Display posts from previous
Sort by

25 by Tom
I'd like to make a couple of observations about Crowley and astrology as well as the editor of General Principles. Hymaneus Beta goes a bit overboard with his descriptions of Crowley's astrology prowess, and I also noticed by re-reading the introduction that he is a bit contradictory, too. For example he tells us early on that "by 1908" Crowley had learned basic horoscope construction," indicating the beginning of his studies. Then he tells us elsewhere that Crowley was writing in depth about astrology by about 1899.

But that is small potatoes compared to the statement that in 1915, Crowley was the best equipped person to write about astrology since William Lilly. I read that a couple of times to let it sink in, particularly since Alfred Pearce was still alive in 1915 and his grasp of astrology far exceeded Crowley's, in my opinion.

Beta also tells us that Crowley was fundamentally a traditionalist and therefore his non-traditional ideas were only logical extensions of what came before and in this way he was similar to Cardan. I don't know that Cardan was all that inventive with astrology.

Crowley does keep the traditional domicile rulerships of the signs. But if we look at the table, and I am no longer certain that this is Crowley's table or if it is Beta's construction of what he thinks Crowley was doing, we see the Terms and Faces are listed as the same thing. If this is Crowley's work, he should have read Lilly and Ptolemy a bit more closely. If this is Beta's then we need to take his other observations with a good dose of salt.

Crowley's descriptions of the signs and planets are pretty much what we would expect to find in a modern text emphasizing mythology. Crowley seems to see astrology as part of the occult, which traditionalists do not.

My gut is that Crowley was a lot closer to the Theosophists than Pearce, and Pearce was a lot closer to the tradition than Crowley.

Tom

26 by mattG
Although Crowley was not best known for astrology for a long time the only book you could find by him was the Complete Astrological Writings. (where the editors state that he first started to study the subject in 1898 when he joined the Golden Dawn.)

Matt

27 by Sandra Walker
I have been thinking about the Uranus exaltation topic for several days. I do not discount exaltations--witness men who have the Moon in Taurus and how it draws female attention no matter how old, young, ugly, poor, rich, or good looking they are!!!

Scorpio is not such a terrible sign--Uranus is not always a negative planet. After all, it is associated with astrology, friends, groups, and our goals. I think the value of Uranus transiting through Scorpio is that is breaks up some of the "rut bound" Scorpio (fixed sign) tendencies and helps Scorpio put some of its knowledge gained through research and digging beneath the surface to good use.

28 by mattG
Re-reading AC on astrology he decries what he calls "Scientific Astrology" then in vogue. They give planet position to the exact degree and minute, he says in order to impress the client with how scientific they are. The importance of this idea is restated often. I came into astrology via horary and when I innocently suggested to a natal teacher that the planet was applying to another she nearly screamed at me. Clearly then planets do not move in modern scientific astrology they like are darts on a board.

Similarly, when someone here mentioned something from Ibn Ezra about a planet in the last degree of a sign being partly in the next sign one respondent argued amongst himself until he explained it away. He simply could not comprehend the idea as it contradicted what he had been taught.

It seems like they hold onto doctrines because of authority in the manner of some unimaginative medieval scholar.

I can think of another eg but I will leave it there as it could be the last sunny day in London for a while so I am off out but I am suspicious of a area of study where people seem to think simple ideas are taboo.

regards (or as AC would say 93!)

Matt

29 by Tom
Re-reading AC on astrology he decries what he calls "Scientific Astrology" then in vogue.
If we step back from his reputation (does anyone ever mention Crowley's name without the adjective "notorious?") I think we see a man who is very much a Victorian. Like most Victorians he is obsessed with being up-to-date and "scientific" was very up-to-date in the pre WWI era. He also incorporates his own occult knowledge into his astrology. Again this is fairly typical of his era and our own. Stephen Arroyo does much the same thing as does Liz Green.

What I've read of his astrology isn't bad, but I still can't see him as a traditionalist in any meaningful sense. Kim said he was and then asked her daughter who agreed and Kim said that settled the issue. :wink: But she also said a lot depends on one's definition of traditional astrology. I agree there are traditional elements to his astrology, but once we get heavily into mythology as the basis of our astrology, we've left Lilly et al far, far behind.

Should anyone wish to discuss Crowley, bring it over to the traditional forum, and we'll pick up over there.


Tom

30 by R.A.
Hello all .. this is my first post on this forum by the way.
I ran across this interesting thread incidentally as I was just reading a passage from Raphael's "Manual of Astrology" describing dignity/debilities of the planets. At the time of the publication of this book, Uranus was ascribed the same dignities/debilities as Saturn. This of course being when the planet Uranus was actively referred to as Herschel and "just" discovered. I know time has passed and this may have changed, but I haven't found much publication on the subject otherwise.

I'm sorry if this was already said (I saw one post on the thread alluding to Raphael, but did not see this point made).

regards, r.a. (pronounced ray)
:D

32 by Kenneth Johnson
Mark writes:
I dont have a problem incorporating Uranus into astrology. I just dont recommend imposing it and the other outer planets into the traditional dignities and rulerships. In my opinion this leads to confusion in delineation and unsatisfactory results.
I agree completely with Mark. The traditional rulership describes an orderly cosmos. Beginning with the signs of the luminaries, we place Mercury's masculine sign next to Cancer, a feminine sign, while Mercury's feminine sign appears on the other side of Leo, a masculine sign. It continues in this fashion, with Venus' maculine sign following Mercury's feminine, while her feminine sign follows Mercury's masculine. Thus it continues until we reach the houses of Saturn, most distant visible planet, with its signs side by side, as with the Sun and Moon, though Saturn's sign are in opposition to those of the luminaries.

This is an orderly cosmos. If we assert that Uranus "rules" Aquarius, the whole system of cosmic order breaks down. Trying to design exaltation signs for outer planets is even more chaotic.

I would never neglect to inform a client ir Uranus or Pluto is transiting her/his Ascendant. I would be remiss in my duty to my client, as I have seen the results of such transits produce startling events etc. I will go so far as to admit that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto have a certain "affinity" with Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio; I have also found symbolic value in the assertion of older astrologers that Uranus is the "higher octave" of Mercury, Neptune of Venus, and Pluto of Mars. But this is not the same thing as calling them "rulers."

To do so is to seriously misinterpret the original Hermetic philosophical basis of astrology, which appears to have used the Thema Mundi as a teaching vehicle to illustrate WHY the perfect mandala of ancient sign rulerships works philosophically, a marvelous example of "As above, so below" as well, since the lower half of the Thema Mundi mirrors the upper half.

So.... use the outer planets? Yes. Recognize some of their affiliations? Fine. But give them rulerships and exaltations? Absolutely not.
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Nativities & General Astrology”