some links. I dont want to derail this thread any further as there are some really interesting contributions on the basic theme. Rather than break the flow here I propose to start a fresh thread later where that rather different discussion can be continued. I hope that is ok with you?

Mark

Absolutely fine, Mark, and very conscientious of you. I look forward to the new strand!

I suspect that whether a western astrologer follows more modern or traditional methods is mostly a question of our personal intersections with astrological information available to us, and also of our own personalities and tastes. Which we would sort of expect: if we looked at one another's charts, could we predict what sort of astrologer each of us would be?

A lot of astrologers who hang out a professional shingle today really don't have credentials of any sort. I think this does everyone a disservice. But inadequate training and fraud have been going on since the days of Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos I: 2. 6-7. In addition to criticizing the ignorant practitioners, he wrote, "...it is the same with philosophy--we need not abolish it because there are evident rascals among those that pretend to it.")

Modern astrology does have rules; as the basic primers on how to synthesize a horoscope will indicate. Maybe not so many as traditional astrology, but some are based on traditional astrology. Others are simply different. Just for example, in looking at planetary pairs in aspect and determining which one is stronger or weaker, the technique I learned was simply to weight them in order of distance from the sun. Thus tiny Pluto sits like the small child perched at the end of the see-saw, balancing out a larger child like Jupiter sitting closer to the fulcrum. Psychological astrologer Liz Greene has rules, and hers mostly slot horoscope elements into frameworks provided by psychological theory. I think in her writing, the moon is tremendously important as she subscribes (or once subscribed) to a thesis that "the bad mother" was responsible for most of the ills bedeviling the adult. Ruperti and Rudhyar popularized focusing on a planet's stage in its cycle around the sun.

Underlying most modern astrology is a meta-narrative about whether humans are primarily spiritual or material beings. Another meta-narrative is about whether the cosmos can have a deterministic and sometimes malevolent influence on human behaviour; or whether such a view is incosistent with the belief in a kindly God or at least a scientifically understandable, impersonal, neutral cosmos.

So maybe the principal way I would characterize much (though not all) astrology from the early 20th century onward: that oftentimes a philosophical or spiritual paradigm shapes the astrology to fit it. I suspect this was also true of former historical periods, but I'd defer to the experts on this one.

I would also think that anyone really wanting to get under the hood of Hellenistic, medieval, or Vedic astrology would be well-served by learning a lot about the social history of the era in which it evolved; as well as the periods' philosophies and theologies on the nature of human beings.

Just for example, in northern Europe in the Middle Ages, childhood and parenthood were very different than they are today. Infant mortality was huge, surviving children went to work young if they were peasants. Non-farm working class boys were usually apprenticed at a young age, and they lived with their masters, not their parents. Elite boys were also fostered out to learn the manly arts of hunting and warfare from a kinsman or neighbour. Girls typically married young; and their marriage was probably arranged if their parents had any status. Romantic love as we know it wasn't a huge option, apart from the late-breaking courtly love model of adultery. Nearly everybody was illiterate. Hardly anybody had a choice of work. There was hardly any middle class. The feudal class system was destiny in all but a very few cases. Depending upon the time and place, slavery was either perfectly legal, or something very close to it. Hardly any population growth occurred before early modern times because the death rate was so high. Life was often physically dangerous.

So I think one would have to understand this world in some detail, in order to contextualize the meaning of the sun and moon as one's parents, Venus/Mars as one's romantic/sexual nature, the notion of the MC as one's vocation, &c. I don't think we can assume without research that medieval people were "just like us" because our experiences are so different.

Also, I think any system of astrology has to be viewed with a healthy sense of skepticism. Each contains the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I could quote some real idiocy from modern astrologers. But then again, I read in Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos III.13.159 of my Mars opposite Saturn:

"In the opposite positions he makes his subjects robbers, pirates, adulterators, submissive to disgraceful treatment, takers of base profits, godless, without affection, insulting, crafty, thieves, perjurers, murderers, eaters of forbidden foods, evildoers, homicides, poisoners, impious, robbers of temples and of tombs, and utterly depraved."

I don't think so. I've never robbed a temple in my life. Or maybe I've just missed my calling.