Skyscript Astrology Forum

In the combustion thread Kirk wrote:

These tight rules work for horary, but natal charts are entitled to a smearing and loosening of factors. An element of vagueness is appropriate for natal. Natal astrology and horary astrology are very different practices. In the same way, each of us is not an event. Individually, in our separate lives, we are each innumerable events and the cause of events. In taking the deep plunge into astrology I needed to drop a lot of the ?anything goes? which we find often in astrology as it has been revived in the past century or so, but what I more recently have learned is that I now need to also drop much of the ?this is the way it is? of what is now called traditional astrology. Strict rules of the modern traditional astrology are too often mistakenly applied to natal charts in the belief that horary and natal work are similar.

I agree with the sentiment of this comment and thought I would mention that I?ve recently been having a private discussion with Dennis Elwell (hah, not so ?private? anymore ), sparked off by the fact that I am preparing one of his articles for publication in the next set of updates. We have been discussing how traditional approaches were never actually as fatalistic as many modern advocates of traditional astrology would have us believe. He referred to quotes from Ptolemy:

"A skilful person, acquainted with the nature of the stars, is enabled to avert many of their effects, and to prepare himself for those effects before they arrive."

And:

"A sagacious mind improves the operation of the heavens, as a skilful farmer by cultivation improves nature."

He also referred to one of Lilly's charts detailed in Geoffrey Cornelius's book where, to quote Dennis:

the master dodges answering the young woman hoping to benefit from the death of her putative elderly husband. Instead he recommends a stratagem to find out if there might be an unforeseen obstacle to that outcome. Good commonsense, or as Lilly would call it, discretion.

Of course Lilly?s text, if read properly, can be seen as a good example of an astrological approach that doesn?t pronounce an inevitable fate, but rather aims to explore the problem and offer advice on how it can be best resolved. One of the comments in Dennis?s forthcoming article, one I feel particularly in support of, is:

Trouble is, there does not seem to be much urgency in the astrological community to learn from such baleful events, striving to identify when and how interventions might have been made. Is this because many astrologers are still acting as if they are involved in an exercise in divination? Is this a horary hangover, imparting the same limp passivity of the questioner who asks ?Will I succeed in this venture?? rather than ?How can I can make a success of it??

My response was that the problem is not in the technique, but in the attitude that draws many people to horary, as a way of avoiding taking on responsibility for making decisions for themselves, or for taking risks with life (therefore losing the valuable opportunity of learning through experience). Asking for guidance on a serious problem is one thing, expecting horary to tell us what to do in all our trivial dilemmas is quite another. I also don?t like ?will I/ will it?? questions, or even ?should I?? questions. I try to make it clear to the client that what I am really looking at is ?whether it is wise to ??? or ?what hopes do I have of ???

I thought of posting this in the horary thread but really it goes much deeper than horary; because every time an astrologer makes a ?prediction? to a client they venture into the territory of either reducing that person?s assumption of responsibility, or enhancing it by giving them a deeper insight into the roots and causes of that predicted conclusion, and then allowing them to make responsible decisions for themselves.

Traditional astrologers are often accused of having a fatalistic approach because of this. Personally I don?t feel I have a fatalistic approach at all, just an ability to see the matter more clearly for the benefits of a more precise understanding of symbolism which traditional techniques allow.

But does anyone disagree, and feel that traditional astrology is bound up with the concept of predicting in advance an inevitable conclusion that allows no room for manoeuvre?

I agree with Tom. I think all astrology is essentially fatalistic. Horary appears to be even more so, given its "tight," detailed rules and the very specific questions and situations to which we apply these rules. However, in truth, I think that both natal astrology and "ordinary" predictive astrology (using transits and progressions) are just as "fatalistic," when they are correctly and accurately applied. It just depends on how honest we want to be, with ourselves and others.

The question of how we approach fate, and the events that occur in our lives "beyond our control," is of course an entirely separate one. I suppose at one end of the spectrum is the extreme fatalist, and at the other, the absolute self-determinist. Most of us are placed at some other point along this spectrum. But "fatalism" and "self-determinism" are attitudes - they do not necessarily reflect reality or the "objective conditions" of our lives (although attitude can of course influence and change our individual reality - and here we get into the whole topic of the extent to which we "create" our own reality - another big topic).

I think as astrologers we have a truer appreciation of fate than others. That does not mean we become fatalists, it's just that we have a better and more realistic understanding of our limitations (and our potentials). Perhaps this is the Saturnian dimension of astrology.

I also think in modern times we over-estimate the amount of control we have over our lives. So many aspects of our lives are fated and beyond our control. The moment we are born, we are fated to die. Our physical body, family environment, country and culture into which we are born, the people who enter our lives, most of the events that happen in our lives, ....all of these things are beyond our control. We are incredibly fragile creatures, we are so easily wiped out, either by disease or some random unfortunate accident. As children and adults, we are frequently dependent on others for our support - physically, emotionally, and financially.

There is a notion in modern astrology that you can "sublimate" the planetary energies of a transit, to avoid the transit manifesting as some unpleasant physical event. (Here I am talking about major transits of Saturn and the outer planets to inner planets).

I suppose that would be the ultimate control over fate. However I have found such an approach, in practice, to be laughably useless. I have actually tried this, and believe me, it does not work. No matter how much knowledge and understanding I have of the transit before it arrives, and the planetary meanings involved, my attempts to sublimate have made no difference whatsoever to the events that "happened." So far at least, they have not lessened the impact of the transit, nor reduced the pain. This has led me to a greater respect for astrology, the "laws of the universe," and "fate."

Man has a free will just not the will to use it

Yes, I like that. That prediction is generally possible is because most of us, most of the time, are fated by our own predictability.

It?s quite usual to see modern astrologers identifying Saturn as either the absent, tyrannical or weak father or the emotionally detached/disturbed/possessive mother ? why? Is it because Saturn is traditionally labelled ?the greater infortune?, and they are unable to move beyond the theory that the responsibility for all of our faults, fears and inadequacies lies with our parents?

Isn?t this imparting the same limp passivity that Elwell moans about?

I remember my stomach churning at an astrology talk I attended where we listened to the consultation tape of a middle-aged man droning on about his ?mother issues?. The astrologer/counsellor seemed to be feeding negative conditioning; as if the client wasn?t expected to take any responsibility for his string of failed relationships ? they were all the fault of a mother who didn?t show enough ?emotional investment?. I had a very unnerving mental picture of the counsellor breast-feeding this grown man, who was lapping it up.

That?s one difference between traditional and modern approaches. Have you ever seen a traditional text allow the native to assign responsibility for their own problems to someone else?

I am not talking here about people who have suffered parental abuse; I am talking about the proclivity of some modern astrologers to make all people feel as if they have suffered parental abuse, even when there is a protestation that this isn?t the case. Like Kurgal has just stated, there are so many factors that influence the nurture part of the ?nature v nurture? debate: ?family environment, country and culture into which we are born, the people who enter our lives, most of the events that happen in our lives, ?? If inferiority exists, it rarely has a single cause.

Traditional astrology is much less obliging to our desire to assign responsibility for our problems to someone else. It would probably turn this on its head ?because you suffer from feelings of inferiority you perceive your father to be absent, tyranical or weak?.

And just to make this point very clear, I?ve no objection to the exploration of parental influences, just the singular fixation upon it. You never hear anyone say ?it?s not your fault that you are tired, ratty, stressed out, broke, intolerant, feeling inferior and insecure; it?s because of your tyrannical and emotionally demanding children!?.
Parents have a lot to deal with, so why don?t modern astrologers explain that it?s not normal to expect that they should have been perfect?

As you say Tom, the question is:

What are you going to do about it? Take control, or let it conrol you?

in this regard i like the phrase "the stars show us the setting within which we can exercise free will".

There is a certain extent of Fate: we cannot choose the family and environment that we are born in, nor the intellectual and physical capacities with which we are born, nor the position of the stars and the archetypes that play a role in our chart -- but within that set framework we can exercise free will and choose how to play the cards that we were given

For all our discussions of freewill, fate and destiny; I?m sure most astrologers feel the same as you do Haku. But if that applies as a general tenet regarding life, mustn't it also apply with horary questions or the predictions we might make in say, a solar return chart?

And if we accept that the exercise of free will, powerfully expressed, can influence the outcome, then what justification does it leave for trying to predict the outcome of something as sensitive to the effect of chance and free will as say, a football match? Isn?t any attempt to do this totally fatalistic and an implication that no matter how people motivate themselves, their results are predictable in advance, and chance plays no part in it?

And how does this reconcile with what Tom said earlier:

Now the question becomes, can the native or querent do anything about what has been given to them? If not, there isn't much point in practicing astrology.

One of the major issues for me is in what Deb said in her first post on this thread.

? the problem is not in the technique, but in the attitude that draws many people to horary, as a way of avoiding taking on responsibility for making decisions for themselves, or for taking risks with life (therefore losing the valuable opportunity of learning through experience).

I agree with this very much. I don?t think the issue here is about free will or whether we are fated by the stars. Tom?s point about why practice astrology at all if we are fated suggests that most astrologers do not think we are fated by the stars. For me it is more about what we should expect of astrology and what astrology should expect from us. We expect astrology to do the right thing by us but do we do the right thing by astrology? I don?t think we should ever ask a horary question unless we are genuinely in a dilemma about how to approach a particular situation and have thought about it a great deal. Even then, I wouldn?t expect the chart to tell me what to do but rather it will give me a clearer understanding of what the issues are and how to approach them. I agree that we shouldn?t ask for the answer but guidance to find our own answer. How can we ask a question that requires a yes/no outcome telling us what to do and then complain that horary astrology is too fatalistic?

I have recently been reading a book on astrology in the early modern period and it talks about how people attempted to overcome difficulties in their lives by the use of astrological principles. It mentions a Marquis in the courts in the 1440?s who chose his clothes every day based on the current influence of the planets and to draw down the energies required. Of course, Marsilio Ficino was a prime example of the use of talismans to counter the negative influences (mostly Saturn for him). In Florence, the captains who lead the city?s armies received their batons of command at an astrologically determined time. I realise none of this is horary but it is the same underlying principle. Why bother with any of these things if you believe your fate is fixed?

The authors of the book (one of whom is Anthony Grafton who wrote ?Cardano?s Cosmos?) say that it wasn?t genitures but elections and interrogations that were the most popular at this time and that the astrologer would counsel a client based on the position of the planets about the likely outcome of a particular enterprise. The very fact of doing elections suggests that there is some control. Why choose the time for an event if it is all fated anyway?

I don?t think astrology has ever really been entirely fatalistic. Certainly it has had elements of it but if you look through the history of this more modern attitude about fate it is tied in very much with Christianity. Augustine was attempting to turn people away from astrology by playing the ?free will? card. Even the Stoics, who were the most fatalistic in their approach, believed that there are measures to be taken, most notably in the attitude with one approaches one?s fate. The issue in the 15th and 16th centuries, as far as I can gather at this point, wasn?t with what astrology could do but with how one used astrology and the expectations that people had of astrology. Pico, for example, who wrote a massive volume ?Disputations? centred one of his arguments around free will and the way that people abrogated full responsibility to the stars. This is a similar argument to what Deb mentioned earlier. Astrology isn?t fatalistic but many of us attempt to use it in a fatalistic manner.

Although we might "accept that the exercise of free will, powerfully expressed, can influence the outcome" of a situation, i think we also need to accept that for every situation where that is so, there is a situation where no amount of free will, no matter how powerfully expressed, will change anything. As astrologers, part of our job is to identify those areas of life which are absolutely "fated," and those which can be influenced by the exercise of free will.

Of course, an attitude of complete "fatalism" is not a healthy one and should never be encouraged by the astrologer, as Sue points out above.

However, I feel that as an astrologer I have to be the "voice of fate" at times, and if I did not believe that we were fated by the stars to a great degree, then I would not be practising astrology!

For example, a person might come to me with a limitless idea of their potentials and abilities, that they could become anything or anyone, and do anything at all...but the moment I start drawing the lines of the horoscope, and start placing the planets in the houses, I am recognising boundaries and limitations on that individual. I am saying "you are this; but not that"....even if I emphasise the chart's possibilities and potentials to the client, I am imposing limitations: "these are your potentials; but not these."

My post quoted at the beginning of this thread does not tie in with this discussion as it has developed. Since my post was quoted, I will take the discussion into the direction which I had originally intended.

Deb asked:

But does anyone disagree, and feel that traditional astrology is bound up with the concept of predicting in advance an inevitable conclusion that allows no room for manoeuvre?

Not ?astrology?, but ?astrologies?. My point was that we need to distinguish our uses of astrology. More specifically, we need to clarify and refine the uses of traditional astrology. The first sentence of my post is missing in the opening quote above: ?Once again: horary or natal?? I was addressing the need to proceed differently in natal and horary work and the need for changes in approach which those different ?astrologies? require. For example: The Sun in detriment square Saturn might work to give a possible horary reading of ? No, it will not work to your advantage and will probably be harmful.? This is appropriate for horary and is the function and purpose of horary. But if this same square in a natal chart is interpreted as ? This aspect of your life [all that is represented by the Sun during that person?s lifetime] will not work to your advantage and will probably be harmful? doors are closed, and bad astrology has been practiced. In the horary reading you have predicted a final undesirable outcome for one issue. In the natal reading you have predicted a lifetime of bad outcomes and harm with little possibility of good.

I was quoted, but my point was overlooked! Why did my point of distinguishing different uses for traditional astrology easily flow into the frequent broad topics of fate vs. free will and traditional vs. modern? Why didn?t the discussion focus on traditional astrology itself and the need to clarify and refine its uses according to the type of chart being interpreted? Do we have our favored views and beliefs which predictably take us in the same directions?

Have you ever seen a traditional text allow the native to assign responsibility for their own problems to someone else?

Those texts were written before Freud. We easily criticize modern astrology without considering the fact that astrology resurfaced and spread rapidly in the age of modern psychology. The quarrel is really with the fact that popular psychological thought has crept in throughout our lives and society. Modern astrology is only a minor player in that pervasive influence. We need a broader view which takes us beyond ?astrologer vs. astrologer?.

It seems to me that the interest in traditional astrology has been strongly influenced by a desire to flee from the age of modern psychology. Not to turn away just from modern astrology, but from the grip of psychological analysis and explanation. Concomitant with the reborn interest in traditional astrology has been the revival of horary. I can?t help but feel that spending one?s time studying and practicing horary is too often a convenient way of avoiding the issue of how to interpret a natal chart?and a way of not appearing to others as one of those dreaded and despised popular psychologists. Natal chart work has been too easily equated with modern psychology. Discussions of natal topics are easily passed over by those who favor horary; issues of natal work are avoided or are only a source of mild interest. However, horary astrology, with its focus on events rather than on the character and personality of the person, can become a safety zone?a way to avoid the inability to work with natal in a personally meaningful and satisfying way. It also becomes a danger zone if it is tacitly understood as the ?real? and ?true? astrology.

But natal astrology exists and has existed for centuries. It?s an earlier form and practice of psychology. I say the reason that the different methods and applications of traditional natal and horary astrology aren?t explored and clarified is because natal work is too easily considered an undesirable form of astrology and is avoided because the astrologer doesn?t have a way of working with it. Natal astrology is therefore misunderstood due to a lack of deep knowledge of it and the unwillingness to move into new territory.

In the horary reading you have predicted a final undesirable outcome for one issue. In the natal reading you have predicted a lifetime of bad outcomes and harm with little possibility of good.

Only if you take the fatalistic approach with astrology. I don?t agree that a horary chart will predict a final outcome that cannot be changed. What is the point of that? You may as well wait for the inevitable to happen. In the same way, there is sometimes no ignoring the fact that some aspects in a natal chart are very difficult no matter how much you want to sugarcoat it.

Why didn?t the discussion focus on traditional astrology itself and the need to clarify and refine its uses according to the type of chart being interpreted?

I don?t know any traditional astrologer who fails to understand the difference between reading a horary chart and reading a natal chart. Most of us are well aware of the differences and the similarities. In fact, I believe traditional astrology has a far better understanding of the differences than does modern astrology. I did a one-day workshop with Demetra George last year on traditional interpretations of the natal chart. It was fascinating. Ben?s excellent in-depth interpretation of Michael Jackson?s chart using medieval techniques was equally fascinating. I doubt very much that anyone could suggest that it lacked an understanding of natal astrology. Many of the same traditional rules do apply to both horary and natal charts when both are approached in a traditional way. Same goes for say natal charts and Solar Return charts approached in a modern way - many of the same rules apply but they are two different charts. The problem seems to be when horary rules are applied to a modern interpretation of a natal chart but I don't see a lot of that happening.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=30

I can?t help but feel that spending one?s time studying and practicing horary is too often a convenient way of avoiding the issue of how to interpret a natal chart?and a way of not appearing to others as one of those dreaded and despised popular psychologists.

For one thing, you seem to be suggesting that the only form of traditional astrology practiced is horary, and that people turn to horary astrology because natal astrology is too hard. People choose to study horary astrology because they like horary not because they don't like natal astrology. I studied natal astrology for years before I started studying horary and other forms of traditional astrology. I didn?t turn to horary because it was easier but because I found traditional astrology in general to be far more satisfying than I ever found modern astrology. To me, a traditional interpretation of the natal chart, such as the one by given Ben, is a more comprehensive and in depth look at an individual than anything I have seen in modern astrology.

I say the reason that the different methods and applications of traditional natal and horary astrology aren?t explored and clarified is because natal work is too easily considered an undesirable form of astrology and is avoided because the astrologer doesn?t have a way of working with it.

These different methods have been explored extensively over hundreds of years. Even Lilly?s third book of Christian Astrology was dedicated to natal astrology. But I don?t see it as a competition. I don?t recall anyone saying that natal astrology is a less desirable form of astrology. Everyone has his or her own preferences and one isn?t easier than the other.

For one thing, you seem to be suggesting that the only form of traditional astrology practiced is horary, and that people turn to horary astrology because natal astrology is too hard. People choose to study horary astrology because they like horary not because they don't like natal astrology. I studied natal astrology for years before I started studying horary and other forms of traditional astrology. I didn?t turn to horary because it was easier but because I found traditional astrology in general to be far more satisfying than I ever found modern astrology.

The last sentence is exactly what has been on my mind. The way I see it, the bias and blind spot of many traditional practitioners has crept in at the last moment:

?I didn?t turn to horary because it was easier but because I found traditional astrology in general to be far more satisfying than I ever found modern astrology.?

A turning to horary because modern astrology wasn?t as satisfying? I see a leaning here toward the belief that horary equals traditional astrology, natal equals modern astrology.

I?m not saying that people turn to horary astrology because natal astrology is too hard, but rather that many modern day traditional practitioners just don?t know what to do with natal astrology. They don?t know how to practice traditional astrology without modern psychological analysis. They then drop natal work altogether and take up horary. Of course this doesn?t apply to everyone, but I believe it is pervasive enough to warrant serious consideration.

A turning to horary because modern astrology wasn?t as satisfying?

I didn't turn away from modern astrology. I turned towards traditional astrology. There is a difference.

I see a leaning here toward the belief that horary equals traditional astrology, natal equals modern astrology.

You seem to be the one insisting on this. If you had read my last post properly you would see that this is exactly what I am not saying. I made very clear my respect for traditional natal astrology. Traditional astrology is not horary astrology but includes horary, natal, elections, etc. Modern astrology also includes natal but using a different method. Choosing to do horary astrology isn't rejecting natal astrology, it is just choosing horary. Does choosing to do natal astrology mean that one is rejecting horary?

many modern day traditional practitioners just don?t know what to do with natal astrology.They don?t know how to practice traditional astrology without modern psychological analysis.

Which is the best reason for rejecting modern astrology that you've given me yet. I am not a psychologist and have no desire to be a psychologist. Thankfully, I do not need to be a psychologist to be a good astrologer. Why do people have to do anything with natal astrology? Natal astrology is just one form of astrology. Astrologers don't have to do natal astrology to be good astrologers. I found modern natal work the least interesting of anything I did in astrology. The thing is, I am not anti modern astrology. A lot of people do a very good job with modern interpretation of natal charts. I admire people like Liz Greene and Dennis Elwell greatly. I just happen to be someone who prefers traditional astrology, including traditional natal astrology. I have no idea where the belief came from that modern natal astrology is a superior form of astrology that everyone should aim for.