Skyscript Astrology Forum

I personally find it hard to follow what the flow of recent posts has got to do with the original question James framed.

Larxene wrote:

Certainly it is not easy. That is precisely the reason we need to first restore the ancient astrologies, as Project Hindsight purportedly attempted to do, so that we can understand how the techniques were applied within their respective contexts. When one obtains knowledge, it is important to understand that knowledge before one applies it. Hence the hierarchy in Bloom's Taxonomy.

At the same time, we also have practical problems to solve within our current world. Many of the questions relevant in the ancient world also applies in the modern world, such as career, marriage, children, fame, wealth, etc. The ancient astrologies will likely take a long time to be restored. In the meantime we have our own problems to solve. Hence, the best route to take is to study the existing astrological corpus and make our own inferences about how the techniques were used and how it should be used in the current context, to the best of our abilities. Then we should bring our understanding to the test, by putting it into practice.

Very well put. I whole heatedly agree with all the above. I have spent much of the last 9 years learning about traditional astrology. I still feel I have so much to learn! The amount of neglected techniques I haven't even tried is legion.

In the majority of instances I just feel its premature to innovate in dramatic ways when I am still trying to understand traditional techniques. It feels like putting the cart before the horse.

In the case of some more modern ideas its simply a pragmatic consideration of what you can practically fit in to a delineation.

Regarding minor aspects though there are several considerations such as practicality, and a more fundamental philosophical outlook over what aspects are.

My view is that most people traditional or modern dont genuinely ''innovate''. They copy someone elses ideas and test them out. True innovators like say Ptolemy, or Kepler or Witte are quite rare I think. There is a spark of genius in them. I dont necessarily think all new ideas are equally inspired although I accept that is necessarily a subjective view.

But certainly, once you have worked with something for a good while in praxis you either see it working or not. I think most people do this. For example I haven't found the Firdaria that powerful as a time lord technique. I also dont use the dignity of face/decans. From mundane work I have found lunations (all lunations) are very useful predictors of short term trends in natal work. I also find aspects working out of sign. I have seen that working in horary and natal so its not a theory for me its an experiental reality. I am not sure that is what I would call ''innovation''. I prefer to call it customization of astrological technique derived from praxis. I think all astrologers do this to some extent regardless of what label we give them.

Mark

James,

As Mark mentioned, we are getting off-topic so I will try not to make too many offtopic comments. Indeed, in the past where psychology as a field of study was non-existent, there were no "qualifications" for determining mental illnesses. But we have psychology now.

Yes, Saturn is associated with depression. As someone with a prominent Saturn, I can personally testify to that (currently I am undergoing a period of depression as well).

Sometimes I will mention possible mental problems to clients, but only on a case-to-case basis. Ideally, I want to have an empirical basis for making such claims, but I don't right now.

I don't know about other non-outer traditional astrologers. For me I see it in Mercury/Venus in Aries, in the 3rd and Jupiter in 5th in detriment. The 3rd is an ambivalent house. Sometimes it is favourable, sometimes not. (Interestingly, Vedic astrology considers it to be a bad house.) I can't explain my reasoning at the moment. It's just intuition, from reading Maternus's text.



Mark,

Yeah, sorry for the diversions. From what I have observed, James has a spectacular ability of derailing discussions.

Indeed, I also feel uncomfortable about creating new techniques when there are old techniques I have not tried yet. Besides, I don't want to re-invent the wheel. One helpful thing to think about is to ask what modern scholars would do before they carry out some research on their hypotheses. They usually go through a process of reviewing past literature. Sometimes, they will even try to replicate the results. It is prudent for us to follow their footsteps.


In my opinion, it is important to differentiate between "invention" and "innovation". Invention is where one creates a totally new product or concept, whereas innovation is the use of existing products in new ways, or the integration of products that were, before this, separate products.

I prefer not to "invent" new techniques, but I do not mind "innovating" on a technique, as long as the older technique has a precedent, i.e. its use has been recorded and described in the older astrological corpus. However, even so, I prefer to understand the old process and purpose of the technique first, before innovating on it. Again, refer to my statement on Bloom's taxonomy.


Interesting. As for myself, currently I do not use trigon/decan rulership as "dignities", because I do not quite grasp what their meanings are qualitatively.


Larxene

TC - thanks for sharing your friends insight. it is a bit simplistic, but there is some truth in it too..

Larxene wrote:From what I have observed, James has a spectacular ability of derailing discussions.

lol.. either that, or my conversation style doesn't work in the pragmatic linear manner you 2 appear to crave!!!

life and conversation always holds a mystery. we attempt to find out what another persons thought process is and how they arrive at a position they do.. we also note previous conversations of the same few posters on this site and how what they might say in one place is contradicted in another.. welcome to the nature of reality, or the way i perceive a small part of it.. i don't really care about diversions especially when i feel they are necessary to get deeper into a persons thought process. without giving the reasons, i am telling you that this is exactly my line of thinking with regard to my response to larxene's first post on this thread which i wanted him to elaborate on.. i have taken this detour knowingly!! the rolf harris chart might have been an extra diversion that i knew i could use as an example to further a particular line of thinking, if i needed it.

larxene and mark - thanks for engaging in this conversation, offering your views while trying to understand mine. i like the distinction, as i understand it, that larxene has made in relation to the idea of innovation, verses the idea of invention. was the discovery of the planet uranus an innovation? no. was an astrologers attempt at incorporating this planet as innovation? i think it was/is.. do we close the door to new discoveries because they don't fit in with the previous approach that was in use, or do we make room for new discoveries? the way we do this is where some element of innovation is at work.. perhaps a pragmatist would emphasize the basis is grounded on observation.. how does one observe something when they are unwilling to even consider it?

sure.. one has many choices thanks to the new texts which are coming online from the deep past. why would one need to consider more recent ideas/discoveries, when there is more then enough to consider in just getting deeper into traditional astrology? everyone has to answer this in their own way.

for me, innovation might be connected to our willingness to incorporate different unrelated techniques which might lead to an eclectic approach, as opposed to one with a strictly defined date stamp on it.. is that innovative? i think it is, but perhaps it is the wrong word and synthesis regardless of the genre (astrology as art), is a better word to describe what i was curious to explore with others here.

Hi James,

All I can say for sure is that there is a rich depository of traditional as well as modern techniques available to choose from like never before in history. Needless to say, the extension of the Internet contributes to this a lot. (Potentially) every modern astrologer and (presumably!) every traditional astrologer will be mixing elements from both strands in their practice, to varying degrees. If we don't mind being a little eclectic, I feel that we really no longer need to label ourselves as one or the other ? or we are both at once! With this in mind, I once said to Mark that I would be as much a classical astrologer as a modern one - he strongly denied the ?classical? part, however. I can see by now why he wouldn't classify me as such ? but what I really meant to express was that I am interested in old and new astrology alike, and have a way of drawing from all of astrology's history as I see fit.

More practically speaking, I'd like to share with you some of the difficulties and questions I encountered when I first tried integrating the Hellenistic with the modern approach. They may or may not reflect the experiences of others on the forum. (Hey, let's hear from you folks!)

May I humbly present:

The Sternbach Programme for Revolutionizing Astrology

The first of my question has to do with so much of traditional astrology being based on the classical planets' dual rulerships. It's no exaggeration to say that, trying to apply the olden techniques, you quickly get stuck if you don't acknowledge Saturn as the Lord of both Capricorn and Aquarius, etc. This does by no means exclude use of the outers but to integrate them with the traditional astrological approach, a number of questions would have to be satisfactorily answered.

If we accept Saturn as the secondary ruler of Aquarius, for reasons of symmetry, don't we need to consider Uranus as a secondary ruler of Capricorn just as seriously? I have provided a number of reasons for this assumption awhile ago in an exchange with Mark; those of you who wish to review it, scroll down to the end of this page:
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... &start=240
A similar case could be made for Neptune as co-ruler of Sagittarius, and Pluto as co-ruler of Aries.

Moreover there is no agreement among modern astrologers as to the outers' exaltations and falls. I have discussed one reasonable scheme on a thread with Lee Rutland just recently.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8340

We need to further understand how the outers relate to traditionally important divisions such as sect, ?malefics? and ?benefics? (with some personal ?modern? reservations regarding the concept), and the scheme of the Aristotelian qualities/elements.

We should further consider the concept of the cosmic state of a celestial body in general, and compare the classical theories with modern-times empirical observations - as the latter are sometimes difficult to explain based on the classical theories. For that matter, how do the outers' influences modify a planet's cosmic state?

I can elaborate on any of these topics if James asks me to do so. No doubt, there is plenty of room for discussion and innovation in all of this!

I was somewhat startled to find out that so much of Hellenistic astrological procedure seems to be all about determining the strength of a planet according to some calculus... How much the ancients would have benefited from our modern computer programs! They could have finished much of their work within a split-second!

Larxene has just raised the interesting question what the Triplicity rulerships mean qualitatively. (Sorry, I don't find the reference.) Now, personally I'm not convinced they mean all that much, but I find this concept to be another one worthy of exploration.

I would extend this question to other elements of traditional astrology as well. I.e., I would like to see the Arabic Parts defined philosophically rather than fatalistically. What possibilities do they imply? So as to be of more value in contemporary counselling practice.

In conclusion, if we ?modernists? want to integrate the elements of trad' astrology, yet cling on to our typical syncretistic approach, we need to grasp what these elements would mean on a qualitative level.

Michael

Before I forget... We shouldn't neglect to study and re-evaluate *all* of classical astrology's predictive techniques in the context of contemporary experiences and possibilities!

thanks michael,

i suppose it depends on how one defines innovation. i think a computer is an invention, but any invention is typically built on innovative ideas. computers do at least 2 things simultaneously for astrologers - they remove the responsibility of doing the math required for doing astrology, and also free an astrologer up from the time consuming work that would have been required to get the data they would have been interested in applying - which you point out in your comments.

a few days ago i stumbled onto something that in a funny sort of way connects back to my initial question here.. the word is 'bid'ah'... it refers to any innovations made in religious matters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidah

i see parallels in astrology, music and religion, that go back to the individuals unique relationship to any of these areas of study. astrologers can be very specific about what it is they want to pursue.. my question really hinges on the person, as opposed to the specific techniques and why they might or might not use them. i am mostly interested in understanding how someone would be willing to 'exclude' something based solely on the time it was discovered, or used.. the outer planets would be one example of this, but there are many others too. how to integrate the outer planets in sign rulership concepts is obviously a modern approach that could be discussed separately.. what i really want to understand is the thinking that might be going on, in making a decision to exclude certain topics..

perhaps i can give a personal example. i don't work with asteroids, or any of the tno's - trans neptune objects.. i don't discount that someone will make some connections involving these bodies, but i just don't use them. i have essentially made a decision to not include data connected to this in my own approach to astrology. it is not that i am opposed to innovation, but mostly that i want to stay focused on what i am familiar with that i believe works for me! i suspect it is the same for those who are unwilling to use some of the tools that i couldn't do without. they are happy to set limitations for themselves and to work within the realm they believe works for them.

really my question is a desire to understand what the basis is for rejecting newer ideas. i can answer this myself up to a point, but was hoping for some feedback from others whereby i might get more insight into this. i think that i have and it goes back to what a person believes bears fruit astrologically. if one thinks they get more knowledge or insight with a particular technique then they otherwise would, then they will use it!

James,

I'm not sure how many traditional astrologers would agree that they are neglecting or invalidating modern additions to astrology.

I think what it boils down to is that as human beings we can only deal with a limited data set in processing charts or anything else, for that matter.

Fortunately, it looks like important themes in a native's life can be seen reflected in their chart in various ways on different levels. Let's say, it's something holistic, or holographic.

Bottom-line, I don't think you need to include Hidalgo in order to touch on a major theme in delineation. He may add another nuance to the overall picture, to be sure. But you will always have to make a trade-off somewhere, if you don't want to, or can't, dedicate hundreds of hours to one single chart...

I think that the trans-Saturnians potentially alter a chart more fundamentally, or add profound insights to a delineation. But regarding them, it seems that many traditional astrologers include them at least to a degree.

By the same token, we might ask why modern astrologers generally don't include once so prominent an element like the fixed stars any longer?

I hope these thoughts would be somewhat more in line with your thread's query!

Michael

O.k., I thought about it some more.

There may be some astrologers making the assumption that in olden days humanity was somehow closer to the metaphysical Fountain of Truth. Thus, the older/more original something is, the better.

By contrast, some modern astrologers may join the general trend thinking that the more modern something is, the better it must be almost by definition. As it's the culmination of an long ongoing progress.

Personally, I think there is some truth to both schools of thought.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

There may be some astrologers making the assumption that in olden days humanity was somehow closer to the metaphysical Fountain of Truth. Thus, the older/more original something is, the better.

By contrast, some modern astrologers may join the general trend thinking that the more modern something is, the better it must be almost by definition. As it's the culmination of an long ongoing progress.

Personally, I think there is some truth to both schools of thought.

Hi Michael,

I actually discussed just this same point a few years ago in a thread entitled Progress vs The Golden Age I opened in the philosophy forum:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 97319310ef

That I why I feel the original question posed by James only highlights one half of this issue.

Mark

michael and mark

you both raise a good point about how this question is one sided in not addressing why modern astrologers would be unwilling to explore traditional astrology. thanks for bringing that up.. since i don't consider myself a part of that group! - i was more motivated to ask the other side of the question, but it is a valid observation to make.

it is hard to know just what others are doing astrologically other then by having conversations about this here. i suppose it doesn't matter to many others, but i continue to be curious as to why someone would only be receptive to certain approaches and not others. i have outlined some of the reasons why i would be this way, both in terms of being receptive and not being receptive.. thanks for sharing your ideas here and feel free to ask or find an answer to the diametrically opposed question too!

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the link. I could do not more than glance over it, but what I saw so far all looks vaguely familiar. If we have anything to say regarding the other side of the trad/modern debate I'm sure James won't mind us dumping it on his thread.

Hi James,

Seriously, I don't mean to derail your thread. I find your topic interesting and would like to explore it together with you. However, it seems, I'm not quite sure yet as to the exact nature of the conflict you are wrestling with.

I start to think that astrologers more clearly on the traditional side of the spectrum may be in a better position to answer your query. My own outlook is different from theirs.

james_m wrote:I am mostly interested in understanding how someone would be willing to 'exclude' something based solely on the time it was discovered, or used...what I really want to understand is the thinking that might be going on, in making a decision to exclude certain topics...

Well, the first reason is of a practical nature: to prevent information overload. There is only so much information I can integrate in my mind at any given time. For me, everything has to fit and be a consistent part of a whole. Like a jigsaw puzzle, every concept contributes to a part of the picture and they are harmoniously connected to other concepts. My experience is that, the more information you add into your system, the more complex the system becomes, and there is greater possibility of finding inconsistencies. These inconsistencies, they are like puzzle parts that cannot be connected to any part of the picture. They stick out like a sore pinky, so to speak. One inconsistency breaks the picture into two. Another contradiction makes three parts. When there are too many parts, my head explodes......metaphorically. The reason is simple. It is easier to remember things that are connected to each other, than it is to remember two separate things. Extra RAM is also needed to rationalise clashing situations.

Aside from that, another reason is the elegance of the system. I find the simplicity of the Hellenistic variation of the tradition to be elegant and beautiful...whole sign aspects, whole sign houses, cutting the zodiac into half to explain the aspects, annual profections...these things are symmetrical and hence, elegant. Some other elements are more complex and assymetrical, and yet even those systems have their own beauty. Zodiacal releasing, monthly profections, etc fall under this category. Then there is the strongly philosophical basis for many of the concepts, which again appeals to my aesthetics.

I do not solely exclude techniques based on time either. Right now, with regards to fruitful/barren signs, I am working with the Hellenistic versions as well as with Lilly's version. The reason I am trying to integrate Lilly's version is because he gives reasons for why signs are fertile or barren, which makes his system more rationally consistent as a whole (the first point), although there are still some inconsistencies.

larxene,

i think systems only look elegant until we start to use them! astrology has lots of elegant looking systems until they get put to the test of just how meaningful they are in the present, as opposed to past tense.. we can always look back on events and rationalize how whatever the technique we like is seen to be operating effectively.. doing the same in the present by making a type of prediction on the future is messy..

for those searching or seeking perfection - i think it is a vision that gets broken down the more one works in astrology. but we keep on searching anyway!

i think we have to limit our tools and find the ones that work for us to the best of our abilities.. maybe their is another better tool for assessing the moment and the future, and back-testing it is necessary.. it has to work in the present though and i think that is generally when the nice gloss of a particular technique wears off quickly. this is my own experience.. i think i am a realist as much as i am an idealist.

i was reading on the content of an astro conference in seattle that i wasn't aware of, but that passed just last month - not that i would have gone anyway - but i thought it would have been interesting to hear it.. i think it relates to some previous conversations i have had here at skyscript on the issue of traditional and modern astrology and how astrology is moving into another realm that goes beyond the way some may think of the definitions of these terms... it goes with what i feel i am addressing here, but maybe i am being too generous in saying this!

"R. Hand ? Toward a Post-Modern Astrology
The revival of traditional astrology has led to something that is not completely traditional astrology, nor is it exactly like any other contemporary form of astrology. As a likely successor to the astrology of the 20th century, it seems reasonable to call it Post-Modern Astrology. It represents a blend of what is most important and useful in traditional astrology (Eastern and Western) with the goals and aspirations of 20th century Western astrology. In this lecture I will describe one possible view of what this astrology will be like and how it will differ from both 20th Century (modern) and traditional (pre-1700) astrology."

http://norwac.net/main-conference-schedule/

the last time i heard that term 'post-modern' used by someone, it was in a context where i might as well have been told, it was a form of insanity or something quite evil and negative.. i don't know why i came away with that impression but alas i haven't heard from them since! they may have found some other outlet to express their wrath by labeling someone other then just me 'post-modern' LOL!

part 2 for larxene

regarding my question on rolf harris's chart and your comment

Larxene wrote: I don't know about other non-outer traditional astrologers. For me I see it in Mercury/Venus in Aries, in the 3rd and Jupiter in 5th in detriment. The 3rd is an ambivalent house. Sometimes it is favourable, sometimes not. (Interestingly, Vedic astrology considers it to be a bad house.) I can't explain my reasoning at the moment. It's just intuition, from reading Maternus's text.

i want to share what my astro friend marjorie orr had to say recently on diagnosing charts when we find out more, after the fact.. this is taken out of context but is a good summation - "I don't think a chart is ever useful for specifically diagnosing any condition but it can contribute to our wider knowledge once we know what the condition is."

working my way from the outside in, i note the close sun/uranus conjunction in square to saturn in capricorn the ascendant ruler which is located in the 12th whole sign house.. it would seem to me that harris had cultivate a more individualistic and independent way towards life that would be at odds in some strong respect towards the cultural norms he would have grown up in. i am mostly saying this given this close square of saturn - uranus, while his sun in aries forms a close conjunction with uranus as well..

there are 3 quick considerations for me off this chart after this..probably the most significant of the 3 is mercury's position at the midpoint of both lights and conjunction both as well. mercury is ruler of the 5th and 8th house. he made much of his livelihood as a child entertainer as i understand it. this would bring him into contact with young people and as i have read - kept him away from his family and own daughter.. mars in pisces is ruler of all the aries planets and the 10th and 3rd houses. it is in square to jupiter in gemini which overall is a combo of planets in bad celestial state in an angular house position capable of producing tangible results off these same energies. i see mars rising in pisces as potentially problematic and made worse by the square to jupiter.. 3rd is the venus in aries square pluto in cancer which i think can point to unhealthy relationship dynamics involving issues of power and control of an unhealthy nature..

perhaps if i was to add one other consideration, it would be neptune in the descendant which happens to be directly opposite the part of fortune. this to me suggests relationships where their is a lack of boundaries and the potential for problems given this missing sense of boundaries.

i don't think any 1 of these considerations might have been enough to create the end result, but collectively i think they add up to point in this direction.. would i have been able to see this beforehand? i doubt it, but there you have it. i thought it would be fair to share my thoughts on this chart, since you had been kind enough to do so.. cheers!