46
waybread wrote: So I think Hand's article makes astrologers look isolated (yet again) to define post-modernism as neo-traditional astrology; which is anything but post-modern in the conventional sense.

.
Is he doing this?

My reading of the article suggests he is being more matter of fact here and using this term to label an 'ideal' approach to Western Astrology which has manifested after, and needs to include some of, his 'modern'. Modern astrology for him is folks like Leo, Ebertin and Rudhyar. Not all that recent or modern in 2012, effectvely the type of stuff out there in the period 1900-1970 or thereabouts.

What I found interesting in this piece is his:

''Modern astrology has had one really tragic flaw in addition to its inarticulate language: its complete lack of a philosophical foundation rooted in any coherent philosophical or spiritual tradition of the world, except in the case of Jyotish.''

What the bugger is he on about here? I suspect in the company of a few of the academically inclined astrologers knobbling about today he might be taken to the dry cleaners with this notion.

Another curio is from the 'fate free will' section onwards he basically puts the Psychological Astrologers position on the table as his ideal, which is also in his terms a post modern astrology but does not reference his ideas as corresponding to or stemming from this movement. I've noticed him doing this on other occasions. One wonders why ?