Skyscript Astrology Forum

The Forum guidelines state:

This particular forum exists to learn, apply, and exchange techniques and ideas regarding traditional and ancient astrology and astrologers. ?Traditional astrology? is a pretty broad topic, so we?ll offer a rough definition as follows: the type of astrology practiced prior to 1700 and everything between 1700 and Alan Leo is close enough to count as traditional with a few exceptions.

The change specifically concerns the statement:

" ... the type of astrology practiced prior to 1700 and everything between 1700 and Alan Leo is close enough to count as traditional with a few exceptions."

The guidelines were written a long time ago and were intended just as guidelines not as canon law. Over the years we've been sufficiently flexible, yet managed to stay within the purpose of the Forum, i.e. a place to discuss traditional astrology without having to defend it from attacks by people who really know little about it or are just plain contrarian.

I'm thinking of changing this sentence and making it more exclusive rather than inclusive realizing there will always be some gray areas. For example, personally I don't consider Aleister Crowley to be a traditional astrologer, although there are some strong traditional elements in his astrology. But that's personal. I would not discourage anyone from looking at or commenting on his work in context. I wouldn't think it terribly persuasive to insist that his ideas overrule those of, say, Abu Mashar.

The year 1700 demarcation is just a rough date, not a dividing line. Worsdale wrote after 1700 and it would be hard to describe him accurately as a modern. So I'm thinking of a change such as this and at this point it is only a suggestion:

Authors writing about contemporary astrology after 1700 and in particular after 1800 and the advent of Alan Leo are not necessarily traditional and their work as traditional should be discussed in a traditional context.

The problem with this is pretty obvious: what is a "discussion in a traditional context?" I understand " discussing a modern in context" to mean we are discussing a more modern, in terms of birth date, astrologer who is writing about astrology as it was practiced prior to 1700, rather than writing to disrupt the entire system.

The key words are "as it was practiced prior to 1700." Worsdale's practice could easily have occurred long before the shift, and no one would have thought a thing of it. Worsdale didn't change anything. He simply introduced a means of using the information obtained with traditional methods. He was highly critical of many of those who came before, however. Crowley introduced things that he thought were good ideas, but that had no place in the tradition in the first place, e.g. "governors" of the cardinal, fixed, and mutable signs.

Although for years things have been pretty good along these lines, I am becoming a wee bit concerned about the Forum being used as a place for modern vs traditional advocacy and a little more so about the injection of modern ideas as traditional. I understand that comparisons are inevitable and not necessarily unhealthy, but there are astrologers who come to this forum to discuss traditional astrology and the posts of others that are challenges, intended or not, to traditional astrology are not in the spirit or purpose of the Forum. We come to discuss traditional astrology - not to defend it.

Challenges are fine within context. For example my current favorite astrologer Morin, challenged the astrology of his day and some criticism of him as not being a true traditional are perfectly in order. But, as I understand him, Morin was criticizing astrology within context. He didn't alter (too much) the understanding of the planets, aspects or houses. Like Worsdale he did disagree with how to use them. His system was constructed out of traditional elements and understanding. To me anyway, this is not the same thing as touting an astrologer who rarely, if ever, used the table of dignities, and thinks the entire chart concerns the psyche of the native regardless of what traditional trappings might be employed. I have no particular astrologer in mind when I described the above.

I'd like some feedback. I realize that regardless of what is written in the guidelines few people bother to read them and are likely to interpret them their way if they do, but I also like having the guidelines to point to if things get out of line and writers can't understand our objections.

I have no problem with a vigorous discussion of anything that has to do with traditional astrology. The problems occur when the discussion wanders away from the tradition. Skyscript is one of, if not the most learned astrology site on the web. It's strength is that there are a variety of places to post thoughts and opinions and that helps keep things on track and increases the quality of the work put into it by the contributors of every Forum. I want to keep it that way.

Let me know if there are any thoughts on this topic.

Tom

Tom wrote:It's also the choice of others including the Head Honcho of Skyscript.

The guidelines already state:

What to do about the outer planets? They exist in the material universe, but so do a lot of other things that have nothing to do with this topic. Let?s use them judiciously. There are more than a few first-rate traditional astrologers who use them ? one of them is the owner of this site.

Others include Joe Crane, Bernadette Brady, and Dorian Greenbaum. I'm afraid we're stuck with the outers to some extent.

Not to mention that what once was modern may now be deemed traditional.
Many Astrologers would call E. Adams an old fogy

Hi Tom,

I have no problem with the suggestion. However, I think some of the the recent problems we have had on the traditional forum relate to people who dont understand what 'traditional' means. I know up to a few decades ago people in the UK differentiated between the 'traditional' astrology of Charles Carter, Margaret Hone, RC Davidson versus the 'modern' psychological astrology of Rudhyar, Greene, Sasportas etc. Its probably a lot clearer these days but some people still have a very limited notion of astrological history. Any date we select is going to be arbitrary. However, I think requiring that any examples following 1700 need to be justified is a fair starting point. As you suggest there are a few exceptions. Its usually, clear enough if the focus of such a post fits the forum ethos or not. Of course this all assumes people can be bothered to check the forum guidelines. Some people clearly dont bother even when invited to.

Rather than just set prescriptions I think it might be useful to offer some positive examples of how traditional astrology differs:

1 Sign rulerships based on the 7 visible planets
2 Aspects based on orbs for planets not aspect type
3 Use of essential and accidental dignities
4 Traditional meanings for houses
5 The ancient, medieval and renaissance use of mutual reception
6 Restricted or non-use of outer planets
7 Predictive techniques such as primary directions, profections, solar returns, firdaria etc.
8 Use of ancient, medieval and renaissance techniques such as antiscia, fixed stars and lots/parts.

In my opinion people who blatantly ignore warnings that their posts are inappropriate and start abusing the moderator should have their membership withdrawn. There are other more approriate places to post on Skyscript and a host of options on the internet. We are not fascists here. We just have to set some limits on how far we can put up with boorish gate crashers.

regards

Mark

I think you and Mark already are on the right track and I'd stick to the original concept. People should simply respect the rules and don't start a modern v. traditional discussion.

Although I never practiced traditional astrology like you all do, I like this section because of its historical element. Dispite of my different views I think it's possible to participate constructively on the debate and I try to be of help by contributing with several historical and technical points. In my last post in the primary directions I was going a bit too technical which was of less (traditional) relevance. If you want me to remove that part, I'll do.

There's one question I have about Kepler . Since he doubted about the houses and signs, would he still count as traditional here?

Here?s a passage of Jim Tester in 'A History of Western Astrology' on page 234/235 where he compares Kepler and Morin.

Jim Tester's 'A History of Western Astrology wrote: Kepler and Jean-Baptiste Morin are almost complementary to one another as thinkers. Kepler in a sense wants to look back to a Neo-Platonist, or rather Neo-Pythagorean world of number-forms and solid mathematical figures, all fitting into a harmony that made sense of the whole: a view of the world as has been said Ficino and Pico would have wholy sympathised with. Morin wants to look forward - in very much his own way - into the next age, to produce a logical, coherent whole into which astrology fits with (corrected) modern scientific ideas and practice as part of the whole pattern, which includes a proper form of divination. But Kepler belongs to the future, and his training and experience and even ways of looking at problems are modern. Whereas Morin's whole background - his his geocentrism, his anti-Cartesian, anti-Gassendi 'science', his alchemy and astrology - keeps him firmly facing backwards He could not avoid belonging to the past any more than Kepler could avoid, even had he tried, belonging to the future.

His philosophical ideas thus were somewhat traditional but his techniques modern, while Morin was the other way round.

forums have a habit of going back in time. I suggest there should be a new forum for ancient,hellenistic and Arabic astrology.

If we want to be modern and tap from Facebook and twittering titter then we have to be much more tolerant and less reactionary.

Traditional now extends to the beginning of the script and the availability of a translator! ! .

PD

pankajdubey wrote:forums have a habit of going back in time. I suggest there should be a new forum for ancient,hellenistic and Arabic astrology.

If we want to be modern and tap from Facebook and twittering titter then we have to be much more tolerant and less reactionary.

Traditional now extends to the beginning of the script and the availability of a translator! ! .

PD

And when authors mingle traditional and modern in their books you have a recipe for disaster too.

Pankajdubey - I think we'd need to include Renaissance and early modern astrologers like Lilly and Morin in there, too.

And that's the problem with terminology. I grew up studying from Margaret Hone's text, reading Charles Carter and all those other people. I know a lot of folks today who did that and call it traditional astrology, because they always have done - that's one reason Lee Lehman hesitates to use the term - there's likely to be confusion for the rest of our generation or so over traditional of the kind skyscript means and traditional as was used by Carter and Marc Edmund Jones and largely, by their students.

We've mostly avoided confusion until pretty recently, though I agree I'd like to nip it in the bud before anyone gets too resentful. Some people have already gotten resentful, and sometimes hostile, when their idea of an astrological remedy that's consonant with the tradition - isn't. Or they found something in an older text (early 1900s) that they haven't seen in a newer one and really like it, and think that's consonant with tradition - but it isn't.

It may still be a good technique. But it's probably not a traditional one.

That may be the crux of the problem right there. If you have something you consider a good technique, but it's not found in the ancient to early modern literature, it's not traditional (as the term is generally agreed upon here), so please post it in the general or other appropriate forum.

That may sound too restrictive. I'm not really certain. But I value this place, and I'd like to keep it a haven of traditional discussion and scholarship.

Hi Tom

I think the real problem recently has been with a particular member, who has gone out of his way to push buttons, despite warnings. I have had some very convincing evidence that this was a long-standing trouble maker using a new alias to rejoin and cause more nuisance, so this time I've blocked his IP from even accessing the Skyscript site.

I'm sorry about the trouble you've suffered and I am going to be deleting some of his posts. In the meantime, if you want to redefine the guideline for discussion in this thread, I'm fine with that; please do what you think best. My personal leaning would be to leave things as they are, because otherwise it leaves this period of 18th and 19th-century astrology which is not really catered for elsewhere on the site. Also, if boundaries get too rigid, then we probably ought to have ancient separated from medieval and Renaissance; but then there are all sorts of loose ends like where to put Arabian or Persian sources? Since I think the recent problem was caused by an obstroculous person rather than a forum design - maybe let this one stew a bit and see if the problem replicates itself?

Best wishes
Deb

There does seem to be a general attitude from some moderns that traditional astrologers are there for no other purpose than to argue with. It is a bit like scientific skeptics demanding that astrologers in general justify their heretical beliefs.

If they do depart to their abodes and habitations and leave us be then all well and good although the differences are still there and some modern controversialists will still want to provoke a fuss.

Perhaps there are genuine idealogical reasons for the divide and a debate is to be had but at the moment it seems to something like "They said something mean about pluto so we will get back at them by saying something mean about antiscia"

I can understand fellow members finding this stuff tiresome

Matt

My personal leaning would be to leave things as they are, because otherwise it leaves this period of 18th and 19th-century astrology which is not really catered for elsewhere on the site.

Good point, and I think we should. I was pretty sure it was the same person and you would eventually boot him, and that was the impetus, but it also got me thinking that changing the wording in the guidelines, not our focus, might help. For example the Evangeline Adams bit. Now I like Evangeline and am always interested in what she has to say. And it is a fact that she liked traditional horary and even owned an original copy of CA. That member chose to interject Evangeline Adams' thinking on the Moon in a thread that concerned the traditional meaning of the Sun and when called on it switched gears to defending Adams as a traditional astrologer ignoring the purpose of the thread which several members were enjoying.

I looked at the guidelines and saw what I believed to be a loophole. If we can discuss say Broughton because he is definitely 19th century (he died in 1899), then why not Leo? Why not Marc Edmond Jones? So I'm trying to close a loophole to fend off future abusers. I don't want to change the focus of the Forum - only find better words to help eliminate disruptors.

I'd like to pursue this if others are interested even if we don't change a thing.

Tom