Hi James,

Our recent private communication may have provided us with some clues to shed further light on this topic.

I had brought up a parallel development in the martial arts world where you can see, on the one hand, the modern styles that emphasize an eclectic approach as well as individualistic innovation; on the other hand, the classical styles that proud themselves to carry on unchanged a tradition of several centuries' standing...

However, sooner or later you typically find that what has been advertised as "traditional" or "original" is in fact not more than about 100 years old and originated from a blending of several more ancient systems. In the process, these systems were altered dramatically, and to a degree deprived of their spiritual and/or martial essence.

But this is only gradually becoming evident due to the ongoing efforts of a handful of pioneering researchers who are making more of the ancient texts and information accessible, and moreover explore the ancient teachings practically in their relevance to our modern world. Interestingly, these meticulous researchers typically don't announce to have recovered, or to be teaching, a really original system of martial arts. They don't deny that they are creating new systems by incorporating useful elements from earlier times with more modern approaches - while skipping over those parts that can't be decoded yet or don't appear to make sense in a contemporary context.

James, in analogy with the aforesaid, I think part of what you are struggling with is the apparent negligence of traditional astrologers proclaiming the revival of the classical system - as a closed and complete framework! When in fact so many sources have not yet been explored (let alone with a degree of historical accuracy), and when so much about the practice of the ancients remains difficult to decipher and ambiguous. Not to mention the clear differences in philosophical outlook between earlier and contemporary man, and the list goes on...

So, in light of to this, those astrologers would perhaps be wise to call themselves something like ?traditionally oriented modern astrologers.? If this just weren't so cumbersome!

Do you think, I'm touching base?

Michael

hi michael,

yes, i think you are touching base here!

i think the comments you make with the parallel to the martial arts is a good one. the same thing happens in the music world which is another reason this topic is dear to my heart. there are musicians who claim to be playing bop music from the 50/60's era and the natural descendants of this music. in fact, it is impossible to do this as anyone who has grown up in this era, or even since the advent of rock and roll from the 60's especially - can't remove themselves from the influences of these sounds.. it is impossible for these other sounds to not have some type of connection to your musical acts today.. now, we can say that those who play bop today are doing it in their own modernized way, but some of them would resent being told this too! no, they are doing it in the most authentic way, according to them, by venerating the bird instead of valens or ptolemy.. said deal, but in the jazz music world, instead of astrology..

but, regardless of all that, the fact is that trying to isolate one particular style of (jazz) music and saying you are only going to focus and play that style of music without having grown up in the cultural context of where and what that music was coming out of - to me it seems quite foolish.. however - people do it!

Indeed, we cannot completely remove ourselves from our own contemporary environment. In that sense, we are all 'modern' astrologers, in the sense that we exist within an era that we currently call 'modern'. It is simple to prove that our situations have changed, for example, we can just show how dependent the current culture is on computers and smartphones.

At the same time, 'modern' has another connotation to it, that is, it refers to the astrological techniques that have been invented or extrapolated (and sometimes greatly stretched) from older techniques within, say, the last few centuries. While we cannot totally practise astrology the way the Greeks or Arabians did due to the differences in our environment, we can still assert that we are practising the techniques created during their time, to the best of our abilities and our understanding, while making small innovations here and there as a form of adjustment, whether to compensate for the lack of clarity in the ancient texts, or to account for the current situation we find ourselves in.

In essence, traditional astrologers are like archivists. They preserve what was available in the past, as best they can. But no matter how well you preserve things, in the end, many will undergo some degree of dissipation. Ultimately, we are only capable of making use of what is extant.

Traditional astrology as it currently stands is incomplete, and may remain so for a long time to come, just like many other articles of history. So some degree of innovation may be helpful in filling the gaps. For instance, in Mathesis, Maternus kept insisting that the details of events forecasted 'are according to the nature of the signs', but that important chapter on the characteristics of the signs is 90% missing. Surely it will not magically appear on my desk one day; I need to do something about the void.

However, in the first place it is readily obvious that we need to adapt traditional techniques to modern society. There are things and ideas that are present in today's world that may be not present in the past, so some degree of adjustment is prudent. However, ideally, as 'traditional' astrologers, we should not invent or innovate techniques in just any way we like. That is perhaps the fundamental difference. Coke Light is still Coke, but it appeals to the increasingly health-conscious societies.

In reality, invention is really hard. Most of the the time, we innovate. An example of a technique that looks like an invention at the moment (but may actually have some traditional precedent) is Sun sign astrology. I have not seen any text that delineates personality based on the Sun's position in the zodiac so I assume, for now, that it is an invention.

An example of a 'small' innovation based on tradition would be something like this. According to Ptolemy's method on finding profession/actions, only three planets are considered: Mercury, Venus and Mars. The reason is probably because in most cases only these planets are capable of undergoing a heliacal phase (and I think Ptolemy was greatly concerned about phases?). The Moon is also capable of undergoing a phase, but in this case, it moves too fast, rather than too slowly, as with Jupiter and Saturn.

However, I have noticed that when Jupiter or Saturn is in the sign of the MC, or they behold the sign of the MC, the natives tend to perform work that contain some elements related to these planets. So when these planets are involved, I include them in my delineation, especially if none of the three planets signify actions.

Larxene wrote: At the same time, 'modern' has another connotation to it, that is, it refers to the astrological techniques that have been invented or extrapolated (and sometimes greatly stretched) from older techniques within, say, the last few centuries. While we cannot totally practise astrology the way the Greeks or Arabians did due to the differences in our environment, we can still assert that we are practising the techniques created during their time, to the best of our abilities and our understanding, while making small innovations here and there as a form of adjustment, whether to compensate for the lack of clarity in the ancient texts, or to account for the current situation we find ourselves in.

the way i see it larxene, astrologers work with the tools they have available to them, but the main one is observation and the ability to make a connection between the chart and what is happening in the life of the person who the chart belongs to. this is the same for any astro chart - horary, or mundane or etc and doesn't just apply to natal. it is observation that is the basis for concluding how astrology works.. we may be handicapped by the tools we use too and some might argue that a person is using the wrong tools to diagnose what is taking place within the life of the person whose chart it is. so for me 'observation' and the ability to make connections is the basis for astrology, whether it be old or new or however one defines it.. this in itself is not new!! someones ability to perceive in an unique or innovative manner might appear new though..

i have suggested here at skyscript that the use of midpoints has a lot in common with the greek or arabic parts.. they are not the same, but they share some things in common.. is the idea of midpoints new? not really.. i think an examination of midpoints is something more easily done with the use of computers then it would have been in hellenistic or even medieval astrology for example. so, in a sense the use of midpoints has some precedent in the past, but also something to offer us today, in spite of there being no immediate connection to the use of midpoints in the deep past. i don't really know how one would categorize this, other then modern astrology, but i think it doesn't matter, or it matters only in so far as a person would automatically dismiss or accept it based on the time of when astrologers did or didn't use the technique/tool..

Larxene wrote: In essence, traditional astrologers are like archivists. They preserve what was available in the past, as best they can. But no matter how well you preserve things, in the end, many will undergo some degree of dissipation. Ultimately, we are only capable of making use of what is extant.

it is an interesting point you are making and one that i have made to suggest that 'traditional astrologers' is a term that was adopted somewhere in the 1990's to describe those astrologers who were actively seeking astrological texts from the past that were previously unavailable to astrologers from the 1970's for example.. this process is still ongoing, as the texts from project hindsight, or holden translations and etc. etc. have all become more readily available only in the past 20 odd years! 'traditional astrology' seen in this context is very 'modern'.. i especially like and agree with your last statement in the above paragraph..

Larxene wrote: Traditional astrology as it currently stands is incomplete, and may remain so for a long time to come, just like many other articles of history. So some degree of innovation may be helpful in filling the gaps. For instance, in Mathesis, Maternus kept insisting that the details of events forecasted 'are according to the nature of the signs', but that important chapter on the characteristics of the signs is 90% missing. Surely it will not magically appear on my desk one day; I need to do something about the void.

i think it will always be incomplete. the gaps and how to fill in the gaps continues to be the challenge of present day astrologers! obviously you recognize this and the need to fill in the gap missing in the works of mathesis! good luck in this regard!!!

Larxene wrote: In reality, invention is really hard. Most of the the time, we innovate. An example of a technique that looks like an invention at the moment (but may actually have some traditional precedent) is Sun sign astrology. I have not seen any text that delineates personality based on the Sun's position in the zodiac so I assume, for now, that it is an invention.

that is interesting conjecture on your part.. i think most astrologers, especially 'traditional' minded astrologers view this as a watering down of astrology into 12 segments of the year and making a connection to those different seasons and stages of the year.. ironically or not - this is what got me interested in astrology.. the question to my mind was this "is there a connection between the time of the year a person is born, and some of the personality traits they display?' my answer remains the same and is answered to a good degree by sun sign astrology.. if one acknowledges the importance of the sun in astrology, i think there is some real wisdom in this too. i wouldn't use it for the basis for everything, but i think the position of the sun in a natal chart is extremely important.

Larxene wrote: An example of a 'small' innovation based on tradition would be something like this. According to Ptolemy's method on finding profession/actions, only three planets are considered: Mercury, Venus and Mars. The reason is probably because in most cases only these planets are capable of undergoing a heliacal phase (and I think Ptolemy was greatly concerned about phases?). The Moon is also capable of undergoing a phase, but in this case, it moves too fast, rather than too slowly, as with Jupiter and Saturn.

However, I have noticed that when Jupiter or Saturn is in the sign of the MC, or they behold the sign of the MC, the natives tend to perform work that contain some elements related to these planets. So when these planets are involved, I include them in my delineation, especially if none of the three planets signify actions.

i like your thinking here. i think you are right about ptolemys concern for planetary phases, but he might have also been trying to capture the more personal inclinations, as opposed to more general inclinations of a generation born with saturn or jupiter in the same sign.. however, i agree with you of the importance of planets beholding the sign of the MC as having some bearing on a persons profession.. i see this with planets on the angles and the inclusion of the outer planets well.. uranus on the angles shows up an inordinate numbers of astrologers charts.. how does one get this via ptolemys system only? one needs to make a connection between what they are willing to consider on an astrology chart and what they see in the life of the person they are considering..

larxene - thanks for sharing your thoughts here and for this conversation!