Minderwiz
Astrology should be simple.
A lot of students of Astrology would say that 'Simple Astrology' is an oxymoron LOL. But you are right - we should strive to keep things as simple as possible, or at least not introduce unnecessary complications.
What exactly is an unnecessary complication will vary according to approach and method but the aim should be to deliver the essentials and exclude the inessential.
Dadsnook2000 said:PS. Don't place an overreliance on Sun signs. In order of importance, on a scale of 1 to 10, planets rate a 10, aspects a 7 or 8, houses a 6 or 7, signs a 2 or 3, other stuff a 0 or 1.
I think that's an excellent statement for beginners (and I'm assuming beginners will almost exclusively start with a modern approach - as both you and I did). In my own approach I'd probably reverse the order of houses and aspects but that is more a function of fewer bodies and points and using only the major aspects, rather than major and minor ones. Aspect analysis is much more necessary in a modern approach because of the number of possible contacts and because aspects have become the main way of assessing planetary strength.
Marina said:I like that! - seems very objective.
I wish this kind of information was more easily available. The only book I have found that has some objectivity about it is Sepharial's "Manual of Astrology". He does mention Lilly quite often, but I don't know if he is a Traditional Astrologer. One of the interesting things is that, although he talks about the outer planets, he does not give them any specific rulership!
I confess there's something objective about the Traditional Astrology that attracts me, although I think I'd miss the outer planets!
Sepaharial was Walter Gorn Old, born in 1864, so he's over 200 years after Lilly and was one of the founder members of the Theosophical Society, living with Madame Blavatsky till her death. He was also a collaborator with Alan Leo for a time, though the two eventually fell out. The 'rulerships' of the outer planets was someting that is far more recent than may realise. Although Uranus was discovered in 1781 it was not till the first decade of the twentieth century that it's 'rulership' of Aquarius began to become a common idea but even as late as 1951 Margaret Hone said, in regard to the rulerships of the outer planets
No definite decision has been made ....but...it may be that these new planets embody principles which are wide in their meaning and should not be confined to any one rulership as in the traditional manner'
So even by the mid twentieth century there were doubts amongst mainstream Astrologers.
Is the tradtional approach more objective - in many ways yes - but not quite in the sense you meant, it's more concerned with the objective world than the subjective native but when it comes to the psychology both the tradition and modern are necessarily subjective. I think it comes down to structured approach rather than unstructured ramblings. I've seen a lot of psychological analysis which is highly structured and I'd place a great deal of value on. It's the 'touchy/feely' 'all views are of equal merit' Sun sign indulgence that I don't like. You look at Dave's posts and you'll see what a psychological approach should and can produce.
Marina said:I have a card reading teacher, called Ana Cortez, who says that you don't interpret everything in a spread. Not every card is relevant. The answer is in the whole, not in the detailed analysis of each piece. I have a feeling a natal (or any) astrological chart should be like that. Even if it has complexities and contradiction, it should still have a unity, a certain 'flow'. It should work like a a symphony, in which the harmonic and the dissonant notes still create a whole - be it beautiful or ugly.
That's definitely true for some charts - say a horary chart, where not every planet is significant. When it comes to a natal chart there's a qualitative difference. A natal chart is something that is revisited time and time again, especially as we live our lives and things happen and change When I do a temperament reading not every planet may be relevant (though it's sometimes the case). When I read for the mind and manner of behaviour, not every planet is involved. But as we live our lives the focus may well shift on particular areas of our lives and then certain planets, which might not have featured very strongly in the 'psychology' side come to the fore. Our focus may shift to our health or career or love life or to children so we read the chart from a different perspective and different planets come to the fore.
I think the belief that everything needs to be integrated to make the reading complete is the problem. Sometimes all that is being looked for is an overview, at other times a specific area of life becomes important - what matters is a reading that meets the 'client's' needs, especially if the 'client' is doing the reading!!
However, your essential point, that natal Astrology should be more than simply your Sun sign is totally correct. And indeed you should try and minimise your reliance on modern Sun sign descriptors - though from personal experience, I know just how hard that is.
Haizea said:Most of us have a mix of all elements, but it is my view that where Saturn or Pluto is has not the same importance as where the Sun, Moon or Ascendant are. I am supposed to have a balance, and more Water, but Water is the element I identify the less with, because it is not my Sun, Moon or Asc.
Before I took up traditional Astrology, I used to take the elements into account on the basis of a method described by Tracy Marks. That basically meant counting Ascendant Sun and Moon as double weighted. I soon found I got better results by ignoring the outers completely. However I've now moved to a view that unless there's a direct connection to Ascendant, Sun and Moon the other planets should not really be counted when it comes to a person's temperament. Now by direct connection I mean their rulers or by close aspect or planets in the first House.