46
GR wrote:Hi waybread,

.....
People go to traditional astrology because it is, in the modern vernacular, 'event-based'; they want to know how things in their lives turn out. Going on about 'wounded healers' and the like doesn't do it for them(regardless of its relevance to the native), and these sorts of "fuffy woo-woo" astrologers and the misguided, IMO, desire for psychological or academic respectability have been the main drivers into other more 'traditional' forms of astrology.
Yikes, GR. This wouldn't be a straw man attack on modern astrologers, now, would it be?

I can't speak for professional astrologers as to what types of questions their clients have, but as an amateur I have responded to roughly a kazillion queries from people on the Astrodienst and Astrologers' Community forums. I think you can divide the questions in the "please read my chart" boards into the categories of:

(1) personality analysis
(2) counseling on a particular issue (such as career, relationships)
(3) event timing
(4) sometimes questions that really belong on the horary board or that cannot be answered through astrological techniques.

Also, I think a "fluffy woo-woo" kind of person would be more attuned to a FW-W type of astrologer. And synastry should tell us this.

I hope, also, that traditional astrologers who seem to feel they validate their own techniques by condemning modern astrology are really taking the time to read the good modern astrologers.

When I first started studying astrology about 20 years ago, I was totally turned off by the popular works that demeaned my intelligence. Fortunately I found the early (and modern!) books by Robert Hand right away, and he probably convinced me more than anyone that astrology was practiced by rational people.

One of my favourite modern astrologers is Alice Portman http://aliceportman.com who is a past president and examiner for the Federation of Australian Astrologers, and who appears on the Astrodienst forum as Alice McDermott. She has done a lot of her own research, and some of her techniques are innovative, while others borrow from Vedic astrology.

Another favourite of mine is Dutch astrologer Karen Hamaker-Zondag, whose book The House Connection on "accidental house cusp rulers" is probably based on Firmicus Maternus.

David Cochrane is another really intelligent and interesting author, even if you disagree with him. (Astrology for the 21st Century)

I don't know who should get the credit for developing astrological software, traditional or modern, but clearly it has revolutionized astrology.

By "wounded healer" I presume you are talking about Chiron? I used to ignore it completely, until one day I broke my ankle while hiking in a provincial park. I didn't see any transits that would explain it until I realized that transiting Chiron conjuncted my natal Mercury (walking) in Aquarius (ankles) in the 5th house (recreation.)I don't discount it now.

I have to doubt the psychological and academic credentials of most astrologers, sadly.

Academic credibility for astrologers is worth a whole other thread. Today, a Ph. D. from an accredited research university is the ticket for admission --never mind success by the academy's rigid standards--and it is not a route many astrologers care to follow.

Howard, you will find Ptolemy discussing homosexuality in Tetrabiblos. If he's written the Cliff's Notes of astrology's human side, perhaps it was because he was busy on the math and astronomy side, as well.

Mithra6, thanks. I found Dykes's website. He didn't post the marriage material, but I did read his preview, which was Bonatti's take on the 9th house. Dykes seems to be doing excellent work with his translations.

47
Hi Gabe!

I think that another major driver behind the revival of, as you say, more 'traditional' forms of astrology has been the renewed availability to today's astrologers of the relevant texts.

Almost none of the 17th century English astrology texts was properly and fully reprinted in the 18th century, the 19th century, or even the 20th century, until Regulus produced their edition of Christian Astrology in 1985, and subsequently (1990s, mostly, I believe) Deb stepped up to the plate with her Ascella imprint and reprinted and in many cases retyped a host of other classic works, while over in Canada John Ballantrae offered a wide range of other 17th to early 20th century English titles in facsimile-based reprint form.

The only exception to the above that springs to mind is Lilly's concise 'Anima Astrologiae, or a Guide for Astrologers', which was reprinted around 1886 and again in 1918, with later reprints of the 1886 reprint taking it through the 20th century.

Some (but not many) works from the early-to-mid-19th century revival continued to be printed occasionally in the 20th century, but the roll-call here was essentially restricted to Simmonite, Wilson, the Cooper edition of the anonymous translation of Placidus's 'Primum Mobile', and the Ashmand translation of the Tetrabiblos by Ptolemy.

Alongside the previously referred to recent reprints of Renaissance period English-language astrological works, the recent movement to translate ancient Greek and medieval Latin astrological works into English only really started to get into first gear from the mid-1970s.

There were a few exceptions by way of notable translations from earlier in the 20th century, with Al-Biruni's 'Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology' (direct from the Arabic, in 1934) and Ibn Ezra's 'The Beginning of Wisdom' (from the Hebrew, in 1939) notably both receiving the full edition and translation treatment already, but I think the major market for these types of editions had been scholars rather than working astrologers, and only smallish numbers were printed.

Then in the mid-70s, translations of Firmicus Maternus and Dorotheus appeared in quick succession, broadening the picture of Hellenistic astrology available in the English language from its previous limited focus on Ptolemy and Manilius for a generation of astrologers, while at the same time the first parts of Morin's 'Astrologia Gallica' started to appear in English.

But it was not before 1993 that Project Hindsight started to produce its first translations of Vettius Valens, Paulus, Hephaistio, Bonatti and others, and the whole translation movement really stepped up into a much higher gear. Just the last 17 years alone have seen a huge expansion in the portion of the ancient and medieval astrological corpus that is available in English thanks chiefly to Project Hindsight and ARHAT and their translators, as well as James Holden and of course most recently Ben Dykes.

I think it is very possible that if more of these works had been available in the first 75 to 92 years of the 20th century, they would have commanded many astrologers' interests just as much as they do ours today. That they are being made available to today's generation of astrologers irrespective of their ability or otherwise in the classical languages can only be a positive development, allowing astrologers to make up their own minds about which style of astrology they prefer from a much broader and historically richer base of available techniques and approaches to interpretation. Some may prefer the modern even after having trialled the ways of various older eras, but at least they now have the opportunity to make an informed choice.

We live in exciting times for the rediscovery of earlier astrological texts, and there is still a long way to go. The more support our dedicated translators receive, the more enduring the movement will be.

48
Hi waybread,
waybread wrote: Yikes, GR. This wouldn't be a straw man attack on modern astrologers, now, would it be?
waybread wrote: Only the fluffy woo-woo kind. :)
Also, I think a "fluffy woo-woo" kind of person would be more attuned to a FW-W type of astrologer. And synastry should tell us this.
And the trail of glitter. :)
waybread wrote: Another favourite of mine is Dutch astrologer Karen Hamaker-Zondag, whose book The House Connection on "accidental house cusp rulers" is probably based on Firmicus Maternus.
Can't be sure since I don't have the book, but judging from the Amazon reviews it seems the standard taking of the domicile lord of a topic as the significator of the topic.
waybread wrote: By "wounded healer" I presume you are talking about Chiron? I used to ignore it completely, until one day I broke my ankle while hiking in a provincial park. I didn't see any transits that would explain it until I realized that transiting Chiron conjuncted my natal Mercury (walking) in Aquarius (ankles) in the 5th house (recreation.)I don't discount it now.
I'd probably look at the profections of Mars and the lord of the Lot of Fortune to start. How close was this conjunction btw?
Gabe

50
Mithra6 wrote:
HOWARD B SAYER wrote:I imagine Bonatti didn't discuss same sex marriage?
Not marriage, but he did mention homosexuality. It's not a huge leap in logic.
Does he have anything valuable to contribute towards the astrological thinkings in these and other areas which circulate around us in 2010?

Mithra summarised his focus on marriage earlier, on the face of it I can't see how this could be ascertained by an astrological chart, or why anyone (sensible) would bother to attempt to do so in 2010. Mithra seems to suggest otherwise.

''Basically this deals with , will I be married, how many times, what will my spouse be like, will they be good in bed, and how will people see my marriage. Nothing terribly culture specific. Perhaps the most archaic looking section is about sex. However, all you need to do is ignore how Bonatti feels about certain sexual acts and pay attention to the indications themselves. No biggie. ''
Last edited by HOWARD B SAYER on Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

51
I have removed a couple of remarks that make unsubstantiated critical suggestions regarding some astrologers' academic qualifications. With everyone admitting not to know if those allegations are well founded or not, its probably best not to make them so publicly here.

Thanks for your understanding
Deb

52
HOWARD B SAYER wrote:
Mithra6 wrote:
HOWARD B SAYER wrote:I imagine Bonatti didn't discuss same sex marriage?
Not marriage, but he did mention homosexuality. It's not a huge leap in logic.
Does he have anything valuable to contribute towards the astrological thinkings in these and other areas which circulate around us in 2010?

Mithra summarised his focus on marriage earlier, on the face of it I can't see how this could be ascertained by an astrological chart, or why anyone (sensible) would bother to attempt to do so in 2010. Mithra seems to suggest otherwise.

''Basically this deals with , will I be married, how many times, what will my spouse be like, will they be good in bed, and how will people see my marriage. Nothing terribly culture specific. Perhaps the most archaic looking section is about sex. However, all you need to do is ignore how Bonatti feels about certain sexual acts and pay attention to the indications themselves. No biggie. ''
I'm actually surprised that someone would think those kinds of questions AREN'T important questions in 2010. The vast majority of questions I get are about love and career. It seems to me that if you are doing someone's natal chart, and they ask if they are going to meet someone this year, you have to first look at what is happening overall with relationships. Only then can you answer that question. Really I think almost every natal chart I've done deals with that in some way.

As to whether these can be ascertained by a natal chart, I think that's a difference in how many modern astrologers see the capabilities of astrology. However in traditional, all we ever do is predict. Horary does something that many astrologers tell me can't be done in astrology, yet Deb, Lee Lehman, Chris Warnock, and many others are regularly doing it.

Natal is a bit tougher since unlike horary, we don't have the large number of contemporary astrologers regularly doing natal. There aren't nearly as many traditional natal astrologers as horary. This means we're still figuring this stuff out to a big degree.

However, I've been impressed with most of the results so far. To say this can't be done isn't correct, whether it's natal or horary.

53
Mithra6 has already replied to Howard Sayer's last post. All I can say is that he is well ahead of me. I am still struggling to understand what it was about.

Perhaps my limited wit is at fault but it is probably because some people's conception of a subject is very different from others. This is after all what this discussion is about.

Are "sensible" people unconcerned about marriage in 2010? Can a natal chart not at least indicate the potential for marriage, whether you are using modern techniques or old?

I do find it very odd.

A puzzled Matt

54
matt23z wrote:
A puzzled Matt
Allow me to unpuzzle you.

What is marriage?, I would argue across time and space quite a strange phenomena. In one culture you have old men marrying young women, in others marrying many women at the same or different times, in others it is unknown, or to summarise this custom in the western hemisphere today it's an arrangement which has all sorts of social, financial, religous, romantic, forced, familial, etc, or not as the case may be, variables. If it has a function then the care of, and legitimisation, of children might be its primary raison d'etre.

I would be surprised if an astrologer could provide an accurate time, or period, when an enquirer into this possibility would be hitched, ignoring the why would they and how should they, or shouldn't they, issues.

Do you want me to put up ten times and ask you, or anyone else, which one married on a certain date ? If somebody could do this a few times in a row, or even once or twice in a compelling enough way, then I would have to re-evaluate my thinking on the imagined relationship between astrology and predictions of this type.!

56
Does anyone else recognise these kinds of attitudes? Do we accept these kinds of assumptions are built on myths? If they are what are the implications for how we view other approaches to astrology? Ultimately is this an issue of subjective taste and temperament rather than any objective criteria?
Hi, people

The topic is "golden age" vs "progress" ideas. But Mark was not asking for a real example of conflict, but of a discussion on the epistemological level.

The last emails stopped discussing the topic and started to be confrontational. Please, stay on topic. Please, try to confront people?s opinions with opinion, and not turning the discussion personal. Otherwise your posts will only be erased or the thread locked. Nobody ever won an internet discussion.

We don?t accept aggressive posts here, and we also don?t accept passive-aggressive posting either. Rhetorical questions made just for the sake of attacking other people?s opinions are not ok either. If you really do have a question keep it honest and real, and not sarcastic. Let?s avoid not only ad hominem, but also straw man.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

57
Thank you Howard for unpuzzling me there. As to your suggestion of asking people to predict marriage dates I am not so sure.

We recently had a debate about the book that blind-tested natal astrologers and I think I can best summarise it (the book) as inconclusive. If such a test was seen as part of a trad v. mod competition then we risk more of the arguments that Yuzuru mentions. It is difficult to prove astrology, even to a sympathetic audience as far as I can make out

He also reminds us all that this is the philosophy and science forum rather than a forum about technique.

I look forward to reading more of your contributions in future.

Regards

Matt