Skyscript Astrology Forum

Eddy wrote:... Dispite of my different views I think it's possible to participate constructively on the debate and I try to be of help by contributing with several historical and technical points. In my last post in the primary directions I was going a bit too technical which was of less (traditional) relevance.

I found the primary directions topic difficult as well, since I saw this thread right about at the time I was going to jump in. In my opinion, there have been advances and not mere changes or corruptions to the practice (and certainly to the math) of primaries since the time immediately preceding Placido. And I think there are insights of value to the discussion if these often more formal considerations that stem from the 20th century are allowed. But the forum seems to be inclined towards "only the old way please", and to be frank I'll never be a historian or scholar like Martin is. But I am a mathematician and computer scientist, and that background gives a different perspective. Does it belong in a thread started in the "traditional astrology" forum? I don't know. But I do see a fair amount of "traditional astrology" in the general nativities section.

Just a couple of pence for you.

I do sympathize with where Tom is coming from following the appearance of the anonymous disrupter, though.

- Ed

Logically you need a cut ofF point, as a mnemonic perhaps 8/4/1884 ?

I'd have thought any ideas after this date ought to be deleted, to keep the discussions contextual.

So no discussions of people alive after this date either, otherwise it wouldn't make sense since they would have been exposed to other possibilities.

Unenviable task here. Good Luck.

So no discussions of people alive after this date either, otherwise it wouldn't make sense since they would have been exposed to other possibilities.

I studied modern astrology first like most people here. Its not as if we are living in some Amish like astrological community blinded to contemporary astrology. Its everywhere around us. I organise an astrological programme in my area and regularly invite speakers offering astrological ideas from all perspectives.

However, from a purely personal point of view I have found modern astrology rather limited in scope. Studying over 2500 years of astrological tradition opens up your mind to possibilities not even hinted at in modern astrological discourse. Moreover I have found a logical consistency and philosophical depth in traditional astrology that was just not there for me in modern astrology. You suggest we are limited in cutting off discussion after 1900. What about ignoring all astrology before 1900? Isn't that historically quite a limited approach? That is the reality of mainstream modern astrology.

You typify this forum as if we were the Spanish Inquisition of astrology banning all discussion of other ideas. This is clearly nonsense. In reality its the other way round. Modern astrology predominates in the astroogical community. All we are seeking is a small haven here to discuss traditional techniques in peace without being constantly attacked and ridiculed. Who is really the intolerant voice in this discussion? I dont have a problem if someone wants to be a Uranian, Huber or psychological astrologer. Its a matter of individual choice and taste. Why then do you find those who choose traditional astrology so threatening?

People come here for a wide variety of reasons. Yes some to hold to the idea of Robert Zoller that 'the old ways are the good ways'. Some just want to expand their understanding of the astrological tradition. Others have a love of history and want to explore the rich legacy that the astrological tradition offers. You dont seem to have any of those motivations. You just seem to like getting a reaction from traditionalists. You claim to be knowledgeable about psychology. Perhaps you should search your own heart for a reason why you keep making posts like this?

I should also point out that some of do use some modern ideas in astrology. For example I use solar arcs and do look at aspect patterns in a chart. I also use the outer planets. However, I dont seek to discuss such techniques here as they are not part of the traditional approach. Just because we set restrictions in this forum doesn't mean you can assume we all apply those rigidly in our astrological practice.

Mark

As my name came up...

Ed F wrote:I found the primary directions topic difficult as well, since I saw this thread right about at the time I was going to jump in. In my opinion, there have been advances and not mere changes or corruptions to the practice (and certainly to the math) of primaries since the time immediately preceding Placido. And I think there are insights of value to the discussion if these often more formal considerations that stem from the 20th century are allowed. But the forum seems to be inclined towards "only the old way please", and to be frank I'll never be a historian or scholar like Martin is.

I have to say I have never found anything at all objectionable in your posts, Ed, so nothing I say here is a criticism of you (although we disagree on the subject of directions: in my view they have gone rather sharply downhill over the past few centuries). But as Olivia points out, there are a great many arenas for that overwhelming majority of astrologers (90% or more?) who do modern astrology. If this forum does tend towards 'only the old way please', I for one don't see why it shouldn't.

(Parenthetically, I can now hear Robert Zoller in my head, going: 'Welcome to the world of medieval astrology, where the old ways are the good ways and the earth really is flat!' )

But I do see a fair amount of "traditional astrology" in the general nativities section.

Well, 'Nativities & General Astrology' is a broader description than 'Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques'. Surely 'general' means both traditional astrology (about 2000 years' worth of accumulated experience) and modern astrology (about 100-200 years' worth, depending on one's definition)? Traditional techniques would be out of place in a forum called 'Modern Astrology', though.

Having said all that, I should like to add that I think the level of tolerance in this forum admirably high. There is no compulsion to agree with earlier authors on everything -- indeed, that would be impossible, as they frequently disagreed with each other! Criticism and critical questions about the 'old ways' have always seemed welcome, as long as they have been informed (or seeking to become informed), and that goes for the mathematical or philosophical angle as well as for the historical.

Sure, fair enough. And I can live with it.

- Ed

If this forum does tend towards 'only the old way please', I for one don't see why it shouldn't.

Exactly. Traditional astrology has a right to exist and needs somewhere to flourish on the internet. We shouldn't be apologetic about that.

Mark

Hi, Tom

I don?t think the guidelines have to be redefined... as Deb pointed out, where there is no good faith, nor common sense, no guidelines will help.

Deb wrote:I have had some very convincing evidence that this was a long-standing trouble maker using a new alias to rejoin and cause more nuisance, so this time I've blocked his IP from even accessing the Skyscript site.

Ah, so I was right! Thanks Deb.

As a modern astrologer I came to this forum for several reasons:

(1) The level of discourse here is higher than at 2 other forums in which I participate. In large part this is due to the ban on "please read my chart" requests; and because it does take more grey matter to grasp some traditional astrology techniques than the sun-sign astrology that too often passes for modern astrology.

(2) If a lot of smart astrologers (present company accepted) find traditional astrology to be effective, I am interested in learning why. And I have learned a lot from all of you. Hey, thanks.

Some people learn best by interacting, rather than sitting quietly on the sidelines. We don't know how well our ideas hold up unless we submit them for feedback. If the idea of traditional astrologers is to make their work more mainstream, then modern astrologers are the likely source of converts. Perhaps someone could explain how excluding any modern input is intended to attract the potential cross-overs.

Also, the boundaries between traditional and modern astrology blur for reasons other than whether Evangeline Adams belongs "in" or "out". For example, on a recent thread as to whether amulets or charms might be effective in mitigating a troubled-looking horoscope, the meta-issue--of whether or how the native can take pro-active remedial steps-- is one in which any type of astrologer can engage. I got criticized for being "modern" in my response. Fair enough, if I didn't make myself clear. So I assembled classical texts to show that the OP's question and my initial answers crossed historical periods, and thus equally fit the definition of "traditional." Bottom line? The traditionality of a question or a reply, consequently, might not be immediately apparent.

Possibly one issue, Tom, is how one labels oneself, rather than the antiquity or modernity of the topic--unless suitable topics are largely restricted to a suite of approved techniques.

Hopefully a more restrictive Forum does not stress a "them vs. us" of traditionalists vs. moderns, in which dismissal of modern astrology sum total becomes a kind of password for membership in the club. Each person who switched from modern to traditional astrology probably came from a different collection of readings. We are all aware that there is a big difference in the early books by Robert Hand or John Addey vs. Linda Goodman or Dane Rudhyar, let alone some patently absurd proposals by modern astrologers. At the same time, one could point to superstitions and erroneous ideas in the past, such as Ptolemy's serious treatment of babies that are not human. Consequently some internecine tolerance seems called-for.

The original meaning of a forum is a marketplace or public square. An Internet forum is a marketplace of ideas. The best ideas on a traditional astrology forum will find plenty of "buyers."

The enemy of traditional astrology isn't the moderns: it is people who would happily destroy all of our work, no distinctions made.

waybread wrote:... one could point to superstitions and erroneous ideas in the past, such as Ptolemy's serious treatment of babies that are not human.

My supposition is that Ptolemy et al. are referring to babies with severe birth defects. I don't think anyone back then was thinking of gryphons flying out of women or the like.

You're right, this place is for discussion, but the problems come when people show up that are not interested in discussion ...

I don't believe the stated - or implicit - purpose of this forum is to make converts out of anyone. At least I hope this place isn't just a marketing ploy, but I've never got the impression that it was. Sure, members announce new books and papers here, and arguably that's promotional, but we're the audience for it.

I'm not sure how one could convert anyone (see the guidelines for how the modern v trad debates generally work, if you haven't seen enough modern v trad debates yourself).

There's a chance for young people, or people new to astrology NOW to learn traditional astrology from the start, but that's an extremely recent development - and this site is a valuable resource for all of us. If people want to study trad, they will. If they don't want to, they won't.

I still don't know of any traditional astrologers who recommend or recommended spending a lot of time on rough water if you have Saturn in Pisces in 12 opposite Mars, but if you found traditional sources that recommend that, then good for you.

And I think we had a vocabulary problem as to what 'astrological remedies' are. But I do not want to get sidetracked in this thread.

We're not trying to convert you. Or anyone else. If there was a memo to that effect, I certainly missed it.

Hopefully a more restrictive Forum does not stress a "them vs. us" of traditionalists vs. moderns, in which dismissal of modern astrology sum total becomes a kind of password for membership in the club.

The restrictions, such as they are were not intended to do that. As Olivia and others noted this Forum is something of a refuge where traditional astrology can be discussed intelligently without disruption by modern astrologers wishing to show everyone why we're wrong. In short, these people are trying to be the smartest kid in the class and not really contributing anything of value.
As for the matter of conversions, it is difficult to convert if we keep them out. So that logically couldn't be the purpose of the Forum.

As for marketing, I think that is fine but I'm capitalist swine. I don't want the Forum or Skyscript for that matter to be spammed, but if an astrologer has something of value, here is a good place to mention it. The members will determine for themselves if they wish to buy or not.

So again I'm not trying to restrict what we do, just make it plain what we don't do.

And once more on the Evangeline Adams remark. My objection was not the inclusion of Adams. My objection was the inclusion of Adams' musings on the Moon in a thread whose concern was the Sun in traditional astrology. It was off topic.