dadsnook2000
Short reply to a longer reply
I generally like to keep my replies short here on AT, feeling that in the past the readers/participants on the Astrology Forum (generally) demonstrate by their views and questions an overload of information which they are seeking to sort out. My approach in these last few posts has been to stick with a few basics.
** The Greeks did represent a situation of mixing and matching a diverse and fragmented view of the astrology that came to them. A lack of the complete body of knowledge plus a great curiosity and intellectual community permitted them to move their body of knowledge in a new direction.
Minderwiz rightfully notes that astrology prior to then was not the astrology that we overall practice today. It was different, it served different purposes and it probably was incapable of serving today's complex cultural settings. We don't need to digress into lunar astrology and those cultural applications.
We do need to recognize that we have been given a twisted and knotted ball of yarn that has had many hands on it over the last two thousand years.
** Following the Renaissance Period many thoughtful people have contributed to the body of astrological practice and "knowledge." Much of their initial learning came from Arabian and Greek texts, Latin translations and earlier writings --- all of these written in differing centuries and representing different sources, as well as many re-writing and re-working earlier/other writings. The tangled ball of yarn became more so AT THE SAME TIME THAT SOME WERE ATTEMPTING TO SORT IT OUT AND APPLY RATIONAL AND RIGID APPROACHES SO AS TO 1) TEST IT AND REFINE IT AND 2) PROVIDE A BETTER BASE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR OTHERS.
As we moved into more modern times (marked by copious books and printed material) many specific schools of thought came into existence. Mystery schools (Theosophy, Rosicrucian, Church of Light) contributed their views.
Jones and Rudhyar contributed their deeper and more mainstream philosophies while Carter and Evangeline Adams captured the popular mind. The English astrologers continued their very serious and studious work to bring sanity and clarity to our field. The German school, popularized by the work of Ebertin, introduced bold and updated ideas on mid-points, shifting the views of some (like me) to the clarity of "planetary-focused astrology." Noel Tyl became the American spokesman for the "psychological approach" and influenced many (including me).
Cyril Fagan (Irish) and Donald Bradley (American) were among a group of researchers that contributed to re-discovering much of the pre-Greek astrology knowledge and its mathematical basis --- although they took the "mathematics" far beyond its prior usage by most astrologers. They postulated the Sidereal Zodiac and demonstrated its amazing properties that contributed to clearer and more accurate predictive approaches. This is not to say that other practices weren't capable of this level of work, but it did show that few were capable of using astrology to do what they could so easily and clearly do. Following them came the modern crew of researchers like Rob Hand, and several of the British astrologers who both uncovered ancient knowledge and introduced new concepts such as composite charts and harmonics, to name a few.
THE POINT BEHIND THIS is to state that we are both blessed and cursed by too much knowledge and information. Just as the astrologers of old such as Lilly and Morin, such as more modern astrologers as Adams and Carter, and more recent astrologers such as Hone, Campion, Harvey, Tyl, Hand, Pelletier, Robbertson, Rudhyar, Greene, Erlewin, Ebertin, etc. all tried to sort out their astrology by building their practice of it on a few solid basics -- WE ALSO HAVE TO FIND OUR CORE OF BASIC TRUTH.
We can't find our truth if we blandly and unthinkingly mix and match any old piece of information without applying discrimination. I hear list members talk of whether they should buy a book or not and I laugh. The last time I cleaned out my library I threw out over 300 astrology books that were no longer of value to me. I still have an extensive library that includes translations of Greek writers, Morin's books, Arabian writers. I have many of the more modern writers. I suppose I could delineate charts in the Hellenistic manner or the Psychological Tyl/Greene manner or the Ebertin or Uranian (they use hypothetical planets in addition to regular planets) manner or the strictly Sidereal manner. I do it my way. I am finding my truth.
But, I am very discriminating in what I use and how I mix it. I dont contaminate my practice of astrology by blurring methods and creating mashed-together meanings. I attempt to use differing methods while seeing them as separate but supportive elements. I cringe when I see others mash approaches and processes and methods toghether without knowing what they are doing or taking the time to learn their basics.
I once read a sentence of Dane Rudhyar that had 97 words in it. I understood it and agreed with it. The length of his thought did not confuse anyone, it refined it into a clear statement. Most of us lack that capability.
We need to always strive for self-clarity, for simplicity, for effectiveness. We need to, in my opinion, learn and appreciate the many schools of practice and history of our craft. Dave
I generally like to keep my replies short here on AT, feeling that in the past the readers/participants on the Astrology Forum (generally) demonstrate by their views and questions an overload of information which they are seeking to sort out. My approach in these last few posts has been to stick with a few basics.
** The Greeks did represent a situation of mixing and matching a diverse and fragmented view of the astrology that came to them. A lack of the complete body of knowledge plus a great curiosity and intellectual community permitted them to move their body of knowledge in a new direction.
Minderwiz rightfully notes that astrology prior to then was not the astrology that we overall practice today. It was different, it served different purposes and it probably was incapable of serving today's complex cultural settings. We don't need to digress into lunar astrology and those cultural applications.
We do need to recognize that we have been given a twisted and knotted ball of yarn that has had many hands on it over the last two thousand years.
** Following the Renaissance Period many thoughtful people have contributed to the body of astrological practice and "knowledge." Much of their initial learning came from Arabian and Greek texts, Latin translations and earlier writings --- all of these written in differing centuries and representing different sources, as well as many re-writing and re-working earlier/other writings. The tangled ball of yarn became more so AT THE SAME TIME THAT SOME WERE ATTEMPTING TO SORT IT OUT AND APPLY RATIONAL AND RIGID APPROACHES SO AS TO 1) TEST IT AND REFINE IT AND 2) PROVIDE A BETTER BASE OF KNOWLEDGE FOR OTHERS.
As we moved into more modern times (marked by copious books and printed material) many specific schools of thought came into existence. Mystery schools (Theosophy, Rosicrucian, Church of Light) contributed their views.
Jones and Rudhyar contributed their deeper and more mainstream philosophies while Carter and Evangeline Adams captured the popular mind. The English astrologers continued their very serious and studious work to bring sanity and clarity to our field. The German school, popularized by the work of Ebertin, introduced bold and updated ideas on mid-points, shifting the views of some (like me) to the clarity of "planetary-focused astrology." Noel Tyl became the American spokesman for the "psychological approach" and influenced many (including me).
Cyril Fagan (Irish) and Donald Bradley (American) were among a group of researchers that contributed to re-discovering much of the pre-Greek astrology knowledge and its mathematical basis --- although they took the "mathematics" far beyond its prior usage by most astrologers. They postulated the Sidereal Zodiac and demonstrated its amazing properties that contributed to clearer and more accurate predictive approaches. This is not to say that other practices weren't capable of this level of work, but it did show that few were capable of using astrology to do what they could so easily and clearly do. Following them came the modern crew of researchers like Rob Hand, and several of the British astrologers who both uncovered ancient knowledge and introduced new concepts such as composite charts and harmonics, to name a few.
THE POINT BEHIND THIS is to state that we are both blessed and cursed by too much knowledge and information. Just as the astrologers of old such as Lilly and Morin, such as more modern astrologers as Adams and Carter, and more recent astrologers such as Hone, Campion, Harvey, Tyl, Hand, Pelletier, Robbertson, Rudhyar, Greene, Erlewin, Ebertin, etc. all tried to sort out their astrology by building their practice of it on a few solid basics -- WE ALSO HAVE TO FIND OUR CORE OF BASIC TRUTH.
We can't find our truth if we blandly and unthinkingly mix and match any old piece of information without applying discrimination. I hear list members talk of whether they should buy a book or not and I laugh. The last time I cleaned out my library I threw out over 300 astrology books that were no longer of value to me. I still have an extensive library that includes translations of Greek writers, Morin's books, Arabian writers. I have many of the more modern writers. I suppose I could delineate charts in the Hellenistic manner or the Psychological Tyl/Greene manner or the Ebertin or Uranian (they use hypothetical planets in addition to regular planets) manner or the strictly Sidereal manner. I do it my way. I am finding my truth.
But, I am very discriminating in what I use and how I mix it. I dont contaminate my practice of astrology by blurring methods and creating mashed-together meanings. I attempt to use differing methods while seeing them as separate but supportive elements. I cringe when I see others mash approaches and processes and methods toghether without knowing what they are doing or taking the time to learn their basics.
I once read a sentence of Dane Rudhyar that had 97 words in it. I understood it and agreed with it. The length of his thought did not confuse anyone, it refined it into a clear statement. Most of us lack that capability.
We need to always strive for self-clarity, for simplicity, for effectiveness. We need to, in my opinion, learn and appreciate the many schools of practice and history of our craft. Dave