Hi Waybread - a lot that I agree with in your post, so I just wanted to thank you for posting that.

Deb

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.

Yes. Actually when I think back over the years that why I like this forum so much. I enjoy a dialectic. The cross fertilization of ideas in this way can be very stimulating.

This is a also great place to just ask questions that are perplexing you and learn from others research. Reading on your own raises a lot of questions. I always say its better to make a fool of yourself here and learn where you are going wrong than sit contently in your ignorance. There is so much knowledge and experience shared here its awe inspiring at times. Hopefully, one can put something back constructively too at times.

Mark

Thank you, Deb!

Olivia, sorry that I did not make myself more clear. I was not thinking about marketing traditional astrology.

Rather, if one is commited to a certain way of doing astrology, in part because of perceived deficiencies of the alternatives, it is natural to hope that more astrologers will see the light and be attracted to one's persuasion.

Of course, various school of thought can also function as exclusive clubs for cognescenti, but perhaps if each of us thinks back to the time when we first picked up astrology, we would have been grateful for more knowledgeable astrologers offering us a hand up the learning ladder.

Olivia, re: my posts on the "remedial measures" thread, we can distinguish two different levels of interpretation:

(1) Some of traditional astrology's leading practitioners throughout history advised their clients on remedial measures. The underlying principle here at a general level is that people are not merely puppets of the planets, but they can actively mitigate some difficulties.

(2) Would the leading astrologers of the past would have argued against measures that are context-specific, in keeping with their contemporary time and place?

For example, as a traditional astrologer on a solar return thread, you argued in favour of people traveling long distances if it would give them a more favourable relocation chart on their solar return dates. Your advice makes sense only in the context of today's modern transportation and tourism industries; as well as the higher levels of disposable income that the average westerner has today, compared with in the past. Your solar return travel advice would not make sense in the context of the transportation infrastructure of the Middle Ages; even though your interpretation of a solar return chart might follow medieval astrologers. My personal example was similarly intended as a suggestion of contemporary mitigation activity, just as your solar return posts were.

Tom, there are many threads on this forum that I haven't read, but I have not seen many in which a modern astrologer attempted to put down traditionalists in the course of proving how clever he was. I have read (and written) a few rebuttals of what I thought were misinterpretations of modern astrology, when I thought that the misinterpretation was a premise affecting the poster's conclusions.

Which leads me to wonder, if there is no place for modern astrology here, why should it even be mentioned as the foil against which traditional astrology is compared? And sadly, people who patronize or belittle "the others" come from both sides of the aisle.

But re: my point above--if traditional astrology became more mainstreamed through a welcoming approach to anyone who is willing to learn and contribute some traditional astrology, then the need for a "refuge" (dare I say "bunker"?) would diminish.

Ideas and practices can only get stronger when we subject them to critiques. (Sorry, folks--I have an academic background, and academia is based on this principle.) It would indeed be a weak traditional astrology or astrologer who could not mount either a robust defense, or else upgrade the astrology. I say that traditional astrology is strong enough to handle a few "outsiders".

Also, it is easy to get annoyed by the forum equivalent of the class smart-aleck. I think there are two responses. (1) Ignore his posts. Don't dignify them with a reply. (2) Alternatively offer a thoughtful rebuttal, based on your knowledge of astrology. You probably won't convince a trouble-maker, but you will probably get the approval of everyone else.

We're getting a little off topic here. But it's more than one person and maybe I contributed to that.

Which leads me to wonder, if there is no place for modern astrology here, why should it even be mentioned as the foil against which traditional astrology is compared?

Is this question designed to make us change our focus? This is called the Traditional Forum for a reason and that reason does not include modern astrology. "Mentioning" is one thing. Debating one versus the other is entirely different. The Guidelines specifically state that. One of the reasons you've seen so little of it is that it is discouraged and often outright eliminated. There are those who try it with more subtlety, e.g. mentioning Evangeline Adams' thoughts on the Moon in a thread dedicated to the traditional understanding of the Sun. No one is so stupid as to confuse the two topics, so we conclude it was done deliberately to make trouble.

Again the idea here is exactly what Olivia said: it is a refuge from modern astrology. If there is little of this versus that here it is because we've succeeded in the purpose of the Forum. This is not intended to be a debating society of modern vs traditional. You can find that anywhere on the web and the free for alls that come with it. This Forum exists for traditional astrologers to discuss traditional astrology and our only problem is finding a way to do that without being too rigid or too liberal with our definitions.

Besides there is a general section where all modern ideas are welcome and encouraged. Why not use that one instead of trying to change this one? No one is going to the General Astrology Forum and complaining that there isn't enough traditional discussion because they can discuss traditional astrology here. It's very simple.

Tom, I am starting to see the problem. My mistake. I would call this the "Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques" board or section. As opposed to the entire "Skyscript Astrology Forum." By your use of the word "forum" I thought your comments were directed to the Forum as a whole. Although I think my previous comments are appropriate to this board.

So if some modern astrology mistakenly creeps onto this board, why couldn't the moderator could just move the thread to another board? Or gently intervene?

I don't think anybody is interested in gumming up this board with a "debating society of modern vs. traditional." But obviously it is going to be difficult to barricade the refuge in a logical manner.

Waybread, if people have good will and common courtesy, why do we need to barricade the place at all?

As Tom said, if you wish to discuss modern ideas, the general forum, and pretty much every other forum on this board is open to it.

This particular forum is for discussion of traditional astrology. Not why 'traditional astrology is better' or 'modern astrology is better'.

In other words, if you're hung up on a translation or a primary direction or interpretive technique particular to traditional astrology, this is a great place to ask for help and get it, where you won't be told to 'give up Ptolemy and read astrologer-of-the-week because who needs all that old rubbish anyway' or 'astrology cannot predict the future'.

For the record: I have always understood 'astrological remedies' to fall into two categories: The medical and the magical. I don't see how canoeing appeases Saturn, nor do I see how travelling during a solar return appeases the Sun. Nor do they have specific astro-medical uses, such as sympathetic herbs or gemstones would.

Yes, they're astrologically based advice, some of which I wouldn't agree with, but until you told me I didn't realise that the term meant 'all-encompassing astrological advice'.

You proved how much smarter than me you are (I believe you, I'm not very clever), and then your friend attacked me to make sure to drive the point home. I get it. Can we please drop it now?

I'd also like to point out that unlike other forums, we do not have an 'ignore' function at skyscript. So we're pretty much going to run across all the posts in a thread, even the ones made by people we routinely put on ignore at other forums.

At many astrological forums, that 'ignore' button is sorely needed. I'd like to see the civility level here maintained here, and hope we'd never need it. That's another thing I don't want to lose.

waybread wrote: But re: my point above--if traditional astrology became more mainstreamed through a welcoming approach to anyone who is willing to learn and contribute some traditional astrology, then the need for a "refuge" (dare I say "bunker"?) would diminish.

To be honest I don't see any bunker, (waiting for the end).

First of all, for me I have not the smallest interest in modern astrology, and I just don't want lose my time with it.

Many of us (me included) come from years of modern astrology, know modern astrologers, they don't need any information from the "abroad" because they live there
As Mark told, we are NOT an Amish community, we have everyday contacts with modern astrology, so we don't need any further description of Pluto's wonders and so on, we are already informed of It. I almost every day meet someone who wants to explain me that the human being is in another phase of his/her consciousness, so traditional astrology cannot work.

We already known without reading it even in this section.

Second, traditional astrology is evidently the new great business of the very next future.

it's evident seeing how everywhere even in Italy, traditional astrologers rise from nowhere. Liz Greene endures in her trenches but look around if you hear of her like in the past...


margherita

So if some modern astrology mistakenly creeps onto this board, why couldn't the moderator could just move the thread to another board?

I can't do that. Only Deb can unless I take the thread post by post and then they would all be under my name. I can only delete posts.

Yes we refer to each topic as a Forum and I'm glad you pointed that out. I've been doing it so long I assumed everyone understood it the way I did. But when I say "Traditional Forum" I mean this particular group not everyone on Skyscript. I'll try to remember to be more clear. The guidelines I"m talking about are only for this group. Other moderators do as they see fit.

The need for a refuge is the result of modern astrologers barging in on conversations and changing the topic. If you've never seen that done, then you're lucky. It's happened on virtually every astrology board I've ever seen and only the moderated ones that prevent it are successful. It's natural. You've been taught something for years and you get the impression, accurate or otherwise, that someone says you're wrong, you defend it usually by impugning the other side. I don't want that here and neither does anyone else.

Personally I'm fine with the guidelines basically as they are. They say that traditional astrology is the astrology practiced before 1700. I'd personally say "astrological techniques". That way, and as I've never read him I'll have to take Tom's word here, people like Wordsdale can be included.

Olivia, it seems that we actually agree with one another on the main points. I have no "forum buddies", though, so anyone who supports what I write does so independently. Also, each of us has her own mental "ignore" function, independently of the software on this site. I am all for civility! Major differences of opinon are not inherently uncivil. Sometimes they are uncomfortable. Arguments have to stand or fall on the basis of evidence and reason, not the personalities involved, let alone ad hominem attacks. We have seen some doozies amongst the traditional astrologers, BTW.

Tom, perhaps there is a way that you can move threads, as moderators do at Astrologer's Community and Astrodienst: whoever put this site together would know how it can be done. Or perhaps just ask Deb to make the switch if it is her decision to restrict such access. That would probably solve some problems, as occured with the "remedial measures" thread. Beyond that, you probably do have to deal with posts on a case-by-case basis.

More generally, where would one discuss the ideas of contemporary astrologers and cultural astronomy specialists who work in traditional or ancient astrology? This is particularly an issue for members without ancient language skills (like heiroglyphics) who rely on the secondary literature.

Tom wrote: The need for a refuge is the result of modern astrologers barging in on conversations and changing the topic. If you've never seen that done, then you're lucky. It's happened on virtually every astrology board I've ever seen and only the moderated ones that prevent it are successful. It's natural. You've been taught something for years and you get the impression, accurate or otherwise, that someone says you're wrong, you defend it usually by impugning the other side. I don't want that here and neither does anyone else.

But a lot of people might genuinely just not know. For example, I've primarily been taught modern astrology: where uranus rules aquarius etc etc. However it was only from having the luxury of attending a seminar given by Ben Dykes, and then from learning more of horary etc that my eyes were opened to what traditional astrology was actually all about. However it's only understandable that someone who doesn't know otherwise, might ask or contradict a traditional astrologer who claims that Saturn rules Aquarius. Don't you mean Capricorn? They might not mean it in a bad way, just cos they genuinely don't know.

Should they be treated in the same way as those that do know but desire political point scoring or whatever? I don't think so. Why not keep it as it is and the onus of discrimination is placed upon the moderator. That's why you're moderator in the first place, if it's simply a list of rules that must be adhered to, then anyone could do it. But let's have faith in the ability of a moderator to discern those who are there to cause problems and those who are simply muddled, confused or ignorant of anything to the contrary and deal with each as he judges fit.