Michael Sternbach wrote:Hi Elka,

Thanks for your fascinating posts. I agree with James that it would be great to hear from you more often in the future!

Thank you both

Michael Sternbach wrote:Elka wrote: Tue May 27, 2014 9:03 pm

Also in trying to uncover the dynamic picture of the stand alone Quincunx 'aspect', I looked briefly at the sacred geometry of the Pythagoreans. Who, to put it succinctly, stated that all right triangles [which show up in various astrological triangular patterns] operate on the level of "Nous". The triad or trinity aspect in some religions, for example, shows a triangular relationship pattern of the god-head or ultimate causal pattern.

Well, the only right triangle formed by any aspect pattern is part of the T-square ? generally not seen as the most "noetic" of constellations! I guess what you mean is simply triangles, in general. Of course, the grand trine could be thought of as representing the Trinity most clearly, but (conceivably) this quality would be conveyed to the other triangular patterns as well. Am I reading you right here?

Sorry, I wasn't really clear but I can't find the exact reference to right triangles operating on the level of Nous or Mind. However the Grand Trine, which describes an elemental distribution in the astrological chart, but in particular the Fire Trine, which, in ancient Greek thought, is attributed to the First Cause: "In (Plato's) Philebus one learns that (nous) or mind "is cognate with the Cause of all things""- from article The Triangle, Theosophy Trust website.

The article, also referring to the Pythagorean Theorem, based on triangular measurements of the universe and originating with the Monad, explains "(Therefore), the first generative cosmic triangle should be an orthogonal or right triangle. Following this, the right triangle can be seen as fundamental to emanation (generation and process) and to the 'mechanism' of figuring out anything in subsequent manifestation . . . involving breaking down elements and moving back towards a more abstract appreciation of what is going on..." [not sure how to input the url]

Interestingly, Vladimir B. Ginzburg's Prime Elements of Ordinary Matter, Dark Matter & Dark Energy..., discuses the problem connected with the discovery of many right triangles and Pythagoras theorem, esp the right isosceles triangle ...

*Further, on the term the quincunx [see my post further up]: some online sources for its etymology: ?quinque? is Latin for five, and ?uncia? (twelfths, so five-twelfths- which described the Roman pound coin inscribed with five dots)

Michael Leddy, on his blog, extends its definition, referring to the OED, which you have to subscribe to, "OED dates the first appearances of the Latin word in English as 1545 and 1574 (in the sense of ?five-twelfths' described above). The first citation for ?A pattern used for planting trees? (in the manner of five spots on a dice) dates from 1606. The OED cites a 1647 reference to Kepler (referring to) the astronomical/astrological meaning, ?The aspect of two planets which are at an angular distance of five-twelfths of a circle (150 degrees) apart in the sky.?

Thomas Browne, mentioned in my post further up, who used the Latin word quincunx to describe the Pythagorean pattern of five** in his mystical and Hermetic works, the Garden of Cyrus (1658), was known to have had the works of Kepler in his library. [blog source, Aquarium of Vulcan, Kevin Faulkner]

(**Ancient Greek term for five is Pente, root of Pythagoras' five-fold symmetry of the pentagon containing the golden isosceles triangle, of two base angles of 72 deg and its vertex of 36 deg, and the pentagram depicting 5 acute and 5 obtuse isoscles triangles forming a five pointed star )

Kepler's use of the quincunx, ie five-twelfths (of a circle) would appear to be correct, in the strict Latin sense of the word, however his quintile pattern of the division of the circle by five, seems to reflect more his adherence to Pythagoras' theorem, divine proportion and the mysticism behind 'the five'

A good source on the 5th harmonic [360/5] is Charles Harvey in "Working with Astrology- The Psychology of Harmonics..." (in collaboration with Michael Harding)

Tom wrote:Re: Morin and the quincunx.
I checked Book 16 on aspects and found no reference to any of the aspect configurations. I'm pretty sure that the word "Yod" or its equivalent does not appear in Astrologia Gallica. However Noel might be on slightly stronger ground than I originally thought, but not much. [snip]

Thank you Tom. I still consider, up to now, Leipert to be the source of the Yod term which is not really an appropriate term, better the double inconjunct or double quincunx, imo

Also, while it is a triangular shape, it being described as "the shape of an isosceles triangle" is also not quite correct in the strict sense of the word?

Glancing through the Gallica on Google Books, Morin agrees with the twelve fold division of the circle and states that Kepler first rejected the quincunx aspect:

"The whole twelve-fold division is therefore in agreement with the harmonies, which no one would hitherto have thought, except perhaps Kepler, who worked immensely hard at referring these aspects to harmonic ratios, when he excluded the semi-sextile from his own harmonic ratios above, and he could not refer the quincunx to them; and for that reason he first rejected it, although at last, driven by experience, he pronounced it to be fully valid".

Perhaps Kepler was respectful of Ptolemy in his original rejection?

Elka wrote: Sat Jun 07, 2014 5:52 pm

However the Grand Trine, which describes an elemental distribution in the astrological chart, but in particular the Fire Trine, which, in ancient Greek thought, is attributed to the First Cause: "In (Plato's) Philebus one learns that (nous) or mind "is cognate with the Cause of all things""- from article The Triangle, Theosophy Trust website.

Hi Elka,

I was not able to find the article on that website. Could you provide us with the exact link, please?

That the Fire Trine was seen as connected with the First Cause in ancient Greek thought is very interesting to me! Mostly because I have a geometrically based theory according to wich the Tropical zodiac can be constructed using as symmetry axes either the Cardinal, the Fixed, or the Mutable cross. The first way leads to 0? Aries, or the Spring Equinox; the second to 0? Leo, the beginning of the zodiac in the classical domicile scheme, as well as in ancient Greek star catalogues; what the third way (0? Sagittarius) relates to, I'm not sure yet. I have noted that there is a zodiac in use setting 0? Sagittarius at the Galactic Centre - but that's a sidereal consideration, therefore not in accordance with the first option.

The article, also referring to the Pythagorean Theorem, based on triangular measurements of the universe and originating with the Monad, explains "(Therefore), the first generative cosmic triangle should be an orthogonal or right triangle. Following this, the right triangle can be seen as fundamental to emanation (generation and process) and to the 'mechanism' of figuring out anything in subsequent manifestation . . . involving breaking down elements and moving back towards a more abstract appreciation of what is going on..." [not sure how to input the url]

You should be able to simply copy and paste the URL.

Reading your quote, I think the right triangle here should be seen in context with the cross which, in one view, is indeed symbolical of the Monad's first manifestation (think of the Aristotelian cross of the four elements with the Ether in their centre).

In astrology, I think the Grand Cross can be seen as an aspect pattern that strongly pushes the native toward manifesting something in the outer world. It is in fact considered more balanced and therefore somehow "easier" than the T-square, at least according to some astrologers.

Regarding your further posts, I will read up on Kepler's view of ancient aspect theory in The Harmony of the World.

Michael

James_M wrote:

thanks for sharing the article mark. i think it is a good place to start in understanding the classical astrology point of view.

Yes sorry for taking so long to reply to you.

James_M wrote:

lilly used minor aspects but since he was primarily known as a 'horary' astrologer we must obviously ignore what he did when he wasn't doing horary?

I never said or suggested that James. Your distorting my words. It is simply a question of proportionality in how you made your case. By suggesting Lilly ?liked? minor aspects you give the strong impression he made extensive use of minor aspects in all his astrological work. He simply didn?t. Lets examine the three branches of astrology he wrote about in reference to minor aspects:

Horary: None except one single reference to a semi-sextile.

Mundane: None as far as I can see

Natal: None for basic natal delineation. None for predictive techniques such as transits, profections or solar returns. Only reference relates to primary directions in Christian Astrology.

The reason I emphasized horary was not because it helped make my point. Rather it was because horary was the area Lilly was acknowledged to have a particular gift for in his time by his contemporaries. He was in many respects 'the astrologer's astrologer' since other astrologers sought out his advice. Today most people study Lilly primarily for his horary examples not his natal work. John Gadbury is often seen as the English 17th century astrologer who specialised more in nativities than Lilly. That is not to suggest Lilly was not a fully competent natal astrologer.

After excluding horary and mundane astrology we are left with this one isolated example of his mention of minor aspects in Christian Astrology in relation exclusively to primary directions. Why might Lilly have made this particular exception in this area of predictive natal astrology and not anywhere else?

The article I linked to above by Christopher Magnus deals with this apparent contradiction very well:

As for their rather prominent place in the natal portion of Christian Astrology, it may be significant that he involves them only in the delineation of primary directions. Never does he consider them in connection with the geniture, revolutions or profections. What is going on here, I believe, is that Lilly perfectly understands the link between the zodiacal signs and the Ptolemaic aspects. However, primary directions are formed not through the secondary motion of the ecliptic but rather through the primary motion of the equatorial, measured in right ascension. Perhaps, then, Lilly permitted these minor aspects in relation to primary directions because, in this context, they simply do not refer to the twelve-fold zodiac. They are appropriate on their level, given that the rapt motion of the sky supersedes the secondary motion of the planets.

Lilly seems to have been presenting the minor aspects as a contemporary innovation in his time for his readers to consider. However, it is clear he didn?t use them himself in his subsequent almanacs after the publication of Christian Astrology:

As the author states:

By 1651 Lilly had dropped the minor aspects from Merlini Anglici and never revived them. Lilly himself states in his Merlini Anglici in 1651:
??we seldom use more aspects than the conjunction, sextile, square, trine, opposition: to these of late one Kepler, a learned man, has added some new ones? I only acquaint you with these, that finding them any where you may apprehend their meaning.?

James-M wrote:

back to the article you linked to.. it was interesting in having the history on the use of an aspect that crossed over signs (not able to see one another- ptolemiac) was thru ibn ezra 1100 odd years ago.. in other words ibn ezra seemed to think aspects had relevance in a way that outweighed the ptolemiac idea of signs not seeing one another..

The issue of out of sign aspects is interesting. Actually, the Greeks did consider applying conjunctions across the sign boundary. A lot of those influenced by medieval astrology don?t consider aspects across the sign boundary. For example, Ben Dykes doesn?t use out of sign aspects. Lilly and his 17th century contemporaries do appear to have counted out of sign aspects like Ibn Ezra as long as they were within planetary orb ie moiety. My personal experience strongly validates the Ibn Ezra/Lilly take on this. Still, this is a totally different issue from minor aspects though as I see it.

James_M wrote:

something i keep coming back to in the writers negation of minor aspects aside from his primary involvement in horary, is the idea of the sacredness of the 12 signs of the zodiac..why 12? these 30 degree wedges are the basis for the zodiac signs and hold a certain significance whereby certain signs can't see one another..i infer from this it's okay to divide the circle by 12, but not by 5.. i have a hard time getting my head around that though and find the quick dismissal of aspects or geometry in favour of the antiquity of the 12 signs especially challenging - a little bit like ibn ezra i guess with his use of aspects over signs not being able to see one another!!

Even in ancient sources as far back as Manilius we see emphasis on considering aspects by degree as well as sign. But your right that from the Greeks onwards the signs were a fundamental way of understanding aspects. Hence we have the whole concept of 'aversion' when a planet is in a sign 30? or 150? from another. To me the division of 12 is not arbitrary but a symbolic approximation of the basic Luni-Solar calendar and a whole sign perspective in relation to houses.

What we have with Kepler is a total reconception of astrology on a geometric basis. Signs and houses were much less important to Kepler than the numerical relationship between planets. He actually expressed considerable scepticism about whether zodiac signs and especially houses had any validity. From your comments on the forum its quite clear you have considerable sympathy for Kepler?s point of view.

Kepler is a fascinating figure and I respect those that choose to accept his understanding of aspects rather than the classical one. However, classical astrology is not an a la carte menu like modern astrology. You do have to work with it as a whole integrated approach rather than look at it as isolated techniques.

James_M wrote:

i think what it comes down to is how an astrologer wants to place emphasis on some element of astrology over another.. if someone wishes to adhere to a classical viewpoint of astrology - these minor aspects, or minor aspect patterns don't fit! new discoveries, whether they be planets, or harmonics have to be dismissed in order to maintain a particular viewpoint that makes me think of a type of mental straight jacket..

This is very biased James. It is simply a question of which philosophy we resonate with and choose to work with. The classical outlook is logically self consistent too. Many would consider it considereably more thought out than anything modern astrology can offer. Just because you don?t happen to concur with its logic is no reason to denigrate those that do.

James_M wrote:

i was looking at the charts of kepler, lilly and morins.. all 3 men have a mercury/uranus conjunction in their charts... this suggests a willingness in seeking out or exploring new ideas.. it also suggests a refusal to be held down to a particular doctrine only if for no other reason - it was the doctrine handed down to them from someone previously. maybe i am wrong on this though and my comment on their use of the minor aspects is indeed misleading..

I see them as all very different myself. Lilly basically worked closely within the tradition as it was but was very pragmatic and a genuinely brilliant practitioner of the art. Morin was a reformer. He wanted to change certain aspects of the tradition he saw as illogical or outdated. However, he still retained much of the tradition. Kepler was undeniably a genius. He was an intellectual revolutionary not just in astronomy but astrology too. What he proposed was nothing less than a fundamental new beginning in astrology going back to first principles.

Mark

Mark wrote: Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:45 am

However, classical astrology is not an a la carte menu like modern astrology. You do have to work with it as a whole integrated approach rather than look at it as isolated techniques.

I doubt this, Mark. Even Morin took certain elements out of tradition, but neglected or modified others. In this fashion, most of modern astrology's techniques were taken out of traditional, but recombined with new elements (i.e. trans-Saturnian planets).

There are modern astrologers who value their approach but nevertheless wish to look into, and re-evaluate, what has been left behind during astrology's revision in the 19th century. They're not going to be members of a traditional astrologers' lodge, what they wish is to integrate whatever would be of value in their practice. To my knowledge, there have also been a number of books written on this topic, meanwhile.

Not unlike the way many traditional astrologers include certain ?modern? elements, i.e. the trans-Saturnians, in their delineations (even though they don't see them as zodiacal rulers). Why do they include them? Because these planets are as such neither "modern" nor "traditional", they are simply out-there, since billions of years.

I think that, like in Hegelian dialectic, out of the union of thesis and anti-thesis, eventually a new entity can emerge.

Kepler was undeniably a genius. He was an intellectual revolutionary not just in astronomy but astrology too. What he proposed was nothing less than a fundamental new beginning in astrology going back to first principles.

I find this comment of yours quite astute! I see going back to first principles as essential to the creation of any new and integrated system.

Michael

Michael Sternbach wrote:

I doubt this, Mark. Even Morin took certain elements out of tradition, but neglected or modified others. In this fashion, most of modern astrology's techniques were taken out of traditional, but recombined with new elements (i.e. trans-Saturnian planets).

Hi Michael,

Morin is a very atypical example. He stands right at the end of the traditional era in continental Europe. He took it upon himself to reject the minor dignities other astrologers had used for millennia. He also entirely disposed of the lots/parts. He also rejected notions such as combustion and solar phase that had been used in astrology since its origins. In predictive terms he rejected profections. This is why I find it hard to accept Ben Dykes idea that Morin is a good practical example of medieval natal delineation.

Still, I do understand what you mean. On an individual level I think that is fair comment. I would not suggest I follow some pure unadulterated ?tradition? that doesn?t involve my personal preferences. I like others clearly, select some elements of the tradition and reject others. Hence I choose to use whole sign houses, traditional domicile rulers, Dorothean triplicity rulers and Egyptian bounds. I also work with fixed planetary orbs, out of sign aspects and make extensive use of fixed stars, antiscia and the major lots. I work with outer planets but not as sign rulers. I accept all of those represent a choice on my part.

I suppose what I meant is that drawing upon traditional sources from different eras gives us access to a pool of shared insight and experience stretching back literally millennia. Rather than seeking to constantly innovate and reinvent based on just our personal ideas we can draw on the wisdom of our predecessors. There is a useful self discipline in practising something like horary where astrologers cannot simply make it up as they go along.

James_M called this kind of outlook ? a straight jacket? but I tend to regard it more as a useful self discipline that helps to ground us and retain some commonality of outlook. However, that commonality does not require total uniformity. It never has. Since ancient times astrologers have passionately disagreed over elements of technique and I see no likelihood of that ever ending!

I think that, like in Hegelian dialectic, out of the union of thesis and anti-thesis, eventually a new entity can emerge.

I am not a fan of Hegelian philosophy. Metaphysical hot air as far as I am concerned. Its done a lot of harm if you consider its contribution to to the development of German nationalistic thinking and revolutionary Marxism.I think Hegel's contemporary Schopenhauer was a far better philosopher.

I dont deny eclecticism is a growing trend but I think it is likely the astrological community will continue sub-dividing in amoeba like form like a typical religion.

Mark

Mark wrote:

I dont deny eclecticism is a growing trend but I think it is likely the astrological community will continue sub-dividing in amoeba like form like a typical religion.

I wonder if in two-thousand years from now some historical researchers will unearth a few of our modern astrology books and try to construct a coherent system out of this (which they will call traditional).

Regarding Hegel's philosophy, I don't feel that I know enough in order to really enter a discussion about it with you here (which would be going off-topic, anyway). But bear in mind that in history many respectable and well intended metaphysical systems, including Christianity and Buddhism, have been grossly abused for highly unethical political purposes.

hi mark,

no intent on my part to consciously distort your words, but if you or someone can explain how lilly uses minor aspects with primary directions, while avoiding there use in natal astrology, i'd be curious. where is he using them then? it is true i said lilly and morin seemed to like using minor aspects, but let me rephrase it. they were both curious about these ideas thru keplers introduction of these ideas.. how much they used them remains to be seen, but from the work we have on lilly and morin it appears they used them very little. i wonder how much of this was due to there newness, or the lack of reference to others work using them? the same dilemma seems apparent today, outside what addey and hambliin have shared, and how many are even curious to read there material? very few it seems!

i don't buy the example the horary astrologer gives on lilly not including them in his almanacs as a reason he didn't use them or consider there relevance. minor aspects would be burdensome to include in an almanac ( or a horary astrologers approach for that matter) and he might have thought it was too novel an idea to be bothered including them if for no other reason then this.

i think the big problem for anyone looking into any of this is in wanting to attach oneself to a classical verses a non classical approach to astrology. all of these astrologer/astronomers are at the edge of the abyss essentially.. how they respond to keplers innovation of looking at geometry as of great relevance to the understanding of an astrology chart is really how they want to respond to how it fits with the ideas up to this point.. ibn ezra seems to be another innovator too fwiw.. i am sure one can say though, that they are still holding to a classical astro view even if it is outside the way that many astrologers want to think of how aspects can't happen with signs that can't see one another.

i use minor aspects very little. i will note a quintiles and if i see more in a chart, it will capture my attention. i don't generally see the septile so quickly unless it is between the 3 key points in a chart( same for quintiles) - ascendant, sun or moon.. i am more quick to note the novile aspects, either the 40 or 80 and will keep them in consideration if i see them between the 3 same points largely due my interest in the indian prioritizing of the navamsha chart. i don't use them in any other context then for an overview on a natal chart. i don't use them in coming to some idea of what they might mean in any of the predictive techniques i use, although i probably ought to if they show up in a natal chart more strongly.

as for the question of your thread, it really is a question on the use of what kepler started or put in motion which is a radically different way of thinking of the astrology chart. few traditional astrologers seem to have the stomach for advancing this area of astrology. they are generally too busy advancing the idea of classical astrology as being the central place to work from and trying to prove it too! i think this is great, but i don't think it rules out the relevance of the use of minor aspects and it certainly doesn't if one considers the work of john addey or david hamblin as having any relevance.

the fact someone drives on the right or left side of the road means very little either in the bigger scheme of things. the more important consideration would be the knowledge one gets from any of these techniques as opposed to whether they arrived in the proper vehicle.. i think these patterns - yod included do offer a particular insight into a chart, but no one is holding a gun to anyone's head saying you must use them! the same goes for anyone who wants to adopt a classical approach to astrology too. thus i find myself taking an eclectic approach with the thought of avoiding these type of philosophical dilemmas that seem to plague some.. none of this may apply to many reading here.

we still don't know where the yod pattern came into existence, but it seems it was much after keplers introduction to the idea of geometry as some type of unique way of approaching astrology. do we dump his ideas because they don't fit into a classical approach to astrology?

as for my commenting on the mercury/uranus conjunction in kepler, lilly and morins chart - i wasn't suggesting they are all the same person - far from it. i was only suggesting they seemed open to new ideas, as opposed to closing the door on them because they didn't fit into preconceived ideas on what astrology is supposed to be. in other words - they appear to have given themselves the freedom to consider new ideas! i wish i could say the same to others presently involved in astrology, but the reality is much different!

hi mark,

no intent on my part to consciously distort your words, but if you or someone can explain how lilly uses minor aspects with primary directions, while avoiding there use in natal astrology, i'd be curious. where is he using them then?

James. Can I ask you to actually read what I said? I never suggested what you are stating above. Frankly, I am reluctant to write much more on this point in case my new comments are totally misconstrued too.

James_M wrote:

it is true i said lilly and morin seemed to like using minor aspects, but let me rephrase it. they were both curious about these ideas thru keplers introduction of these ideas.. how much they used them remains to be seen, but from the work we have on lilly and morin it appears they used them very little. i wonder how much of this was due to there newness, or the lack of reference to others work using them?

I think its clear minor aspects didn?t really take off until the revival of astrology in the 19th century.

Philosophically, I think the two approaches are coming from different outlooks. I am not saying they are completely incompatible but I think they do need to looked at differently. Unless of course you want to totally embrace Kepler as your total guide and discard the classical approach.

Having said that some basically traditional astrologers do incorporate minor aspects. For example Anthony Louis does use minor aspects in his horary book. I think even John Frawley experimented with minor aspects initially before later dropping them. I wouldn't say such attitudes are common today though.

James_M wrote:

the same dilemma seems apparent today, outside what addey and hambliin have shared, and how many are even curious to read there material? very few it seems!

Well I have! Believe it or not I have studied both John Addey and David Hamblin. But I think it has to be said the astrological community in general seems to have lost interest in harmonics. It was the next big thing in the astrology of the 1980?s. Now it seems to be a largely forgotten topic. Is that because it never delivered what it promised or due to more accidental factors? After John Addey died in 1982 Hamblin didn?t really help matters by joining the ranks of the astrological sceptics and becoming an ?ex-astrologer?.

I dont deny harmonics are interesting. For example, one title I recall looking at Harmonics in depth was 'Working with Astrology: The Psychology of Midpoints, Harmonics and Astrocartography by Michael Harding and Charles Harvey. More recently, David Hamblin seems to have recovered his faith in astrology. Hence he brought out his book The Spirit of Numbers: A New Exploration of Harmonic Astrology in 2011.

I was always aware Indian astrology has divided up the radix charts with various numbers within the signs .(not just the well known Navamsha ) . So I suppose it could be argued that via the Indian tradition there is a basis for harmonics and non-Ptolemaic division of charts.

James_M wrote:

i don't buy the example the horary astrologer gives on lilly not including them in his almanacs as a reason he didn't use them or consider there relevance. minor aspects would be burdensome to include in an almanac ( or a horary astrologers approach for that matter) and he might have thought it was too novel an idea to be bothered including them if for no other reason then this.

These almanacs were not just list of planetary tables but usually contained detailed delineations. Essentially, in all Lilly?s writing after Christian astrology we have no further reference to minor aspects. And Lilly?s recorded statements in those writings give little succour for those like you seeking to make a case that he continued to use minor aspects.

Anyway, can I suggest we drop this topic? I don?t know about anyone you but I find this constantly going over the same ground a bit tiresome. I didn?t create this thread to have a debate about Lilly?s use (or non use) of minor aspects. We are really missing the bigger picture here.

James_M wrote:

i think the big problem for anyone looking into any of this is in wanting to attach oneself to a classical verses a non classical approach to astrology. all of these astrologer/astronomers are at the edge of the abyss essentially.. how they respond to keplers innovation of looking at geometry as of great relevance to the understanding of an astrology chart is really how they want to respond to how it fits with the ideas up to this point.

I agree that is how many might see it like that now. However, I doubt many astrologers viewed this issue in such stark terms in Lilly and Morin's time.

James_M wrote:

ibn ezra seems to be another innovator too fwiw.. i am sure one can say though, that they are still holding to a classical astro view even if it is outside the way that many astrologers want to think of how aspects can't happen with signs that can't see one another.

Considering the fact that the tradition of astrology has been ongoing for millennia its hardly surprising that innovations and differences of opinion and technique developed. Compare it to a belief system like Christianity. Its has a wide variety of traditions ranging from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, to Quaker ,Lutheran and Unitarian. Overall though, I am struck by how much astrological technique retained so much continuity over the centuries. Still, traditional astrology is not monolithic. Most fundamentally I think in the transition from Hellenistic to Perso-Arabic astrology saw some significant changes. And right at the end of the traditional era we have a figure like Morin who made fairly drastic changes to medieval technique.

James_M wrote:

..few traditional astrologers seem to have the stomach for advancing this area of astrology. they are generally too busy advancing the idea of classical astrology as being the central place to work from and trying to prove it too! i think this is great, but i don't think it rules out the relevance of the use of minor aspects and it certainly doesn't if one considers the work of john addey or david hamblin as having any relevance.

we still don't know where the yod pattern came into existence, but it seems it was much after keplers introduction to the idea of geometry as some type of unique way of approaching astrology. do we dump his ideas because they don't fit into a classical approach to astrology?

If you?re a traditionalist you may conclude that. Especially if you don?t perceive these aspects having a measureable effect!

James_M wrote:

as for my commenting on the mercury/uranus conjunction in kepler, lilly and morins chart - i wasn't suggesting they are all the same person - far from it. i was only suggesting they seemed open to new ideas, as opposed to closing the door on them because they didn't fit into preconceived ideas on what astrology is supposed to be. in other words - they appear to have given themselves the freedom to consider new ideas! I wish I could say the same to others presently involved in astrology, but the reality is much different!

First off I only perceive a strong Uranus ?Mercury connection in Kepler?s chart. Mercury is widely separating from conjunction in both Lilly?s and Morin?s chart. This rather fits what I already said about Kepler being the only genuinely revolutionary thinker of the three.

Your not explicit James but the underlying implication I take from your comments here (and many of your comments in this thread ) is that those that follow a traditional astrology today have closed or rigid minds. Earlier in this thread you described traditional astrology as a mental 'straightjacket'. This is a fairly common prejudice amongst those following a modern or eclectic approach about traditional astrologers.

You seem to view traditional astrology as a deficit model missing options you consider crucial e.g. minor aspects, harmonics, midpoints etc. However, a traditional astrologer may see modern astrology in a similar light. Modern astrology is missing out on many features a more classical astrologer might regard as crucial to basic delineation. Examples include:

-Essential dignity
-Planetary Sect
-Aspects based on planetary orbs
-Solar Phase
-Mutual reception
-Use of Lots
-Antiscia
-Fixed Stars

So who is limiting their options more here? Isn?t it fairer to avoid judgementalism and simply accept there are different valid options available? Ultimately, we all end up being selective regarding what astrological philosophy and techniques we choose to adopt.

Also not all of us think eclecticism is necessarily the best way forward on a practical basis. Some may feel working within a particular tradition has its strong advantages over mixing up techniques from different times and places with contrasting underlying logic and philosophy. If we compare astrological options to menu items we might say some prefer to eat Indian cuisine on its own rather than mix it with Italian pasta or Japanese sushi! Hence someone might decide to work with say Morin?s method or in a more Hellenistic style.

Mark

hi mark,

i went and re-read your comments. as i understand you, lilly used minor aspects only when looking at the primary direction data with regards to natal astrology.. let me know if i am still getting it wrong!

mark, i realize we have moved away from the focus of your thread - origin of aspect patterns. many aspect patterns that i am familiar with include the use of these same minor aspects too though, so it makes some sense to take a closer look at the history of their use and how they would have been a step in a different direction astrologically from the classical approach.. this is a diversion also but can you tell me if hellenistic and medieval are lumped together under the term 'classical approach'?

tony louis seems like an astrologer who is building bridges between a few different astrological approaches, so i am not surprised he has used minor aspects. i wonder if he still does?

you might be right about the astro community having lost interest in harmonics. heaven forbid they lose interest in arabic parts too since zollers work, or any of the other very special popular interests of a small community of astrologers who contemplate these types of idea/techniques.. this is off track too, but i get the impression the astrological community is not growing gangbusters, or even growing much.. it might be a fairly small sized group in the west.. banyan book store in vancouver has about the same size of space for astrology books on it's shelves as i believe it did about 20-30 years ago so far as i can tell.. maybe more people are reading e astro books! ben dykes would know. the reason i mentioned arabic parts in passing is from noting some similarities with harmonics and arabic parts, but i don't know that many in focused on a 'classical approach' want to even consider this. i left an article here a year or more ago discussing just this, but it wasn't taken up by anyone. here it is again for anyone curious.
http://www.astrosoftware.com/arabicparts.htm

that book 'working with astrology' is excellent. i highly recommend it, but it would be classified as modern astrology too with it's emphasis on mundane astrology, while including interesting sections on relocation astrology, midpoints and harmonics. and yes, i think the indian astrological approach includes the use of harmonics, but they don't seem to think of them this way.. i can't say as i haven't tried to get into an understanding of how they conceptualize their various divisional charts, but it does suggest harmonic astrology is not as dead as it might appear!

going back to lilly and how much he did or didn't use minor aspects. i don't think lilly is the be all and end all of everything. i would be happy to stop talking about him and minor aspects too! my question to others including yourself who might still be reading this thread - who uses minor aspects? how does one discount their use if they never give them a serious attempt by incorporating them for a time?

Mark wrote: Your not explicit James but the underlying implication I take from your comments here (and many of your comments in this thread ) is that those that follow a traditional astrology today have closed or rigid minds. Earlier in this thread you described traditional astrology as a mental 'straightjacket'. This is a fairly common prejudice amongst those following a modern or eclectic approach about traditional astrologers.

i would say that is a fair characterization of me. i might put it down to an overly sensitive awareness/attitude of being on skyscript where modern approaches always play 2nd fiddle to traditional ones while being subject to ridicule too.. do you think that is a fair characterization of skyscript generally? i think it might be changing for the better too thanks to more diversity in the membership here at skyscript at present... these are my own relatively subjective impressions..

Mark wrote: You seem to view traditional astrology as a deficit model missing options you consider crucial e.g. minor aspects, harmonics, midpoints etc. However, a traditional astrologer may see modern astrology in a similar light. Modern astrology is missing out on many features a more classical astrologer might regard as crucial to basic delineation.

this would explain why i am more attracted to an eclectic approach that can incorporate ideas from either. i don't think of these 2 areas as mutually exclusive, but perhaps some in these separate camps do.

Mark wrote: So who is limiting their options more here? Isn?t it fairer to avoid judgmental and simply accept there are different valid options available? Ultimately, we all end up being selective regarding what astrological philosophy and techniques we choose to adopt.

i think anyone who wants to box themselves into a particular category - traditional or modern - is limiting themselves. this might be an example where saturn or limitation is your friend, or not! regarding being judgmental- i think you're right.. i will do my best to avoid being judgmental and see if i can ignore it when i feel like i am witnessing it too..

Mark wrote: Also not all of us think eclecticism is necessarily the best way forward on a practical basis. Some may feel working within a particular tradition has its strong advantages over mixing up techniques from different times and places with contrasting underlying logic and philosophy. If we compare astrological options to menu items we might say some prefer to eat Indian cuisine on its own rather than mix it with Italian pasta or Japanese sushi! Hence someone might decide to work with say Morin?s method or in a more Hellenistic style.
Mark

i understand this.. i am curious though if you think there is room for innovation in a traditional approach? an aspect pattern is either an innovation or a concept that has no relevance, depending on whether one adheres to a particular tradition or school of thought, or allows room for innovation.. tell me if i have that wrong. thanks..

James,

Cochrane's article "The Mathematical Basis of Arabic Parts and a Paradigm Shift in Astrology" is brilliant! Thanks for sharing.

In the context of the discussion you are having here with Mark, I would like to spotlight a quote from that article:

The re-introduction of simple mathematical and scientific models into astrology at this time may create some consternation, but it may well be that the current paradigm shift in astrology towards divination and qualitative research will give way to a higher synthesis that incorporates the astrology of Kepler and Addey with ancient methods to create a framework that is not distorted, as Zoller refers to Kepler's astrology, but rather stronger, durable, and more useful and practical than our current edifice. My own sense is that we are on the verge of yet another paradigm shift even before we have settled comfortably into our current movement away from the quantitative and Newtonian approach and towards divination and qualitative research. No doubt this is an unpopular view but we can all agree that interesting times lie ahead of us!

Cheers,
Michael