Skyscript Astrology Forum

According to Wyss, Sasportas, Rudhyar and I'd assumed most astrological historians today, House have always been related to Sign.

It depends on what you mean by "related." I think a weak correlation can be made, not much else. But a weak correlation still means "related." And Gadbury, although dismissive of the modern system, acknowledges its existence (without naming names). No one denies it. It is the value or lack of value that is important. The traditional view tries to make everything connected in a meaningful way. To a great degree this succeeds. The modern sign=planet=house does not. For a better and enthusiastic explanation of the previous world view see C.S Lewis book, The Discarded Image.

Traditional practice and attitude concerning planets, signs, and houses was best expressed in the Gadbury quote above. Planets are planets, signs are signs and houses are houses. The planets and houses are somewhat linked by meaning, e.g. Jupiter signifies wealth and so does the second house, but Taurus does not signify wealth and neither does Venus simply because Taurus is the second sign and Venus is its domicile ruler. The modern method tries to link the domicile rulers of the signs in sign/house order by assigning them to the meanings of the houses. Like I said a weak case can be made for some associations, but it is not as strong as using the Chaldean order of planets and associating them with the houses (not the signs).

I don't know anything about Wyss. Deb discusses Sasportas views of house meanings in her book and if I recall correctly, pretty much disposes of them. Rudhyar is the last place I would look for accurate astrological history. In fact I wouldn't bother to look to him at all. He is of the "I studied all astrology and found it wanting so here is how I say you should do it" school. It's an school with both antecedents (e.g. Leo) and descendants (e.g Arroyo). I seriously doubt Rudhyar ever looked at Lilly much less the medieval or Hellenistic astrologers. In fairness a lot of what is available today wasn't available to him, but the fact that it wasn't available to him discounts his alleged historical knowledge, even if it was good for his time (and I even doubt that). There may or may not be merit in his viewpoints. That is up to his readers to decide, but it is not exactly steeped in tradition.

(3rd century). When Ficino and the Neo-Platonic Astrologers of the Renaissance tried to bring Psychological Astrology into the mainstream, exasperated by what Hyde describes as the 'sterile determinism of Orthodox Astrology',

The idea that traditional astrology has nothing to do with psychology is simple ignorance. See Tetrabiblos book III. There is a chapter titled the Quality of the Mind (Ashmand). Robbins translates it as The Quality of the Soul. The use of the temperament and significators of the manners are very much psychological. Our ancestors were a lot less self absorbed than we are, and were probably more interested in their material well being and survival than we are, since those of us living in the more developed countries take ours for granted. Astrologers gave them what they wanted to know, and they usually served the King so his mother issues would be a good subject to avoid. He didn't have "issues;" he was the King. Hyde's comment is a simple value judgment; it is not authoritative. The idea that "psychology" is the noble end to which all astrology should be pointed is hubristic.

We've been over the "deterministic route" before on this forum in depth and to the point of boredom. The idea that modern astrology or astrologers are any less deterministic than their ancestors is spurious. They just emphasize different things. When Noel Tyl tells a client that he has Saturn retrograde so he has feelings of inferiority due to an absent, tyrannical or weak father figure, he is being no less deterministic than a medieval astrologer telling a client he will be torn apart by wild animals in a public square.

As for empirical evidence, there is no empirical evidence of any planet and wealth. In fact there isn't much empirical evidence of anything in astrology. Empiricism is demanded of others, never ourselves. Even Gauquelin's work that astrologers love to point to, does not "prove" in any meaningful way that astrology works. It may give credence to the idea that the birth moment matters, but even if it does that. It doesn't do anything else.

Traditional astrology is based on a particular world view. It is one method of understanding the world through a coherent system. When that world view died, astrology went on life support. That astrology was not acceptable under the newer Post Enlightenment world view of what would come to be called "scientific materialism." It didn't make sense. Resurrection was attempted trying to incorporate astrology into the new world view, but it has largely failed. By that I mean it is less acceptable now than it was then. This is the reason for the dismissal of the tradition as "deterministic" as opposed to any valid comparison. It is name calling - a less than subtle attempt to disregard and disrespect all previous viewpoints on the basis that they aren't modern. That's true. So what? This is consistent with the post Enlightenment disrespect of everything that came before it that is not consistent with it. And this is Why Robert Hand calls it "The Endarkenment."

In our little corner here on the traditional forum we try to keep a bit of the previous viewpoint alive. This does not mean that we burn heretics, or boil miscreants in oil when they step out of line - as desirable as either of those activities might seem from time to time. I like to think of it as therapy for those of us fed up with the monstrous narcissism that goes on in the outside world - even, sad to say, in our beloved astrology.

Tom

Very nice discussion. Thanks.

Answer to incidental question: the Gauquelin studies use the equivalent of Placidus mundo positions to determine sector placement. That is proportional movement of the planetary bodies through the quadrants along their own declination circles ("semi-arcs").

Thanks Ed for the Gauquelin info.

Tom,
I don't know nearly enough about what happened pre-Ptolemy to know if house=sign from the outset. I need to buy Houlding's book urgently as this is a central dogma of modern astrology.

Rudhyar neglects to give references. He talks about how houses were originally ?watches? and how the zodiac needed to be anti - clockwise once monotheism arrived. He goes on as to how Fagan?s efforts in the 50?s to bring back the original clockwise system was ignorant of modern man?s psychology. So he has a theory here, which he has given some thought to! But it?s fair to point out he wasn?t living in the Internet age where we can now source evidence so much easier.

Hand uses midpoints and the outer planets so is supportive of some more modern innovations. I take his point and it has plenty of validity when you look at the simplistic elements of contemporary astrology.

Hyde is merely documenting how in the renaissance some astrologers felt the prevailing practice was to deterministic. It?s not a modern criticism. If you go back to ancient Greek philosophy there was plenty of the ?Know thyself? stuff around, some people say Socrates wrote this around 400BCE. This is where modern psychological astrology started not with Jung. Astrology was Psychology in those days.

There?s always been an ?inner? and ?outer? tradition just the later was in the ascendancy until more recent times. Certainly plenty of despairing narcissism around due to the prevalence of simplistic astrology in today?s world. I?m not sure Arroyo should be included in this branch.

Modern Psychological astrology makes traditional techniques look simplistic so it?s all relative. It takes about 10 years of serious study to interpret a chart? the Liz Greene way? but I can envisage someone knocking up a Hellensitic or Medieval interpretation after 4/5 years. It?s a myth that serious modern astrology dismisses the ?tradition?, usually advocated by those who haven?t studied it in any depth.

However modern man, particularly in the affluent west, is interested in the Inner as much as the Outer thus the shift in focus. As you say we are more self-absorbed and are able to have different questions and needs. Its obvious why the ?event? orientated astrology is still popular in India where most people don?t have this luxury. In addition we had the emergence of Psychology at the end of the 19th Century so the tools to now more fully understand what the chart could be describing. However I agree that the ?ancients? weren?t oblivious to man?s inner world. Jung took his ideas on Typology from much earlier sources. So plenty of ?insight? into the unconscious around in earlier times. But the bottom line is there were no Cognitive Neuro-Psychology journals in Ptolemy?s day.

Going back to this Cancer/Moon/ Father issue. Wasn't it Liz Greene who said based on her experiences with clients that the 4th House seemed to describe the father more often than the mother, although not always as it depends who is assuming this role in the family. So here you have the most revered of the 'moderns? saying (ironically) lets not forget astrology's roots. Paternity is often more hidden, we get our name from our father (usually) but also we come from the womb. So both makes sense. Is this treason or just common sense?

Ultimately, for me at least its what works, tradition's irrelevant. Liz Greene may be seen as naive in 2,00yrs from now. You'd assume so if history teaches us anything.

We always end up with Empiricism like it or not. If you claim Jupiter says something about a persons wealth then you need to prove it. In the same way a modern would say its says something about a persons attitude to wealth and the onus on proof is considerably less as its so subjective. An event orientated traditionalist needs to evidence a prediction or its worthless. Which is what our friends in academia tend to say it is. Psychological astrology opts out of the need for proof because you can't measure ?insight? or ?purpose? objectively. It can?t be operationalised.

An alternative way is using Blind Readings. I would be astounded if someone who confines themselves to the 7 traditional planets and older systems, and dismisses the link between houses and signs, gets anywhere near the level of accuracy a modern Psychological Astrologer could. Because it?s a different level of complexity and sophistication, its what the extra 5years study gives you! But I?d expect a ?traditionalist? to do as well, if not better, in working out when and what in relation to the ?significant outer events?.

So back to the Joys and Wyss. The responses here suggest no one wants to throw them out just yet as a rationalisation of an error.

This is something Patrick Watson posted on another site, which I came across today, which is another way of look at them from Astrojin?s. He?s talking about the ?Thema Mundi?

?Also, I think the Joys can be found from these aspects.

Sun Joys in 9th, the diurnal trine above the Ascendant (day).
Moon Joys in 3rd, the nocturnal trine below the Ascendant (night).

Mercury has no sect aspect to make, so it Joys in the 1st.

The malefic aspect is the square, and so Mars and Saturn square the Sun and Moon in 9th and 3rd in their Joys of 6th and 12th.

Then we get to the benefic aspect, the opposing aversion. If the Joys are configured in relation to the Lights, then perhaps the benefics are configured in relation to the malefics. If we still accept the rationale of the opposing aversion as being benefic, specifically overcoming adversity, then it makes sense they would be configured to the malefics instead. And so the 11th and 5th are in opposing aversion to the 12th and 6th, with the diurnal benefic taking the 11th (day) and the nocturnal benefic taking the 5th (night)?.

Hi

Let me try to put what I was saying in some sort of perspective. I don' t always have the time to organize my thoughts as well as I'd like, but I answer anyway because I am 1) impulsive and 2) I think timeliness is important.

I don't know nearly enough about what happened pre-Ptolemy to know if house=sign from the outset. I need to buy Houlding's book urgently as this is a central dogma of modern astrology.

Ptolemy doesn't mention houses. If I recall I was pointing out that psychological astrology goes back at least that far. This is not to say Ptolemy, Paulus, Valens, et al were proto-Jungians. My point is that the use of astrology to get inside one's head is not new - far from it. What is notable about the Greek astrology is the lack of reference to myth opposed to Jung's use of it.

From Ptolemy on we have devices such as methods for determining temperament, the significator of manners and the lord of the geniture all of which are psychological. What is loosely defined as "traditional astrology" is not all prediction of events. In fact many moderns who have not studied the subject make that claim, Arroyo, Tyl et al. It isn't true. It is true that traditional astrologers made their living and reputations based on predictions. and prediction was what the market called for. But it is simply a myth that traditional astrology lacked any psychological basis.

Regardless of whether you find anything I write to be of value, do yourself a favor and get Deb's book. Keep in mind that although I love her dearly, I have to admit that there are those miscreants that disagree with her.

Rudhyar neglects to give references. He talks about how houses were originally ?watches? and how the zodiac needed to be anti - clockwise once monotheism arrived. He goes on as to how Fagan?s efforts in the 50?s to bring back the original clockwise system was ignorant of modern man?s psychology. So he has a theory here, which he has given some thought to! But it?s fair to point out he wasn?t living in the Internet age where we can now source evidence so much easier.

On this monotheism bit, I'll toss something out that John Frawley mentions in his lectures. He divides astrology into pagan and monotheistic tradition and therefore the monotheistic tradition begins with Hebrews, not Greeks despite the similarities of Greek and contemporary astrology. Interesting thought. I haven't pursued it. The Greeks were pagans but as noted above, mythology is conspicuous by its absence from their astrology.

What will be come painfully obvious is my anti-Rudhyar bias. He was probably a decent man. I have nothing against him personally, but his astrology - ugh. He didn't give references because he didn't have any to give. I think it is fair to say, and I will yield to Kim Farnell on this point as she is more familiar with these people than I am, that he was ignorant of the subject at least the way we now understand it. Rudhyar died in 1985 at the age of 100. The traditional revival in English speaking countries, began before shortly his death with the publication of (pick one) Clara Darr's publication of Gadbury's Nativity of King Charles , or Richard Baldwin's and Lucy Little's more or less simultaneous but independent translations of Book 21 of Morin's Astrologia Gallica in 1974. It picked up some steam in 1980 with the original publication of Robert Zoller's The Arabic Parts in Astrology. Zoller's teacher, Zoltan Mason was the driving force behind the Little translation of Book 21. But it really took off in 1986, one year after Rudhyar's death, with the Regulus publication of Lilly's Christian Astrology. From there we get re-typed editions of Lilly plus the translations by Project Hindsight and subsequently others. By this time of course, Rudhyar was dead.

English translations of some medieval astrologers were available in 20th century editions, but they were probably not readily obtainable. For example there were a few 19th and 20th century translations of Ptolemy. Al-Buruni's The Elements of Astrology was available, and some others. My guess is Rudhyar had zero exposure to them. What seems to me to be more likely is that what he did have access to was from Raphael, Sepharial, Alan Leo and maybe A.J. Pearce . I'd wager a reasonably expensive dinner he never heard of John Worsdale. For all I know he based his "knowledge" of earlier astrology on Evangeline Adams.

He drew erroneous conclusions from this exposure and with the publication of The Personality of Astrology, he became famous and his word was simply taken for what he said. This is why I said he is the last person I would go to in order to obtain valid historical information. He didn't have any, and what he said about it that he claimed to be factual, should be taken with a large tablespoon of salt. His astrology is another matter altogether.

The point here is that the bulk of recently available information on astrology's rather rich history was only just becoming available at the end of his very long life. But that he couldn't have known doesn't change the fact that he didn't know.

Hand uses midpoints and the outer planets so is supportive of some more modern innovations. I take his point and it has plenty of validity when you look at the simplistic elements of contemporary astrology.

This is true and he has been spotted at lectures using a 90 degree dial. He is also a fan of Rudhyar. I was only giving credit to his observation and coining of the term "Endarkenment," not setting him up as the last word on the subject. I have to like Rob Hand. I once personally heard him at a lecture announce the the audience, "Don't agree with it just because I say it." On some things, I take him at his word.

Now one more brief note on this topic. Fact: there are more techniques out there than we can possibly use. That one might not use particular techniques does not mean that one thinks they are of no value. I almost fell out of may chair when I heard John Frawley say a kind word (no more than one) about solar arc directions. I don't like the idea that astrology is a mere collection of techniques. I think it works better when it is part of a coherent system and world view. Whether I succeed at that or not is another matter.

It takes about 10 years of serious study to interpret a chart? the Liz Greene way? but I can envisage someone knocking up a Hellensitic or Medieval interpretation after 4/5 years. It?s a myth that serious modern astrology dismisses the ?tradition?, usually advocated by those who haven?t studied it in any depth.

I think it is the other way around, if for no other reason that tradtional astrology makes little sense outside the context of the pre-Enlightenment era world view. Therefore in order to get a grasp of the subject one also needs to have a grasp of the world view of the time. This is why I suggested C.S. Lewis book The Discarded Image. If the traditional astrologer doesn't have that, then he is just using techniques. How boring.

I find Liz Greene verbose not deep. While tremendous strides have been made in a relatively short time, my impression is that we've just begun to scratch the surface of Hellenistic, Medieval, and Renaissance Astrology. There are, as is often the case in historical studies, more questions than there are answers, and since astrology never really followed a straight line, or has emerged as a valid field of study in history departments (that is slowly changing), or is measurable as are the applied sciences, the road to understanding is a tough one.

I can find more than a few volumes worth of misleading quotes by moderns about traditional astrology. I think we need to keep in mind that the vast majority of us reactionaries began with modern astrology and gave it up, whereas the vast majority of moderns have no experience with any of the traditions.

Going back to this Cancer/Moon/ Father issue. Wasn't it Liz Greene who said based on her experiences with clients that the 4th House seemed to describe the father more often than the mother, although not always as it depends who is assuming this role in the family. So here you have the most revered of the 'moderns? saying (ironically) lets not forget astrology's roots. Paternity is often more hidden, we get our name from our father (usually) but also we come from the womb. So both makes sense. Is this treason or just common sense?

Treason because it substitutes contemporary political correctness for philosophy, and I hate to say it, but it appears to be based on a bit of ignorance. The meaning of the 4th house in traditional astrology is not just the father. It is based on ancestry or heritage, hence the Sun is the natural ruler (not to mention that Leo, a barren sign is a preposterous significator for the 5th house of children).

The fourth is our parents (plural). The tenth is the mother only when it is necessary for her to be separated from the father, say in a horary question or a nativity where such separation is called for. It is the 7th of the 4th. So when we look for our roots we look to both parents in the tradition rather than look for reasons to dump patriarchy. Traditional astrology is not politically correct.

Ultimately, for me at least its what works, tradition's irrelevant. Liz Greene may be seen as naive in 2,00yrs from now. You'd assume so if history teaches us anything.

To which I can only point out:

?the greatest lie of all in the sciences and metaphysics: that we are the product of a process of maturation, in which all our knowledge is superior to that of all other cultures; and that we have refined ourselves out of and beyond most of the nonsense that held back previous cultures.? -- John Morrill

J. Frawley describes Morrill as: ?the leading contemporary historian of the seventeenth century.


Thank you for writing,


Tom

Tom.

Ptolemy doesn't mention houses. If I recall I was pointing out that psychological astrology goes back at least that far. This is not to say Ptolemy, Paulus, Valens, et al were proto-Jungians. My point is that the use of astrology to get inside one's head is not new - far from it. What is notable about the Greek astrology is the lack of reference to myth opposed to Jung's use of it.

From Ptolemy on we have devices such as methods for determining temperament, the significator of manners and the lord of the geniture all of which are psychological. What is loosely defined as "traditional astrology" is not all prediction of events. In fact many moderns who have not studied the subject make that claim, Arroyo, Tyl et al. It isn't true. It is true that traditional astrologers made their living and reputations based on predictions. and prediction was what the market called for. But it is simply a myth that traditional astrology lacked any psychological basis.

Attempts to ?get inside someone?s head? were based on a pre- Darwin, Freud, Piaget, Skinner, Jung, Eysenck, etc understanding of how our mind?s behave. It?s essential to have an understanding of developments in Psychology over the last 100yrs or so if we want to explore the Psychology in the chart. Otherwise someone?s in danger of looking a little ridiculous if they go into this realm. Is there something as useful as Liz Greene?s chapter in Relating on ?Psychological Types? in any pre-20th century literature?

Older Nativity?s generally describe overt behaviour. In fact the language is often not dissimilar to today?s ?pop astrology?. You see description?s such as Person X is phlegmatic, conservative, creative, sad, artistic, serious and so on. All so vague as to be applicable to all of us. The sceptics Barnum Effect.

Mythology is very useful as a tool to develop or trigger a subtler and deeper understanding of the Planets/Signs.

Here?s an outline of what Modern Psychological Astrology aims to provide
? A surgical scalpel which cuts
through to the underlying motives,
complexes and family inheritance which
lie behind the manifest problems and
difficulties, which the individual faces. It
can also provide a lens through which can
be viewed the teleology and purpose of our
conflicts in the context of the overall meaning of the individual?s journey?.

He drew erroneous conclusions from this exposure and with the publication of The Personality of Astrology, he became famous and his word was simply taken for what he said. This is why I said he is the last person I would go to in order to obtain valid historical information. He didn't have any, and what he said about it that he claimed to be factual, should be taken with a large tablespoon of salt. His astrology is another matter altogether.

Rudyar studied with ME Jones in the 30?s and in terms of influence Jones seems to have been his main one along with the Theosophists. In Jones?s ?How to learn Astrology? book, published in 1940 Jones says.
? Astrology as here presented is the form of practice on which the majority of astrologers and their students agree both in America and England. It accepts the methods in calculation and interpretation which have their principal roots in Ptolemy, Placidus de Titus, Lilly and Gadbury?.

Now one briefer note on this topic. Fact: there are more techniques out there than we can possibly use. That one might not use particular techniques does not mean that one thinks they are of no value. I almost fell out of may chair when I heard John Frawley say a kind word (no more than one) about solar arc directions. I don't like the idea that astrology is a mere collection of techniques. I think it works better when it is part of a coherent system and world view. Whether I succeed at that or not is another matter.

Coherent system doesn?t equate to a useful system. We have 500+ Psychotherapies around today all would claim a degree of coherency. But are they all effective? Traditional astrology strikes me as being obsessed with symmetry, geometry and cohesiveness. Which our discussion about the Joys touched on. Thus the difficulty in recognising and assimilating the outer planets. We would need to re-formulate Ptolemy?s essential Dignities.

Do we sacrifice empiricism and practical usefulness to protect something that has a beautiful design. Astrology was conceptualised by the Greeks as a mathematical or symbolic language so everything had to fit. Aren?t human beings more fluid than this?

I?m yet to see a rationale for excluding the Outer planets from having Rulerships, exaltations and so on that doesn?t defy common sense. Pisces is a lot more similar to Neptune than it is to Jupiter. So why keep Jupiter as a ruler. The argument seems to be because if you play around with the system then your have to re-weave the whole thing. Or some argue that if we develop a fuller understanding of for example, Venus we don?t need Neptune when thinking about the function and meaning of music. I?ve yet to see a description of Venus that can incorporate Neptune?s role here!

Music
?permits the same kind of scanning, sorting and re-arrangement of mental contents which takes place in reverie or in sleep. ?. When we take part in music, or listen to an absorbing experience, we are temporarily protected from the input of other external stimuli. We enter a special, excluded world in which order prevails and the incongruous is excluded. This in itself is beneficial. It is not a regressive manoeuvre, but reculer pour mieux sauter, a temporary retreat which promotes a re-ordering process within the mind, and thus aids our adaptation to the external world rather than proving an escape from it?.(Anthony Storr).

So is this Neptune or Venus? It? s not Venus! It?s one of the clearest descriptions of how Pisceans need and use Music as a way of ordering their thoughts that I have seen.

I think it is the other way around, if for no other reason that traditional astrology makes little sense outside the context of the pre-Enlightenment era worldview. Therefore in order to get a grasp of the subject one also needs to have a grasp of the worldview of the time. This is why I suggested C.S. Lewis book The Discarded Image. If the traditional astrologer doesn't have that, then he is just using techniques. How boring.

I find Liz Greene verbose not deep. While tremendous strides have been made in a relatively short time, my impression is that we've just begun to scratch the surface of Hellenistic, Medieval, and Renaissance Astrology. There are, as is often the case in historical studies, more questions than there are answers, and since astrology never really followed a straight line, or has emerged as a valid field of study in history departments (that is slowly changing), or is measurable as are the applied sciences, the road to understanding is a tough one.

It absolutely isn?t the other way round. This is certainly a fact. I agree an astrologer needs to know the context of what s/he is studying and a course that explores traditional techniques needs to include a focus on the culture and mindsets of the day. This task gets increasing long winded as time goes on. If we take the principal developments in Horoscopy as going from Hellenistic Greece and Egypt to Arabia then to medieval Europe then to the end of the 17th century and then into the 20th century we have 5 systems in a broad sense and 5 very different ?world?s? to understand

A very long and tough road and considerably longer if after studying the history and practice of traditional techniques you then want to become an astrologer in a counselling /therapeutic sense or even as an astrologer who wants to focus on the inner (underlying motives, complexes and family inheritance). A minimum would be 4 yrs (Depth) Psychology on top of this. Traditional Astrology is a piece of cake in comparison.

This isn't a denigration of the subject merely pointing out it's limitations. You have two differnet disciplines in some respects which will appeal to different people, not least when you factor in the economic,time, intelligence, accessibility....variables. Pscyhological Astrology is unfortunately quite elitist.


I don?t find Greene verbose. I?ve heard this criticism from people who have tried to read her material without the requisite background in psychology. Her ability to use simple language to describe complex ideas is her trademark. Thus her ?popularity? in a sense because her material is anything but ?popular? and immediately accessible. Rudhyar is certainly verbose and Jones as well.

Treason because it substitutes contemporary political correctness for philosophy, and I hate to say it, but it appears to be based on a bit of ignorance. The meaning of the 4th house in traditional astrology is not just the father. It is based on ancestry or heritage, hence the Sun is the natural ruler (not to mention that Leo, a barren sign is a preposterous significator for the 5th house of children).

The fourth is our parents (plural). The tenth is the mother only when it is necessary for her to be separated from the father, say in a horary question or a nativity where such separation is called for. It is the 7th of the 4th. So when we look for our roots we look to both parents in the tradition rather than look for reasons to dump patriarchy. Traditional astrology is not politically correct

Well Liz Greene can?t be accused of Political Correctness. Like most psychodynamic thinkers Mad is Mad, Handicapped is Handicapped and so on. They dislike euphemisms. I refer you to her books.

As to the 4th I?d rather we focused on what it represents empirically. In any event Liz Greene agrees it can be the ?parents?, but one or the other, usually the father.

I don?t follow your ?separated from the father? idea are parents conjoined in some way?

But again we encounter the sign=house issue. For moderns the Moon is the natural ruler of the 4th. They evidence this by saying if someone has a stellium in the 4th then Cancerian themes will be very obvious in the persons life.

Why was Leo considered barren? I?m temporarily bewildered by this. When did Leo start to be linked to children? The Sun helps things grow.

?the greatest lie of all in the sciences and metaphysics: that we are the product of a process of maturation, in which all our knowledge is superior to that of all other cultures; and that we have refined ourselves out of and beyond most of the nonsense that held back previous cultures.? -- John Morrill

J. Frawley describes Morrill as: ?the leading contemporary historian of the seventeenth century.

I?m not sure (all) scientist?s today regard current ?knowledge? as intrinsically superior. But overall are aiming to develop previous ideas, as in astrology. Even those interested in traditional technique's and who regard them as containing more ?validity?, are involved in trying to improve, refine, develop, define... them in some way.

Maturation is an interesting concept in this context. It gets me thinking about the Freudian Id or the Moon in Astrology. Our mortality and essential animal natures.

As to astrology being more ?accurate? today I would say it appears to be in the right hands. However like the modern doctor it?s how s/he applies their more sophisticated understanding of how the body works. Like astrologers the better doctors are open to the idea that older remedies can be as, if not more, effective on occasion.

Thanks for the link to the Deterministic thread. Psychological astrologers tend to use the Jung quote?s ? free will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do? or a ?man?s life is characteristic of itself. Deborah Houlding says a similar thing ?
?Most of us, most of the time, are fated by our own predictability?.

Lenore,

I honestly cannot figure out what it is that you are trying to do here. This is a traditional forum for the discussion of traditional astrology, and I'm getting the feeling that your disdain for the subject is supposed to somehow change our minds about its value. That?s not going to happen. And because this is a heavily predictive astrology forum this sort of thing was anticipated in September 2006, when I wrote these words in the announcement in the top of the forum page under the words ANNOUNCEMENT Please Red Before Posting:

I do not believe this is an appropriate place for, ?which one is better traditional or modern? debates. Comparisons are always welcome, but I?ve yet to hear anyone say, ?You?re right; I?m wrong. From now on I?ll become a [traditionalist/modern (pick one)].? Perhaps someone can persuade me that these debates do belong here. I admit I?m not crazy about them; I?d rather discuss the subject than defend it, but we?ll see how this plays out.

Well here is how it played out and an example of why I think I was correct in the first place. There are a few things I cannot let pass, however, as they are symptomatic of a larger misunderstanding that I do not want passed on ? at least not from here.

Your arguments can be boiled down to this: psychological astrology is the only way to do it because it is psychological astrology and you have Liz Greene.

Not everyone sees Liz Greene the way you do. I find her tedious, verbose, endlessly repetitive and not particularly insightful. I?ve read several of her books, or tired to, all of which are now in storage. That you see her otherwise is fine, but bringing up her name demonstrates nothing other than you like her.

Name dropping is not a valid argument either, if for no other reason than many of us don't accept the deification of Dane Rudhyar and Mark Edmond Jones et al. Rudhyar following Jones is a pretty clear cut case of the blind leading the blind, and this is not just my opinion.

"[Marc Edmond] Jones revision of astrology opened the door to the "humanistic" psychological astrology of Dane Rudhyar, first set out in 1936 in his The Astrology of Personality and be viewed as the foundation stone of New Age Astrology. Without the idealist foundation to astrology provided by Jones it is unlikely that Rudhyar would ever have succeeded in grafting psychology and his own version of metaphysics on to existing astrology. Such success as Jones had was due, in my opinion, to his personal charisma, his contagious dedication to an optimistic spirituality and his reportedly humanitarian behavior. In short Jones personal charm, dedication and eloquence and intellectual acumen seduced the astrological community for over 60 years. Such success as he had in converting astrologers to his views was, in my opinion, a demonstration of the rhetorical power of his personal prestige rather than to the cogency of his arguments."

Robert Zoller, Marc Edmond Jones and New Age Astrology in America, 1998. The article used to be at: www.new-library.com but there has been a falling out and it may not still be there.

Older Nativity?s generally describe overt behaviour.

False.

In fact the language is often not dissimilar to today?s ?pop astrology?. You see description?s such as Person X is phlegmatic, conservative, creative, sad, artistic, serious and so on. All so vague as to be applicable to all of us. The sceptics Barnum Effect.

I'm very sorry to put it this way, but the above statements demonstrate a vast ignorance of the subject of traditional astrology. It is a simple manifestation of prejudices. You look at pop psychology and then find it in traditional astrology because you want to. Psychologists call this ?projection.? This is no different and no more substantive than my pointing out, possibly with more accuracy, that the usual modern reading is no more than "You are more sensitive than most people realize, your faults are endearing, really, and they?re all your parents' fault anyway. Learn to meditate. That will be $200 please"

Please learn how a traditional astrologer comes to describe the temperament as choleric, sanguine, melancholic, and phlegmatic ? something that can be (sometimes it isn?t) far, far away from overt behavior, what techniques he uses and how he uses the results and then look at your statement. It may be a real eye-opener for you.

For example, ?Old Blood and Guts? General George Patton?s overt behavior is as choleric as one can get, yet his temperament is clearly sanguine/melancholic. How can that be if all these words suggest ?overt behavior??

You didn?t mention temperament; you only mentioned words. That is the point. These words mean something important within a context that is unfamiliar to you.

Try two contemporary exponents of the techniques, John Frawley and Dorian Greenbaum to see how it is put into modern practice. No objective person can do all that reading and come to the conclusion that you did.

To wit:

The Real Astrology Applied, by John Frawley, beginning on page 121. Followed by the book Temperament Astrology?s Forgotten Key by Dorian Greenbaum. After absorbing this you will have a bare bones understanding of the temperament and its uses or rather you will have a bare bones understanding of what astrologers mean when they use these words.

I personally attended a lecture on temperament by Frawley where he discussed for what seemed like a solid half hour, the make up, inner motivations, difficulties in the life and ways out of the problems of a native without ever getting beyond the temperament, the most basic part of a traditional natal reading. Neptune can?t do that.

Your other statements about traditional astrology are equally incorrect. I?m not talking about difference in opinion, either. I?m talking about factual error.

Why would a modern astrologer trust empiricism? If one did then one would give up the subject forever. There is almost no empirical data to support astrology including Gaquelin's. In fact the most extensive empirical effort made by modern astrologers was the New York Suicide Study and to date no one has found a single correlation between the suicides studied and an astrological chart. There are few, if any, acts more personal than suicide and this is an area psychological astrology should have shined. See The Moment of Astrology, page 50.

If you wish to learn about and inquire about some of the above techniques discussed, feel free to do so here. If you wish to make your case of the superiority of your beliefs the General Nativities Forum is probably a better place to do it, assuming it's OK with the moderators. There are many fine astrologers there who might even agree with you. But this forum is for a discussion of traditional astrology, not defending it against prejudices.

Tom

Tom,
I don?t think you read my previous post very carefully. There may be well be some cognitive dissonance going on here.

My initial post was about the Joys and asked for people?s thoughts on the view that these might be a 'mistake' due to the original ?confusion(s)? surrounding clockwise/anti-clockwise zodiacs. A reasonable question for this board I would have thought. The responses took the view that the author of the book arguing this had misunderstood the implications of the ?evidence?. We then ended up discussing how the idea of sign=house arrived, if it did, in the 'modern' interpretation.

What you fail to do is distinguish between popular modern astrology (a derivation of Zoller?s New Age astrology) and psychological astrology. Those involved with the latter are not unaware of traditional ideas. You cite a usual ?modern reading 'what?s this got to do with Psychological astrology?, nothing. Its just nonsense, modern or otherwise. Zoller?s ?Astro ?Pabulum?, I call it ?Psycho-Babble?.

More from Zoller?s article
?The American Theosophist, Presbyterian minister, writer, occult philosopher, and astrologer Marc Edmund Jones (1888-1980) laboured in the astrological field for over sixty years endeavouring to promote his vision of a rational, reformulated, philosophically consistent and metaphysically sound astrology. Though his solution to what he saw as problems besetting the astrology of his day was not psychological, his reliance upon philosophical and doctrinal guidelines derived from Idealist philosophy and the theosophy of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky ensured that his efforts would establish a foundation on which a psychological astrology could be based.

?Based? is debatable. Psychological Astrology is mainly influenced by the works of Freud, Jung and other Psychodynamic thinkers. Rudhyar dipped into these, Jones I don?t know, However I have been following Psychological Astrology for 28 yrs and can?t recall Jones being mentioned much, and the same goes for Rudhyar. It?s come along way since these ?thinkers? early speculations and has left the Theosophists behind a long time ago. Theosophy is seen as a defence against anxiety on the Freudian couch.

Another interesting Zoller abstract ?Astrology in the USA prior to 1870?
?The study sheds no light upon the development of psychological astrology, but then, this is largely a 20th century affair and the scope of this study has been limited to 19th century sources. But while the phenomenon of psychological astrology is a 20th century affair, the roots of 20th century astrology's infatuation with psychology are to be found in 19th century occultism, not 19th century astrology. To investigate this question would entail the study of C. G. Jung's involvement with spiritualism, occultism and alchemy as it was understood after 1850. It would also entail a discussion of the alchemical understanding of 19th century occultists and such is an endeavour far outside the scope of this present study?.

Now this would be interesting. Zoller and Jung both embrace the medieval philosophical idea of the ?unus mundus?, the one world. A physical-psychical reality, which is described by the divinatory mandala, which is the horoscope. The shift in emphasis in the 20th century towards the possibilities inherent in the mandala as opposed to the probabilities seems to go to the core as to what ?divination? is really about and how this was understood or misunderstood by the Hellenists. Namely, should astrology be interested in predicting the ?quality of possible event?s? or the events themselves. Jung?s view, which has influenced today?s Psychological Astrologers, is that some of the misunderstandings as to what astrology can and can?t do is due to a confusion between synchronicity and causality. Some astrologers have tried to invent methods to predict synchronicity, which is not how divination works. The prediction only refers to the quality of the moment in which a synchronistic event might occur.


You do make one relevant point in response to my post. Frawley?s thoughts on temperament. (Bear in mind a ?qualified ? Psychological Astrologer should be able to talk about one Temperament ? for many hrs, and be familiar with their history). Liz Greene makes the point that Jung?s four-function types fit ?hand in glove? with astrology?s ancient division of the four elements. However the obvious question is why would she and numerous others seek to refine, deepen and clarify these if the Humors meanings were synonymous with Personality models today. Where are these descriptions, which go much beyond overt behaviour, in the traditional literature? Ptolemy?s thoughts on the ?soul? are not much use here.

Frawley and Greenbaum appear to have slightly different methods
http://gryphonastrology.com/blog/category/almuten/
One question, to which you might know the answer, I thought Lilly, who is stated here as Frawley?s mentor, used the Sun as well?

Why would a Psychological Astrologer be able to identify a chart factor related to suicide? Surely there could be numerous, people kill themselves for all sorts of reasons in response to all sorts of events and more importantly perceptions of them. A Psychological Astrologer could explore despair, depression, hopelessness, trauma, anger, martyrdom, adolescence, psychosis and so on. By suggesting they could offer something ?definitive? in this area suggest to me you didn?t read your old Liz Greene books very carefully. I?d have thought this would be right up someone like Zoller's street with the idea that once you master Fidaria or Profections then the ?biography? is written.

Anyway I?ll leave you with this from Zoller?s FAQ?S about medieval Astrology, the word ?sacrifice? is dubious in the light of the above. As an aside this seems to be essentially Robert Hand?s angle with his ?modified medieval system?.

?6.Can Medieval Astrology be used in conjunction with Psychological Astrology?
Yes, there is no conflict. They complement each other. This is because Medieval Astrology, while it does have something to say about the native's character, has nothing to compare with the sophisticated theories of personality and psychological development which are features of contemporary psychological astrology. Medieval Astrology's character analysis, while it offers penetrating insights, is crude, practical and ad hoc. On the other hand, contemporary psychological astrology, in order to be able to depict the totality of the native's psyche has sacrificed the ability to predict. Indeed, many contemporary psychological astrologers believe that astrology is not about prediction.

The Medieval Astrologer existed prior to the development of psychological theory and so didn't do psychology. However, the Medieval Astrologer, because of the way he conceptualised his Art, could delineate the objective features of the native's life and predict events. There is nothing to stop a psychological astrologer from adding the delineation and prediction capabilities of Medieval Astrology to his or her skill in understanding the subjective psychological reality the native lives in. Similarly, the Medieval Astrologer may learn the sophisticated psychological insights which many people today want from the modern practitioners of psychological astrology?.

My hunch Tom is that psychology isn?t for you, what does your chart suggest? It could be that the ?reason? why George Patton rounded up the Germans and made them see what they had done in the concentration camp will elude you for the time being. Your temperament seems more choleric than his! He sure had an ambiguous chart for a general. One day they will exclude people who have Pluto and Uranus in the 12th house forming a grand square with mars, mercury and the mc/ic axis from signing up. It would be less traumatic for all parties!

Was this his destiny or a possible destiny?

So no prejudice here, just someone struggling to seperate the wheat from the chaff in the past, present and future.

The joys got my attention many years ago because they fit well with things I'd observed as a practicing psychological astrologer. Mars in the 6th for example, is much more often correlated to people who love work, always keep busy, and are particularly productive. Of course living a life of hard labor in medieval society would not have been seen as fortunate- our civilisation has a very different sense of the value of work. Sun in the 9th came with those who have great faith in life, barring many difficult aspects. Some joys took me much longer to understand. I think it is very difficult for many people to give up the association of the twelfth house and the Piscean or Neptunian themes.. How can Saturn possibly be involved? It's helpful to remember the 12th house and it's association to places of confinement, to solitude and a sense of separateness. Some experience of this is almost always necessary when strong personal planets are in the 12th. We could say that Saturn here, with its connections to strong boundaries, guarantees the process, from separation to union. The 11th house in Hellenistic astrologer was particularly fortunate, it is also the house of the Bonus Daimon - the good Angel, - a benevolent guide, and this may well be the correlation to Jupiter. I will be speaking on the Joys at the AA conference in September, for those who are interested.

So to conclude then, using saturn in the 12th:(take your pick or picks!)

1/ - it's a rationalisation of an error- would have been 7th in North facing chart where saturn is exalted (in Libra at least)
2/ house of bad spirit
3/ - cadent in aversion to the ascendent
4/ - squares the sun and moon's Joys (it's malefic)
5/ - 'guarantees the process from seperation to union - useful disciplinarian in relation to some 12th/Piscean themes?


Who was the 1st person to write about the Joys and attempt a hypothesis/application?

Lenore

I don?t think you read my previous post very carefully. There may be well be some cognitive dissonance going on here.

I don't think you read mine at all. I will say this one more time and hereafter I will simply delete the posts. This is NOT the place for these silly modern vs traditional arguments. The joys are fine. The rest is just gibberish.

Tom

Tom

You know I read your post.

Which of these 5 are 'modern'?

Do you have a view on the origin of the Joys?

Hi Lenor Gize

I?ve never had time to follow this thread until now so I have only just read your earlier comments.

I posted this in response to the following articlehttp://www.astrophoebe.com/astrology/index.html#5

''According to the ancient system of planetary joys the moon rejoices in the 3rd. This would have been the 4th in a north-facing chart, and would have corresponded to Cancer where the moon is dignified. Mars rejoices in the 6th, which would have been the 1st, corresponding to Aries, in a north-facing chart - the sign of his rulership. Mercury rejoices in the 1st, which was the 6th, corresponding to Virgo, where Mercury is indeed ruler. Venus rejoices in the 5th, which would have been the 2nd where Venus is strong as ruler of Taurus. Also, it should be pointed out that in Hindu astrology Venus rules in the south-east, which applies when the chart is orientated northwards and the 2nd house lies south-east. Thus the joys of the four planets entered below the horizon in Fig. 3 can be explained if a north-facing chart direction is taken.

Above the horizon we find Saturn rejoicing in the 12th house. This would have been the 7th in a north-facing chart, which also makes more sense as Saturn is the ruler of the West in Hindu astrology (which is where I am suggesting Greek astrology originated) and is traditionally exalted in Libra? the sign corresponding to the 7th. The Sun rejoices in the 9th, which would have been the angular 10th house previously. Capricorn is not the sign of the Sun?s dignity, but when in the 10th he is in his full mid-day strength. That leaves only Jupiter, and I admit I can find no reason for Jupiter rejoicing in the 11th''

The link you give doesn?t seem to be working. But this is extract suggests a very strange and unreliable theory. In the ancient world there was no such thing as a ?north facing chart?. The ancients were very particular about their orientation, and their divinatory principles (in the northern hemisphere) were established through the viewpoint of facing east, rising towards the south. That is why right ward /dexter motion (associated with goodness and gain) rises from the ascendant towards the midheaven, and movement which falls from the ascendant to the IC was leftward, sinister and unnatural ? the diviner faced towards the east and then monitored the southern arc that passed from east to west.

On top of the fact that the basic premise is faulty, you seem to have mixed a lot of inconsistent reasoning here to make this hypothesis fit. It is really unconvincing, and without any historical support, it can?t be taken seriously.

The Astronomica (dated c. 10 AD) by Marcus Manilius is the oldest source for information on the joys, and also the oldest extant text to give detailed information on the meaning of the houses. The scheme he presents is adapted by later authors for reasons I explain in my book. Under his scheme Venus rejoices in the 10th house, not the 5th, which he explained was fitting for the ancient view of the 10th house as the temple of marriage, celebration and success. Saturn rejoiced in the 4th house, not the 12, which is fitting to the 4th house?s connection with graves and mines, fathers and aged people. I don?t want to lightly touch on principles that I explain in much more detail, and therefore much more effectively in my book, so I?ll recommend you to that if you want to follow this up. Manilius, the oldest source, was the only author to write of this variant scheme so we are left with the need to decide whether this was an older system or merely a mistaken one.

I will just say that it?s important to keep in mind what the joys actually are, so that we don?t feel tempted to randomly switch them around to suit our own inclinations for neat patterns. The joys are the places where the planets ?rejoice? ? the most preferred place for them to be in. We have planetary joys amongst the signs as well as the houses, so that planets that rule two signs have one that they prefer, just as there is one house or place in the chart that suits their nature best. I believe that Saturn really is better suited in the 4th house, as in the original scheme of Manilius. But later reasoning seems to have been to elevate the benefics and reduce the power of the malefics, so Saturn was reasoned to be well situated in the 12th, where it is cadent and weakened. A similar philosophy to that used in the principle of sect was applied, that the power of the malefics is less damaging (and therefore better) when some of their power is broken.

I?ll refer you to my book, which I think will answer a lot of your other questions:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/temples/contents.html