Do/did you notice your Pluto transits?

Yes
Total votes: 27 (69%)
No
Total votes: 12 (31%)
Total votes: 39

121
Eddy wrote:It's not that I want to accuse new-age astrologers of being racist but by reading such lecture which is still around and being reprinted today, they adopt a mindset that makes them prone to these ideologies. In that case I prefer to remain an unevolved rotten materialist.
The origins of a lot of New Age-y thinking in nineteenth century racial pseudoscience is a subject I'm prepared to be a bore about. Friedrich Engels caused no end of mischief when he imagined that some 'primitive' people were so backwards that they didn't know about the birds and the bees. From this conjecture alone, he constructed an imaginary prehistory where the discovery of fatherhood was an idea that, once disseminated, produced a social revolution. "Matriarchy" yields to "patriarchy," and for Engels that meant progress.

Of course, no human being has ever been that 'primitive.' The stag on the hill knows where baby deer come from; all humans do too, they've known since before language was invented. Explanations of the mechanics may vary in sophistication. And field work was in its infancy then, too: what do you tell the oddly dressed foreigners who wandered into town and now are asking where babies come from? You tell them of storks and cabbages, of course.

My impression is that the nineteenth century and early 20th century folklorists and comparative religionists are more prominent influences on contemporary astrology than Blavatsky; while Leo supplies a basic framework, the tone is shifting. There are those who want a Dark Moon Lilith; one moon is not enough. Celtic twilight is mightier than Egyptian sunlight today. There are those who think that astrology can be rightly learned by reading seventeenth century books with long efses. That group will probably always be a minority, but this too is an earth centered astrology, often more like kitchen astrology than high astrology. And whether they like it or not, they have something in common.
Le grand crier sans honte audacieux / Sera esleu gouverneur de l'armee.
La hardiesse de son contentieux / Le pont rompu, cit? de peur pasmee.

- Nostradamus, Centuries 3:81

122
No Handn you are not. Every astrologer was a modern astrologer whilst they lived, practiced astrology or expressed any kind of thought on it. We are all today's modern astrologers. I myself get very conflicted and confused when people refer to me as if I'm not a modern astrologer - what does that mean? If we want to define 'modern astrology' I suppose that would be the prevailing view and techniques of our generation - very difficult for us to define whilst we are still shaping it. When we are all dead future astrologers will no doubt recognise it as the style of early 21st century astrology - which contrasts with their modern astrology which they won't be able to define either. There has never been a period in history when astrologers haven't argued over which approach or technique works best. Generally the most reliable principles stick but astrologers need points to debate - we can't help it, we're philosophers.

123
Deb wrote:Every astrologer was a modern astrologer whilst they lived, practiced astrology or expressed any kind of thought on it.
That's what I also always think. People who go to '70s parties now still live in 2011 with internet and mobile phones. Modern horary astrologers get 2 ? 3 clients per day and spend much more time to them than the ten minuts to dozens of clients per day in Lilly's days. (see Keith Thomas' - Religion and the Decline of Magic).

If the thread derailed a bit, I plead guilty. It's just that issues, like evolvedness, karma, vibrations, are like a red rag to a bull for me. Too many bad experiences with this and their proclaimers. Rather than pointing out an alledged moderns-traditionals schism, it's the excess of objects/points in a chart that worries me. Not only Pluto and the other asteroids would give too many 'results' but I think that the use of all the 97 Arabic parts, and the 12ths of the signs would also lead to an excess of results. However the great difference between the two groups is that, as far I know, the users of the latter don't go so much into raptures about them as the former.

124
Deb wrote:No Handn you are not. Every astrologer was a modern astrologer whilst they lived, practiced astrology or expressed any kind of thought on it. We are all today's modern astrologers. I myself get very conflicted and confused when people refer to me as if I'm not a modern astrologer - what does that mean? If we want to define 'modern astrology' I suppose that would be the prevailing view and techniques of our generation - very difficult for us to define whilst we are still shaping it.
Whilst I understand and agree with your view here Deb, I'd also add that in a more relaxed kind of way, in terms of language, we all know what is meant by 'traditional astrologer' in a context of being juxtaposed against 'modern astrologer'. By which we normally know means the approach or methods used in the tradition which are no longer used today being 'traditional astrology' and those methods which were unknown or not used in the tradition are what we refer to as 'modern astrology'.

Of course there is no 'dividing line' between what makes something traditional and what makes it modern, but then there's no dividing line between what makes something 'east' and what makes it 'west' - they're just general directions.

Nobody doing astrology today is a traditional astrologer by simple virtue of the fact that they live in the here and now, however, the astrology they do may be more akin to the astrology traditionally which is no doubt what people who refer to themselves as traditional astrologers mean.

125
Nobody doing astrology today is a traditional astrologer by simple virtue of the fact that they live in the here and now,
Is the word "modern" a synonym for "contemporary" when we use it in an historical context? I don't think so. Although used to mean "up to date" it is really a description of a particular era that took place after the Renaissance. In fact today we are using the phrase "post-modern" to distinguish this time from the modern era. I know there is no specific dividing line, but there is no dividing line for any era. There is period known as prehistoric, and ancient. There was a period known as the middle ages and so on. Therefore there is a "modern" astrology and a "traditional astrology" as one is typical of an earlier era and the other typical of a different era.

Transit of Saturn

126
I am here to report on the transit of Saturn over my natal Moon. In just a few hours the transiting Moon will come to the conjunction of transiting Saturn, who is now within degree of my natal Moon. Venus, ruler of Libra where this thrice in a lifetime transit occurs, is exactly sextile from Sagittarius.

If this transit produces no dramatic results, if no gloomy cloud from the Land of Mordor passes overhead to extinguish the light of my joy, I am going to propose to the World Council of Traditional Astrologers that Saturn be stricken from the rolls, along with that ne'er-do-well Pluto.

I will give it until 27 December, after Saturn has passed by the natal Moon, and transiting Moon has passed over the conjunction one more time and then caught up with Venus, who by that time will be closely approaching her own natal position.

I am sick and tired of shiftless planets who do not open up seas or bring down towers with their passage.

127
the word "modern" a synonym for "contemporary" when we use it in an historical context? I don't think so.
I think that Deb means that despite the learning of traditional techniques, contemporary people will never be able to adopt the mindset of the old ages in which e.g. religions, the plague and the strongly limitations to communication strongly controlled the lives of humans.
In fact today we are using the phrase "post-modern" to distinguish this time from the modern era.
Robert Hand calls the uprising of the usage of traditional astrology a post-modern development http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_postmodern_e.htm . Perhaps he is right, since I regularly read about modern astrologers adopting the (allegedly?) traditional concept of equal houses for topical delineation and in mundo quadrant systems for determining planetary strength.

The traditionalists might disagree, as well as might the postmodernists themselves. But since postmodernism teaches that everything is a social construct in which there is no absolute truth, both are right according to this view. However, I personally think that the postmodernist approach fobs serious discussions off with a bromide.

--------------------------

Saturn appears to have been good to me lately, all in relation with long term issues (another aspect of Saturn). Perhaps this is because I've hardened myself against the cold fog of last few days over here.
Last edited by Eddy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Transit of Saturn

128
Dave wrote: If this transit produces no dramatic results, if no gloomy cloud from the Land of Mordor passes overhead to extinguish the light of my joy, I am going to propose to the World Council of Traditional Astrologers that Saturn be stricken from the rolls, along with that ne'er-do-well Pluto.
Why? Does traditional astrology suggest that Saturn transits over the Moon in any given chart (irrespective of what saturn or indeed the moon rule in the chart, or its condition, sect, etc) will produce dramatic and gloomy results?

I don't remember reading anything like that, but I may well be very wrong.

Let's contrast that with a modern understanding of Pluto's transits:
"Transiting Pluto conjunct Moon brings major life changing experiences and these changes are deeply felt at the emotional level. Pluto conjunct the Moon will bring up intense psychological issues from deep in the soul, which will lead to a complete transformation of the emotional life. This transformation may start with a stripping away of the emotional security blanket, and you and other people have to adjust to this raw you."

So certainly it would seem modern astrologers may well be happy with just examining a transit by itself, irrespective of other chart factors going on, but is this true of what traditional astrology says about saturn transits - bare in mind the majority of whom only use transits as a 'bottom of the list' kind of forecasting method - after determining what saturn's relevance is in a given year or time period?

129
My remarks were not specifically aimed at Deb, or anyone else, but rather at the common usage of the word "modern." I agree that the different mindsets produce different results and I also agree that it is well nigh impossible for a 21st century adult to think like a 17th century adult.

The word "modern" is in fact used as a synonym for "contemporary" or "up to date," but it also refers to a specific historical era. It is the historical meaning that is intended when we use, or at least when I use, the phrase "modern astrology." I don't think the word "modern" is meant to imply only the contemporary. If that's true after a while it loses all meaning. If I am modern now, 400 years from now will I still be considered modern? Only if "modern" 400 years from now, will refer to this era. If it continues to mean "up-to-date" I cannot be modern in 2511.

In other words, there is the classical era, the middle ages, the Renaissance, and the modern era. The modern era cannot go on forever, because if it did it would no longer be an era. Hence the newer phrase "postmodern" which is used to differentiate one era from another. Therefore I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with referring to a modern astrologer as one who practices astrology from the Post Enlightenment viewpoint and a traditional astrologer who attempts to use the older worldview. It's a semantic difference with a purpose, and the purpose is clarity. William Lilly and Alan Leo did not view the world identically and did not practice astrology identically, therefore we need two different words to describe what they did.

Re: Transit of Saturn

130
Paul wrote:
Let's contrast that with a modern understanding of Pluto's transits:
"Transiting Pluto conjunct Moon brings major life changing experiences and these changes are deeply felt at the emotional level. Pluto conjunct the Moon will bring up intense psychological issues from deep in the soul, which will lead to a complete transformation of the emotional life. This transformation may start with a stripping away of the emotional security blanket, and you and other people have to adjust to this raw you."
Gm,gm...actually that's exactly what happened to me while Pluto crossed my AC by solar arc directions. At the same time Pluto was opposing natal Moon at DC. As a result my sexual life dramatically intensified... :shock: :brows

Re: Transit of Saturn

131
Yuriy wrote:
Paul wrote:
Let's contrast that with a modern understanding of Pluto's transits:
"Transiting Pluto conjunct Moon brings major life changing experiences and these changes are deeply felt at the emotional level. Pluto conjunct the Moon will bring up intense psychological issues from deep in the soul, which will lead to a complete transformation of the emotional life. This transformation may start with a stripping away of the emotional security blanket, and you and other people have to adjust to this raw you."
Gm,gm...actually that's exactly what happened to me while Pluto crossed my AC by solar arc directions. At the same time Pluto was opposing natal Moon at DC. As a result my sexual life dramatically intensified... :shock: :brows
Dammit, Pluto crossed my ascendant when I was a child. I'm always missing out! :P

132
Tom wrote:In other words, there is the classical era, the middle ages, the Renaissance, and the modern era. The modern era cannot go on forever, because if it did it would no longer be an era. Hence the newer phrase "postmodern" which is used to differentiate one era from another. Therefore I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with referring to a modern astrologer as one who practices astrology from the Post Enlightenment viewpoint and a traditional astrologer who attempts to use the older worldview. It's a semantic difference with a purpose, and the purpose is clarity. William Lilly and Alan Leo did not view the world identically and did not practice astrology identically, therefore we need two different words to describe what they did.
Yes. And it strikes me that through the history of astrology, there has always been a traditionalist party and an innovating party. One will seek to revive and purify ancient practice. The other sees the basic practice as interesting but in need of thorough reform. Like Aristotle vs. Plato, the two viewpoints are always with us; the names and faces change, but the eternal debate goes on.

I do think that the vague but real shift in esoteric styles that started with the 1960s esoteric revival has affected most schools of contemporary astrology, though. Theosophy and its companions were solar, celestial, somewhat ascetic, upward looking. They brought us Ascended Masters and Great Invocations of the pure white light.

To my generation, I suspect these things seem somewhat quaint, austere, remote. Contemporary esoterism tends to be lunar, chthonic, rooted, reverent of biology. It brings us ecological religions and Gaia. We'd rather have the wisdom of Bigfoot than the wisdom of Atlantis. No doubt there is an astrological explanation for this cognitive shift. It is, after all, one of those great cyclical shifts in the general human mood that have occurred in one form or another throughout history.

Contemporary astrologers have reacted to this cognitive shift in several ways. A fascination with the outer planets of modern discovery is one aspect; they were largely blank slates in the astrological tradition, so the meanings that have been written on them tend to relate to the subconscious and the instinctual. They're sexually charged and "interesting".

But I do think that the horary revival and contemporary traditionalism are also reflections of this shift in perspective. They strike me as attempts to re-create a rooted, earth-centered folk astrology, If we can't have a credible Celtic astrology, we can at least have a very British version, pre-industrial, Shakespearian, and somewhat politically charged; for the polemics of the English Civil War are also reflected to a great extent in the contemporary world as well.
Le grand crier sans honte audacieux / Sera esleu gouverneur de l'armee.
La hardiesse de son contentieux / Le pont rompu, cit? de peur pasmee.

- Nostradamus, Centuries 3:81