Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi Kirk,

I?m sorry if you feel I took your quote out of context. There was no intention to manipulate the direction of the discussion ? I thought that I had answered your question ?horary or natal?? as it applied to combustion, within the combustion thread - and that there was another point you were raising which was a more general issue relating to the use of what are seen as ?fatalistic? approaches, such as horary, as opposed to the less fatalistic approach of modern natal methods. Probably my understanding was influenced by the comments Dennis had raised, which were also on my mind at the time.

I was addressing the need to proceed differently in natal and horary work and the need for changes in approach which those different ?astrologies? require. For example: The Sun in detriment square Saturn might work to give a possible horary reading of ? No, it will not work to your advantage and will probably be harmful.? This is appropriate for horary and is the function and purpose of horary. But if this same square in a natal chart is interpreted as ? This aspect of your life [all that is represented by the Sun during that person?s lifetime] will not work to your advantage and will probably be harmful? doors are closed, and bad astrology has been practiced. In the horary reading you have predicted a final undesirable outcome for one issue. In the natal reading you have predicted a lifetime of bad outcomes and harm with little possibility of good.

As I said before, I agree with what you are saying in principle, but it?s not as straightforward as the way you have presented it. In traditional natal astrology the details are a lot more important. You can?t talk about ?the Sun in detriment square Saturn? ? is it a square to a dignified Saturn or a debilitated one? Does reception exist showing that the square aspect, whilst indicating difficulties, is not beyond offering assistance in the right situations? Is it dexter or sinister? Which planet overcomes? Is it applying or separating? What houses are they in? Are they high or low, fast or slow, direct or retrograde? How much accidental dignity do they have? Is there translation, collection or prohibition? It may be concluded that there are many ways in which this aspect can be usefully employed and others in which it may not.

Modern natal astrology will talk about planets in rulership, exaltation, detriment and fall as if that is all there is to be considered. But to half-use the dignity scheme is worse than useless: the Sun may be in its sign of detriment but if it is well placed and receiving positive contacts, it would not be considered weak. Modern natal astrology assumes that all squares are difficult and all trines are easy ? but traditional techniques tell us that there are other factors that need to be considered, and that a trine between two difficult planets may ease their ability to produce a ?harmful? effect. Also that the planets we generally consider difficult may turn out to be the most productive and useful, whilst those we generally expect to bring benefit may, in fact, bring harm.

Modern astrologers don?t understand why that longed-for Jupiter transit sometimes brings rejection and humiliation, or why Venus hasn?t showered the romance and money they expected, but instead brought painful emotions and heartache - because they use only the generalised meanings of things. To compensate for this the interpretation becomes generalised, or as you say ?vague?. Vague interpretations are less harmful or disturbing to the client, but they are also less pertinent ? why not take it to the extreme and deliver your report as a blank piece of paper? No harm will have been done and the client can make of it just what they want.

There is an essential principle in astrology that you don?t harm the interests of your client (more of this later). Traditional astrologers don?t say ?you have the Sun square Saturn ? abandon all hope? ? that was the point of my earlier comments in this thread: people are too quick to dismiss traditional astrology as fatalistic and an approach that closes doors.

Quote:
Have you ever seen a traditional text allow the native to assign responsibility for their own problems to someone else?


Those texts were written before Freud.

What about Robson? Carter? Addey?

I see this as a questionable basis of expressing astrology?s primary aim ? to take someone forward and to give them the best chance they have of being more mature and effective as a person. None of us take control until we assume responsibility for ourselves and everything that is a part of our lives. Everything has a reason and a purpose in life, even the handicaps.

We easily criticize modern astrology without considering the fact that astrology resurfaced and spread rapidly in the age of modern psychology. The quarrel is really with the fact that popular psychological thought has crept in throughout our lives and society. Modern astrology is only a minor player in that pervasive influence.

Exactly. Astrology is not a minor player in someone else?s league. It is a very powerful study in its own right. When its traditional teachings get rejected or twisted out of all recognition in order to accommodate its position as a support-factor to another study, it is less productive and less reliable. All good astrologers of the past, present and future have a natural inclination towards psychological analysis. They are all trained to recognise ?personality types? and patterns of behaviour ? psychological insight is built into astrology, no one is rejecting that.

We need a broader view which takes us beyond ?astrologer vs. astrologer?.

There?s no ?astrologer vs. astrologer? involved. Ultimately ? I?ve said this before ? I have far more respect for ?modern astrologers? who use their tools with discretion and insight, than I have for those that use traditional techniques without good judgement and an appreciation of whether they are actually helping someone or (as you said earlier) closing doors and augmenting insecurities. Some of my best friends are modern astrologers. No one inspired me more than Charles Harvey ? though we were poles apart in technique, the fact that I am still involved in astrology today is largely down to his influence. But it?s not wrong to push for greater understanding and respect, not just for each other but for what astrology is and what we are aiming to do with it ? and that means we shouldn?t worry about making challenging remarks and entering into debate.

It seems to me that the interest in traditional astrology has been strongly influenced by a desire to flee from the age of modern psychology. Not to turn away just from modern astrology, but from the grip of psychological analysis and explanation. Concomitant with the reborn interest in traditional astrology has been the revival of horary.
I can?t help but feel that spending one?s time studying and practicing horary is too often a convenient way of avoiding the issue of how to interpret a natal chart?and a way of not appearing to others as one of those dreaded and despised popular psychologists.

It's not about avoiding anything, its about using the technique that most suitably deals with the client's needs. Horary is effective for a very broad range of issues - which don't require the far more detailed and time-consuming work involved in drawing up, rectifying, analysing and progressing a birth chart. But it doesn't do what natal work can do, and natal work doesn't do what horary can do.

BTW, I don?t despise psychologists and agree with your later comment about natal astrology being ?an earlier form and practice of psychology?, or at least it has always had the psychological element intrinsically incorporated.

I say the reason that the different methods and applications of traditional natal and horary astrology aren?t explored and clarified is because natal work is too easily considered an undesirable form of astrology and is avoided because the astrologer doesn?t have a way of working with it. Natal astrology is therefore misunderstood due to a lack of deep knowledge of it and the unwillingness to move into new territory.

I don?t agree with this but it?s worth exploring. I don?t know anyone who is skilled in horary who isn?t also a good natal astrologer, though how much they retain traditional techniques for horary and fall back on the modern approach for nativities is variable. There comes a point where you are trained to work with astrology in a certain way, it is impossible to work with it in any other. Like I said in the combustion post, I recognise combustion in nativities and draw an interpretation form it ? but all of the information we are capable of seeing in a birth chart has to be filtered to what is appropriate for the client to digest, at that age, at that level of experience, under those circumstances. The approach you take to a young person is not the same that you would take to an older person, just as the meaning of the interpretation also needs to reflect what they are capable of receiving. (A direction promising marriage won?t apply to a 12 year old; a direction promising pregnancy won?t apply to a 70 year old). Discretion is the greater part of the art and any warnings you offer have to be very delicately phrased.

In the past, the first part of any birth chart interpretation was to establish the length of life and the critical periods where there was a real danger of accident or mortality. But if this was practiced commercially today lawsuits would follow. So all natal astrologers are bound towards diluting their interpretations, and in fact they always have been, out of consideration of the powerful effect they can have:

?afflict not the miserable with terror of a harsh judgement; in such cases let them know their hard fate by degrees? ? Lilly

But the astrologer is still more informed, and potentially able to do a better job if they are able to extract reliable information in the first place. It doesn?t matter if they couch their report in the language of modern psychology, if that?s the appropriate way to express it, that is what should be used.

The difference is that traditional techniques can lead us towards precise judgements that we must then evaluate as to whether it is in the client?s interest to know this detail and if so, how best to put it over; whereas modern natal techniques start loose and end loose. The astrologer isn?t trained to see more if they wanted or needed to. It falls back very heavily on ?this is the way you feel about things and the way you approach the world?. That?s fine but most clients expect that astrology is capable of delivering more than that.

Another problem is that traditional techniques require precise birth data or a lot of careful rectification before detailed analysis can proceed. Most practicing natal astrologers don?t want to undertake this task, but without reliable data the most useful techniques, such as primary directions, won?t be reliable. The first sentence in Lilly?s horary volume is an explanation that many people don?t know the times of their nativities, so horary is used instead.

John Frawley claims that you are not ready to study nativities until you have mastered horary. I think most people aren?t ready for horary until they have a good basic understanding of astrology which they generally get from the modern natal approach. I also think that they need to have the psychological foundation that the modern natal approach provides. But then we are ready to start ? horary has to be mastered first because that is the best way to explore the techniques involved, the underlying philosophy and to put their usefulness to the test. The experience of dealing with situations is ground work for dealing with someone?s life.

Very few people are properly trained and competent in traditional natal techniques ? yet we can?t calculate the number of people earning money as professional natal astrologers. We can?t calculate the number of books published about how to understand your birth chart for yourself, marketed to an audience that has no capacity to understand the deeper philosophical principles involved, let alone the full potential of the stripped-down techniques they are presented with. Doesn?t this concern you? I don?t object to the incorporation of psychology ? I object to the fact that only the ?generalised? element of the technique is considered alongside it, and the emphasis has to be given over to psychological exploration because if it is measured against anything more tangible ? when you actually leave home, start your job, get married, become ill - it doesn?t hold its own weight.


Ps ? sorry for the long post, but I wanted to give you a full response so you didn?t feel I was avoiding your point, and I?ll be off the forum for the next few days.

My point was that we need to distinguish our uses of astrology. More specifically, we need to clarify and refine the uses of traditional astrology.

If one is going to make such a point, one needs to provide a couple of examples and suggestions. What is more distinguishable than horary and natal astrology? Horary answers a specific question. A few planets are used to unravel the answer. Natal attempt to unravel a life, a far more complex undertaking as all the planets are used. If we wish to know if a certain job offer is good for us, it makes far more sense to do a horary than a natal examination. I don't understand how this could be made more clear, and how anyone could be confused by it.

As for refinements, this too is a vague criticism. As researchers study and translate the texts, certains changes are made in our thinking once the "refinements" have been tried. Rob Hand, for example, says he is delineating solar returns differently than he used to based on "new" material that became available to him. Robert Zoller has stated that he no longer practices astrology in every respect as he did when he wrote The Arabic Parts in Astrology, The Lost Key to Prediction. There are countless other examples. Traditional astrology is not monolithic and unchanging. It is growing as these words are written. Astrologers research, read, translate and develop ideas about the development of astrology all the time. Read anything by Robert Schmidt for further clarification.

Traditionalists are constantly learning and refining. For me at least that is the most fun.

It seems to me that the interest in traditional astrology has been strongly influenced by a desire to flee from the age of modern psychology.

This statement is historically and factually inacurrate. Space does not permit a dissertation on the development of astrology since the early 19th century, but modern psychological astrology didn't become popular until the 1970s, and what was practiced before that was hardly "traditional astrology."

If we're going to date the beginning of the contemporary interest in traditional astrology we can begin in 1980 with the publication of Robert Zoller's The Arabic Parts in Astrology, The Lost Key to Prediction, and the 1985 publication of the Regulus edition of Christian Astrology. Therefore we can argue that the popularity of traditional astrology grew virtually alongside of modern psychological astrology. It is not the result of "fleeing" from psychology. I would argue it is the result of growing interest in quality and depth. It shows what astrology was and can be, and what that is is far superior than to the I'm OK; You're OK" world of the moderns. That pop psychology books hit their stride at the same time psychologcal astrology gained influence is no coincidence and neither one does more than scratch the surface of the discipline of psychology.

I can?t help but feel that spending one?s time studying and practicing horary is too often a convenient way of avoiding the issue of how to interpret a natal chart?

Avoiding? A client wants an answer to a particular question. The answer given should relate to the question not the client's relationship with his parents. "How do I get to the train station from here?" is not intelligently answered by "Oh you're running away from your parents, are you? Let's talk about it."

The same is true for horary. It gives a direct answer to a question. Nothing else is required. Now if the client says, "Will John ask me to marry him?" and the answer is "No." Then the client says, "Why don't my relationships last?" That might be better answered with a natal analysis.

If memory serves, I'm still not home, Both Geoffrey Cornelius and Dennis Elwell urged/suggested that horary be used, somehow, for psychological counseling. Cornelius went so far as to give an example in his book The Moment of Astrology from one of Lilly's horaries that he gave in The Prophetical Merline. Deb mentioned this in her post. Cornelius even suggested that Mars in the horary chart did not represent a soldier that the woman admired, but rather it represented repressed sexuality and Lilly knew it.

Sorry I can't quite buy either suggestion. But assuming I could accept that, where does the astrologer obtain the necessary training to make such a diagnosis? "First do no harm" should be emblazoned on our souls.

However, horary astrology, with its focus on events rather than on the character and personality of the person, can become a safety zone?a way to avoid the inability to work with natal in a personally meaningful and satisfying way.

It is not avoidance to give the client what they ask for. It is in fact more honest than the tacit, "Well I don't have the skills to answer your question, and I don't have the training to do psychotherapy, but lets talk about your mother anyway."

It also becomes a danger zone if it is tacitly understood as the ?real? and ?true? astrology.

I have yet to hear of anyone harmed by this, and in fact it has a long and noble history. Sue mentioned in passing, Anthony Grafton's book Cardano's Cosmos. This is an excellent history (with some pretty sad astrology), and a must read for anyone who wants to understand the life of a Renaissance astrologer. However, in this and other works it is quite clear that astrologers have been claiming that their way is the right way for hundreds of years. In Cardan's day, it was the true astrology as the great Ptolemy would have it. His great rival Guarico made similar claims while making disparaging remarks about Cardan. Lilly had it out with many of the astrologers of his day and his trading barbs with Gadbury was legendary. Alan Leo was rescuing us from the bad old tradition, and giving us the true astrology as did Marc Edmund Jones, Dany Rhudyar and Stephen Arroyo. This is nothing new; it will always be with us. It is harmless.

The alternative: What I'm about to teach you is no better than anything else you'll find," is not terribly inspiring.

Deb Writes:

John Frawley claims that you are not ready to study nativities until you have mastered horary. I think most people aren?t ready for horary until they have a good basic understanding of astrology which they generally get from the modern natal approach.

I learned more sound natal astrology from John's horary course than I did from a natal astrology course I took from a well known modern astrologer. John's latest work: The Horary Textbook is a gold mine sound fundamental astrology, much of which is easily used in natal work, e.g. the use of receptions. What we see is not the separation of horary and natal, but the practice of astrology in one of its forms, and how the application of principles applies to horary, natal, elections, and mundane.

This brings up an interesting question. How does the traditionalist teach the absolute beginner? I would not send him or her off to learn the basics from the moderns unless I thought the motivation for learning was not suitable for traditional astrology. I recently obtained a reprint of William Lilly's autobiography. He tells us how he came to astrology. He came to the subject because it interested him. Modern students tend to come to astrology to learn about their favorite subject: themselves.

The criteria for a traditionalist is not a desire to avoid anything, but rather an interest in astrology for itself and knowledge of how it works in the world. In brief that student is interested in ideas. Self absorbtion does not make for a good astrologer, modern or traditional.

Tom

Thank you for your replies. I have agreements and disagreements, poorly expressed thoughts of mine to clarify, and more thoughts to pursue. However, I lack the will and desire to follow through with it. At this time it is best that I withdraw from the forum.

Tom wrote:

I recently obtained a reprint of William Lilly's autobiography. He tells us how he came to astrology. He came to the subject because it interested him. Modern students tend to come to astrology to learn about their favorite subject: themselves.

The criteria for a traditionalist is not a desire to avoid anything, but rather an interest in astrology for itself and knowledge of how it works in the world. In brief that student is interested in ideas. Self absorbtion does not make for a good astrologer, modern or traditional.


I hope I am not misunderstanding this quote, but I am a bit surprised that the subject of how and why anyone comes to the study of astrology should be questioned. Many enter the realm of astrology in high school, and when is the "self" more "absorbing" than at the age of 13?

It may begin with the newspaper, then on to some books. The true thinker will not be satisfied unless he or she goes on to read as much as possible. If there is a good teacher at hand, even better. Without sounding too much like Plato, not everyone seeks the world of ideas. Not everyone is a true thinker, so should they drop astrology totally? That seems unfair.

As a philosopy major with a graduate degree, I came to the conclusion in my studies years ago that traditional astrology was far superior. But later in life I met a wonderful astrologer at an astrology conference who sat next to me at lunch. I mentioned to her that I preferred the ancent more traditional astrology, and never really included much of the three outer planets. She politely turned to me and said, " why would you do that? why not grab as much information as possible before you come to a conclusion? The outer planets have much to tell us, so why dismiss them?"

I have since come to agree.

Perhaps I am misreading some of this thread, but I have trouble dismissing either traditional or modern astrology. I now seek out both to provide as much information as possible.

I love those "fatalistic" predictions that are found in both modern and traditional philosophy, but never have I thought of them as being fatalistic as such. They are a place to start from. For instance, and I am using a personal aspect for this, I have Uranus squaring my MC for several months, back and forth. One astrologer tells me that I am probably going to lose my job. Another tells me to be careful of doing anything abrupt with my career; make no changes without careful thought.

In reality, never before in my life can I remember so many job offers and business ventures coming my way as they have in the past few months. It's like being at a dance and being asked to dance every dance! Am I losing my job? Who knows, but I am rethinking it. Are any of the new offers appealing? Yes, about 75% of them. What will I do? That is totally up to me.

My point is that whether it be traditional or modern, astrological predictions are ultimately individual. The idea that my husband's pluto rising in the first house implies a close tie with his grandmother, happens to be true. But it may not be true for someone else; instead, it is open to interpretation. And that is the part of astrology that is the most fun for me.

And this part, being open to interpretation, is what defines free will for me. My life is what I make of it, within the personal limits I have. Part of those personal limits lie in my natal chart. Life happens, transits happen, and so on. But I decide my fate ultimately. I always liked the idea that Saturn transiting the MC meant a highlight in one's career. Nixon had that transit when he was forced to resign from office. Now astrologers have changed their view and say that Saturn transiting the MC indicates a highlight in one's career as long as one has made the right choices up to that point. This hedging bothers me more. Nixon's resignation is still a highlight in his career, just not perhaps the one he opted for.

I never really cared for people who go through life blaming others. Yet, I can understand that for some people there may be a time in their lives when it is necessary to do that. If astrology in a psychological way helps them come to terms with a problem, by blaming mom, why not? A discussion on whether or not this blaming pattern should become a way of life is far beyond this forum. My opinion is that it should not. Yet why not recognize the problem and then move on?

As Tom said:

The question is as always, "What are you going to do about it? Take control, or let it conrol you?

I have Uranus squaring my MC for several months, back and forth. One astrologer tells me that I am probably going to lose my job. Another tells me to be careful of doing anything abrupt with my career; make no changes without careful thought.

In reality, never before in my life can I remember so many job offers and business ventures coming my way as they have in the past few months.

Many Victorian and Edwardian astrologers believed that Uranus was more like Saturn than Mercury or Mars. Apparently Dane Rudhyar came to the same conclusion. I am inclined to agree with them: Uranus squaring your MC might be expected to bring you several offers of employment if one likens it to Saturn as Lord of Invention rather than to 'abrupt change' or 'incipient danger.' This at least has been my experience of it: it is like 'the mire of freedom' in Zen.

"The difference is that traditional techniques can lead us towards precise judgements that we must then evaluate as to whether it is in the client?s interest to know this detail and if so, how best to put it over; whereas modern natal techniques start loose and end loose. The astrologer isn?t trained to see more if they wanted or needed to."

I can relate to this statement of Deb's. This is one reason why I have started to learn horary. Modern astrology has not really equipped me very well to answer detailed or precise questions. If a person comes to me with a specific relationship question, I can look at whether any transit or progression is affecting their Venus or 7th House, or possibly the 5th. That is what my study of astrology has equipped me to do. But so frequently there is nothing there to report. That doesn't mean the client is not having a relationship! I feel somewhat impotent that I cannot provide an answer through astrology.

Which is why I find myself reaching for my tarot cards in these situations (I also read tarot). The problem with tarot is I know that in about 90% of cases I can be very accurate, but in 10% I am utterly wrong, because I simply cannot work out what the tarot is trying to communicate. This can be frustrating for me and the client. And tarot is using a completely different part of my brain; sometimes I want to stay in the analytical side! So it's nice to have another astrological technique at my disposal (horary and/or traditional natal) to handle the more specific questions.

Sometimes people have a REAL dilemma they are facing. Sure, I can give them some nice fascinating insights into their birth chart with modern astrology, or tell them about some highlights of the coming months, or at best, home in on SOME of their problems by focussing on current transits, but that's about it. That won't answer their burning question, to the required degree of precision.

I"ll cite one: Stephen Arroyo made the amazing statement in Astrology Karma and Transformation, that he studied eveything about traditional and modern astrology and found it all wanting, so he devloped his own style. Can we say "hubris?"

I recall in 'The Astrology of Fate' by Liz Greene that it was her own rather negative experience of having her horoscope read by Isabel Hickey that motivated her to develop her unique archetypal approach to astrological interpretation. But then I have been told that Liz Greene is actually quite supportive of traditional astrology, or at least research into traditional astrologies...

However, based on my personal experience, which I will freely admit is not universal, most people I know come to astrology in search of some self knowledge, which is fine, but that many, many never get beyond that. It is all "Well I have this in my chart and so it must mean the same thing in everyone's chart ... etc etc etc" That is self absorbtion I was referring to...

Gnothi seuton. He who knows himself, knows his Lord. *Authentic* self-knowledge is the knowledge of both contraction (Saturn) and expansion (Jupiter). Contemporary modes of self-knowledge are preoccupied with liberation with no acknowledgement of limitation which is why they are fundamentally inauthentic. Morinus was often regarded as 'une egoiste' when in fact it was his self-admitted arrogance which was the true mark of his humility. The reverse is diabolical: the pretence of humility used to conceal the abyss of pride.

Another example is the utter impossibility of saying anything remotely negative about any planet lest the astrologer be speaking of a placement in the listener's chart. I'm sorry Venus in Aries has negative connotations, and if the listener has that placement, it does not make him or her an incorrigible, but it is considered bad form to even suggest something may be less than perfect in any chart.

I believe it was Thomas Moore in his book 'Care of the Soul' who wrote something to the effect that astrology is intrinsically non-judgmental: one cannot say that one planet or sign is either better or worse than another because they each represent different expressions of archetypal energy. I think he was mis-reading the astrological tradition but I can understand how he came to this conclusion.

A contemporary Hellenistic astrologer once made this comment. "If we use the expression "my Mercury" to a Hellenistic Greek, he would be confused. The idea that he had a Mercury wouldn't have occurred to him." They didn't look at the planets as personal possessions. Modern astrologers no doubt scratch their heads over the idea that they might not have a Mercury.

I think the idea behind this is to 'personalise' the planets by seeing them as inseparable from oneself or identifying oneself with them. But I think it is a misunderstanding of the Hermetic axiom.

Morinus was often regarded as 'une egoiste' when in fact it was his self-admitted arrogance which was the true mark of his humility.

I don't know that I've ever seen the word "humble" connected with "Morin" in the same sentence. I also don't know that the fact he acknowledged his arrogance makes him humble, but he was what he was, and he didn't try to hide it.

The reverse is diabolical: the pretence of humility used to conceal the abyss of pride.

Or beware of the man who is proud of his humility.

Tom

Or beware of the man who is proud of his humility.

Yes. Exactly.

Astrology cannot be fatalistic: it is a methodological impossibility.

If astrological techniques could predict absolutely everything that ever were to happen with absolute accuracy all of the time, then astrology would indeed be fatalistic and deterministic. Absolute predestination would make all astrological judgements irrelevant as knowledge of a completely predestined future would render foreknowledge irrelevant. But this is hardly the case. Rudhyar wrote that 'the co-efficient of inaccuracy is the co-efficient of freedom' but surely this applies to the nature of time rather than to the unfolding of events in time. Astrologers ought to be able to forecast the most closely approximate period in which someone will obtain a certain kind of employment or experience some form of loss or illness, but the exact contours of those experiences as well as the precise time at which they occur cannot be absolutely defined by anyone. This is not fatalism but forecasting. I think the resistance to this in modern astrological thought is based on the idea that since predictions have gone wrong in the past, it is impossible to predict the future -- when in fact traditional techniques immensely increase predictive accuracy. Also I think modern astrologers nurture an unacknowledged sense of predestination which they displace through archetypal imagery and negatively project (because unacknowledged by themselves) onto more traditional forms of astrology. I would say that it is psychologised modern astrology which is fatalistic, not traditional astrology. Fatalism lies in the refusal to forecast particular events and a preoccupation with universal, abstract themes, before which we are powerless -- i.e., the archetypal program is predetermined and unavoidable.

I?d like to try to find a social and historical context for this discussion of traditional astrology and the seeming trend towards fatalism. The 1970s, when interest quickly grew in astrology, was a time of civil liberties, when self-actualization was a theme in psychology, and in sociology efforts were made to describe systems of values and how values differed among cultural groups and social organization (Reisman, Maslow, Mitchel).

The Neptune in Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius generations were more interested in developing the potential person and redefining society than simply fitting in, belonging, and striving as the previous Neptune in Cancer, Leo, Virgo generations had been doing. Astrology offered something exciting that seemed to fit into this context.

However, soon after astrology's modern revival, it was attacked by eminent scientists as a relic of a superstitious and ignorant past. To these critics, astrology, and in particular astrological prediction, did not conform to the rigid requirements of method and accuracy that science had developed over the past three or four hundred years.

The interest in traditional, more "fatalistic" astrology may be partly in response to these criticisms that astrology has endured. It is partly an attempt to say, yes, astrology can be accurate and predictive. And yes also, astrology can be more insightful, penetrating, and "real" than a loose application of psychoanalytical techniques, which themselves at this point had become hackneyed, predictable, and tiresome. The essential question that I think arises from this thread is, has astrology bought into the accuracy argument at the expense of free will, and is this a choice that needs to be made?

Let me throw some light on this discussion from a different direction. I have not been as interested in investigating traditional techniques, as I have been in investigating how the ideas of the mid-twentieth century psychologists and sociologists I mentioned earlier might apply to astrology. I am surprised and bit dismayed that the inquiry into human values seems to have ended abruptly with Arnold Mitchel. He was on to something good.

What is missing from the more "accurate" interpretations of horary or traditional astrology, and the more "loose and weak" interpretations of natal astrology is the need to look at people's goals.

The master dodges answering the young woman hoping to benefit from the death of her putative elderly husband. Instead he recommends a stratagem to find out if there might be an unforeseen obstacle to that outcome. Good commonsense, or as Lilly would call it, discretion.

Of course Lilly?s text, if read properly, can be seen as a good example of an astrological approach that doesn?t pronounce an inevitable fate, but rather aims to explore the problem and offer advice on how it can be best resolved.

What is the young woman really interested in? Is she interested in benefiting from her husband's death or is there a deeper issue. Instead of looking for obstacles to what the young woman expects, a natal astrologer would in all likelihood explore the problem. Does the woman desire greater resources? What avenues can she explore that would bring her greater resources, or how can she work with her husband while he is alive to take responsibility and prove her worth to manage greater resources? Why does she desire greater resources? What is she going to do with them? What are her values and how is she going to satisfy them? What is the goal? Is her husband's death the only avenue to the goal or are there alternatives? Of course one needs to look at the natal chart to get insight into these questions. One thing I like about natal astrology over horary is that the astrologer gets to ask the questions. "Have you ever considered...?"

The difference is that traditional techniques can lead us towards precise judgements that we must then evaluate as to whether it is in the client?s interest to know this detail and if so, how best to put it over; whereas modern natal techniques start loose and end loose.

Provided the session covers the warnings and potential consequences and arrives at realistic goals that are satisfying to the client, astrology, whether horary or natal, performs a wonderful precision. The key is to interpret the goals.

KennethM