Skyscript Astrology Forum

[Somehow, (no one?s quite sure how), the original post to this thread has disappeared.

It was a notice that John Frawley?s new Horary Textbook is now available and can be purchased online from John Hayes Bookstore at http://www.johnhayes.biz/store/ . Sorry about that John, I'll put the info here and what's currently the bottom of the thread - Deb]


Hi,

I've been away for a few days and found John Frawley's The Horary Textbook had arrived. I've only read about 30 pages, but I can see it is what one would expect from John: erudite, crammed with common sense, wide experience, good humor and a bit of controversy.

Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto ... have not a fraction of the importance with which they are invested by most contemporary astrologers.

Is there aother textbook of horary that answers the question: "What signifies the person who told the cops about your secret life as a criminal mastermind.?"

No, of course not. You'll have to buy it to get the answer.

Tom

Funny you should bring up the outer planets Tom. As you know, I am a traditional astrologer and so use the outer planets sparingly. But when looking at Ficino's chart a couple of days ago, I couldn't help but wonder what he would have made of it if he had known about the outer planets. He talks at great length about his chart, particularly the strong Saturnian influence. His ascendant was Aquarius and Saturn was conjunct in the first house. He had a Capricorn Moon and what he believed to be Mars in Aquarius although it was still in Capricorn. He may have felt better if he had known that Mars was in Capricorn since it is exalted there. However, he had Sun opposing Uranus with an orb of 25', Moon in partile opposition to Pluto and Neptune in conjunction with Jupiter. Pretty strong aspects. Probably would have made him even more miserable about his chart than he already was.

I read an interesting article recently on astrology's demise in the 17th century and its bearing on the decline and death of beliefs. In the article, the author describes Galileo?s response to the criticisms of an astrologer regarding his discovery of the four moons of Jupiter. One astrologer responded by saying that such planets, if they exist, remain ineffective because of their smallness. Galileo?s response to that was to suggest he lodge a complaint against nature and God and not against him. But he goes on at great length to express a belief that small things and invisible forces can exert powerful influences. From memory, I think Nick Kollerstrom talks about this in his article on Galileo on this site. And, of course, it is because of Galileo and others like him that we are able to know that the other planets and celestial bodies exist. However, the whole system of traditional astrology is based on the seven planets. It is unlikely that Ficino would have been interested in the outer planets for the reason that his astrology relied heavily on the whole philosophy around seven planets. His astrology was centred on the correlation of the seven metals, seven celestial spheres, seven planets etc. He was particularly interested in the correlation between seven planets and the body. The talismans that represented the seven planets had been developed for centuries and required a deep understanding of these energies. I have yet to see anything that incorporates the outer planets with the same sense of understanding that this system has. And this is one reason I am not interested in the way scientists call for scientific proof and attempt to use reductionist techniques to pull apart a system that has no business being pulled apart. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. You can?t scientifically prove a system like that. I agree completely with something Fran?ois Trojani said, which I quoted in one of my articles saying, 'for all its great usefulness, science is a very limited, very fragmented, and not very profound way of trying to investigate the mysteries of the universe.'

However, the whole system of traditional astrology is based on the seven planets.

I have seen the Sun, Moon and the traditional planets (except Mercury). But you know, I have looked to the east many times and never have seen a sign that says ?Ascendant here? , nor have I looked up and seen the MC. I have yet to see the tropical zodiac spread across the sky. The invisible is already at the foundation of traditional astrology.

It is unlikely that Ficino would have been interested in the outer planets for the reason that his astrology relied heavily on the whole philosophy around seven planets.

Now I don?t want to be too argumentative here, but let?s give the man a chance. His philosophy was based on what was known then. We don?t know what adaptations he may have come up with. What they didn?t know becomes our tradition. That doesn?t work for me. But neither does the modern fear and trembling before the outer planets, along with the overuse and overemphasis of them. They seem to offer a lot of people the opportunity to write a lot of sheer crap about them.

The Frawley book is undoubtedly good. I have yet to purchase his other books. Powell?s bookstore (of powells.com fame) is 2 miles from me, but I haven?t allowed myself in there for 3 or 4 years. Row after row, room after room, of books. Absolute hell.

What they didn?t know becomes our tradition. That doesn?t work for me.

Oh, I see, our tradtion is based solely on ignorance. And what we don't know becomes someone else's tradition, and therefore what we know doesn't work either? Or do we know it all now and safely dispense with the past? Or perhaps "they" didn't know anything at all of value? We are an amazing culture having come so far despite being held back by so much ignorance. My arm aches from patting myself on the back.

?the greatest lie of all in the sciences and metaphysics: that we are the product of a process of maturation, in which all our knowledge is superior to that of all other cultures; and that we have refined ourselves out of and beyond most of the nonsense that held back previous cultures.? -- John Morrill

Tom

I wrote the following in reference to Ficino and the outer planets:

His philosophy was based on what was known then. We don?t know what adaptations he may have come up with. What they didn?t know becomes our tradition. That doesn?t work for me.

In Ficino?s time the outer planets weren?t known of, therefore the astrology of the past consisted of the lights and 5 planets. In the current age children around the world learn in school about Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. This is basic knowledge about our solar system. Other ages weren?t aware of the outers, we are. I feel it is up to us to incorporate them into the traditional thought. Expansion, not rejection, of the tradition.

My criticism is of present-day astrologers. The astrologers of the past didn?t use the outers because they weren?t aware of them. Some astrologers of the current age don?t use them because they choose to ignore them. However, they sometimes use them grudgingly when faced with a prominently placed one which just won?t go away. That is what doesn?t work for me. We must sincerely and fully accept them, and learn how to use them. Some of the most interesting and exciting thoughts in that respect come from modern ?traditional? astrologers. The integrated philosophical basis of the tradition provides a solid foundation for the addition of new elements. That is truly progressive astrology.

The astrologers of the past didn?t use the outers because they weren?t aware of them.

The astrology of Ficino and those of his time was closely tied to hermetic and Neoplatonic philosophy. Their philosophy was based on the belief that the past was always better than the present and that the earliest thinkers walked more closely with the gods than the rationalists. When the Corpus Hermeticum was rediscovered, it was Ficino who translated the treatises into Latin. In these treatises, the cosmological framework was always astrological. The material world was under the rule of the stars and the ?seven Governors? as the planets were called. The beliefs of the Renaissance astrologers were not so much based on the factual knowledge of the time that there are seven planets but on the traditions of the ancients to whom they looked for their understanding of the universe. If, for arguments sake, the three outers were discovered in the lifetime of Ficino, he would not have been able to incorporate them into the already existing system. It would have required the development of a completely new system, and one that had no solid foundation to support it. I don?t believe this is always properly understood by astrologers who use the outer planets.

The integrated philosophical basis of the tradition provides a solid foundation for the addition of new elements.

Actually, I don?t believe this is true. As an example, if you read Deb?s articles about the traditional rulerships she explains how this is a complete system in itself and doesn?t allow for the addition of the outer planets. Modern astrologers who give rulership to the outer planets are disregarding the principles behind the philosophy of rulerships. In the same way, attempting to incorporate the outer planets into the traditional philosophy of astrology is disregarding the integrity of the system as it stands.

Some comments on a few of Sue's points:

The astrology of Ficino and those of his time was closely tied to hermetic and Neoplatonic philosophy.

And that Hermetic and Neoplatonic philosophy is still there and is a major part of the foundation, but I don?t see the necessity for us to be as closely tied to it as they were. I?m stepping into the history of astrology, where I admit my knowledge is still unclear, but wasn?t their astrology already a blend of Neoplatonic thought and Mesopotamian roots? And as Robert Schmidt and others have pointed out, astrology had made some major changes between Hellenistic times and the Renaissance. Change and incorporation happened in the past and can still happen.

The material world was under the rule of the stars and the ?seven Governors? as the planets were called.

We can still work with that. Visible planets and the material world. Invisible planets and...? That looks to me like a clue in how to use the outers appropriately. For me this ties in with keeping the traditional dignities. The outer planets are a different category of planets astrologically. They are beyond the linkage of visible planet and material world. I can see the category of the outers as an ?add-on? which could be integrated into the existing structure. Let?s not assume that the outers would then have to be worked into the dignities scheme. That was the mistake of modern astrologers which was done out of ignorance, or lack of understanding and appreciation, of the traditional system.

he beliefs of the Renaissance astrologers were not so much based on the factual knowledge of the time that there are seven planets but on the traditions of the ancients to whom they looked for their understanding of the universe. If, for arguments sake, the three outers were discovered in the lifetime of Ficino, he would not have been able to incorporate them into the already existing system. It would have required the development of a completely new system, and one that had no solid foundation to support it.

If the Renaissance astrologers looked to the ancients for their understanding of the universe, and if Ficino would not have been able to incorporate new planets into the already existing system, isn?t that an indication of the limits of Renaissance astrological thought.? Is it a good thing to build a philosophical structure that can?t change? Do we want to simply look to the thought of the Renaissance, which looked to the ancients? I say we can still look to them and use the foundation they provided, but we can also build on it.

I want to mention again how the new planets are often looked at by some ?traditional? astrologers when they are just too prominent to ignore. This shows an insincere, incomplete and ultimately ineffective astrological philosophy. As much as I don?t like the idea, it would be more honest to ignore those planets completely.

Somehow, (no one?s quite sure how), the original post to this thread has disappeared.

It was a notice that John Frawley?s new Horary Textbook is now available and can be purchased online from John Hayes Bookstore at http://www.johnhayes.biz/store/


(Sorry to interrupt the discussion - Deb)

Change and incorporation happened in the past and can still happen...I can see the category of the outers as an ?add-on? which could be integrated into the existing structure...I say we can still look to them and use the foundation they provided, but we can also build on it...I want to mention again how the new planets are often looked at by some ?traditional? astrologers when they are just too prominent to ignore. This shows an insincere, incomplete and ultimately ineffective astrological philosophy. As much as I don?t like the idea, it would be more honest to ignore those planets completely.

You might perhaps find the Orcus 2004DW discussion between Kevin and me of some interest...

Do attempts to incorporate the outer planets into the traditional philosophy of astrology disregard its integrity? It seems to me that this depends upon which outer planets one might wish to incorporate, the underlying rationale for their selection and inclusion, one's understanding of what constitutes a traditional philosophy of astrology (not to mention one's selection of one's preferred astrological system and philosophical worldview), whether one's understanding of traditional philosophy is rigid and inflexible or pliant and adaptive, the latitude of interpretation one permits oneself in articulating an understanding of tradition, and whether one's practice is congruent with one's convictions (or if indeed this latter state of affairs is at all important).

For example, in ancient mythology Uranus ruled all the heavenly spheres, and was the father of Saturn. Its period of eighty-four years is the product of the number of the signs multiplied by the seven planets over which it 'rules,' i.e., 12 x 7 = 84. Some astrologers have believed that Uranus is a higher octave of Saturn, Lord of Form and Time (or, in the words of Edgar Cayce, "Lord of Change"), Lord of Intellect and Invention. Whether or not one accepts the idea that "Uranus is a higher octave of Saturn," there is at least an underlying rationale for incorporating this notion into a traditional astrological system (please note: *a* traditional astrological system, not *the* traditional astrological system). An "underlying rationale" may be congruent or incongruent, consistent or inconsistent with the rest of one's argument, and one is free to accept it or to reject it as such. No big deal.

(Oh, speaking of which, I am currently in the process of writing a self-help manual, tentatively titled "I'm Less Arrogant and Self-Congratulatory Than You Are, You're More Arrogant and Self-Congratulatory Than I Am." It should be on the bookshelves sometime before Armageddon.)