Changing to the practice of traditional astrology, is part of an overall shift in worldview that has been going on in my life for some years now. In order to really explain, I need to share some personal background.
I became increasingly serious about my study of astrology during the period that my wife of 24 years was dying of cancer. Continue reading
I had a rather unpleasant interchange at an astrology discussion group this week. We were talking about different ways of understanding doing astrology, and I was talking about Stoicism.
Stoicism, which was a very prevelant philosophy when astrology was first developed in the West, views the universe as structured and largely if not completely deterministic or fated. Reading an astrology chart is an attempt to divine that order – to find out the will of the Gods for you – so that you can work with that order.
When I finished my sentence someone turned to me and said,
How is traditional astrology different from modern?
Here are some notes I made, some more technical than others, to explain the basic differences.
September 26th through the 28th I was at a first-of-a-kind astrology conference in Phoenix, Arizona. Hosted by the American Federation of Astrologers, it was completely dedicated to traditional astrology.
William Lilly’s Christian Astrology is the most famous and influential work on astrology in the English language.
Like most famous books, it is mentioned and revered much more often than it is read and studied.
There is a table in that book, which is labeled as, A Ready Table Wherefore to examine the Fortitudes and Debilities of the Planets.
This scoring system has become well known and is often copied, and computer programs that ‘score’ the planet’s dignities often use this table of values. So, the modern astrologer can enter a chart, print out a page, and there are all the scores already tallied.
Which is completely missing the point. Continue reading
“It is vital to remember that you do not know; it is the astrology that knows.” – John Frawley, in The Horary Textbook
“It’s not that I am that good; it’s that astrology is that good.” – Heather Roan-Robbins
No kidding. Continue reading
Older astrology is sometimes criticized as being overly negative, or fatalistic, or judgemental.
It seems to me that some modern astrology has gone too far in the other direction – in the name of being ‘positive’ it can become unrealistic and unbalanced.
It might be true to say that there are no ‘good’ or ‘evil’ planets, or transits, or aspects.
Maybe. Continue reading
A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of watching a presentation by a fine local astrologer, on the current transits and the state of world events. As she talked, I noticed something interesting.
When she talked about a planet’s effect, she was invoking, and embodying, the energy of the planet she talked about. Continue reading
Part of my study of astrology has been a quest to find, and understand, the philosophy or world-order that makes sense of it.
Most modern astrology that I have seen does not clearly address this issue. Implicitly, the question is dealt with in a number of ways.
1) It’s ignored. That doesn’t work, since astrology makes no sense within the context of the current scientific – materialist mainstream worldview.
2) It tries to make astrology ‘scientific’, by weeding out all that is ‘superstitious’ about it, and working with analytic tools like statistical studies. Continue reading