I am 71 and have been studying astrology since I was 14 yrs old ..we live in very strange times and astrologers as a rule are not getting ‘ it ‘ Uranus / Neptune are creating mayhem in astrological prediction making it very difficult to predict anything.. so many astrologers even good ones are ending up with egg on their faces and it is making the study of astrology look ridiculous..good luck
This is why some hardcore traditional astrologers don't pull the three outer planets into the mix, which seems shortsighted if not downright nonsensical. My focus, re transit work, has been on the outer planets and trying to comprehend their 'function' in an organic way -- meaning that I base my observations on firsthand experience with myself and clients.
THANK YOU FOR THIS, from someone who’s shamelessly identified as a psychological astrologer for 25 years of my practice, yet has often felt outside of the online astro discourse because of the way I do astrology. It’s indeed about the dialectic: this is how you actually help humans understand their problems and patterns and make space for them to grow.
Yes, an interesting intersection took place just as the internet got traction in the late 90s, a push to make Hellenistic astrology THE touchstone for all astrological authenticity took off. We've been working our way free of the cult ever since.
I have studied astrology since I was 21 - and am now 73 - and still learning. From my perspective effectiveness is a measure of truth. If it works I use it. If it doesn't work after much observation I discard it.
Oh my you did it again, your rocked my world, you remarkable wordsmith you! So much fun reading about astrology and simultaneously lifting it above and beyond the world of mundane charts. Bless you.
LOVE this! I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm not meant to learn all the "rules" about astrology. I've tried to learn it, and it just doesn't stick. I rely on the wisdom of people like you, and my own intuition.
Ha! I gotta turn that around on your Brydie and ask what's in YOUR chart that responds so enthusiastically to what some folks consider obnoxious about my style?
But to answer your question, I think it's Uranus and Pluto on the Leo ascendant, with the Moon in an exact square to Uranus. As soon as I enter a room I seem to disrupt the status quo in some way. LOL.
I love your way and appreciate how you explain it. Don’t you have a moon/uranus conjunction? I think this really leaves open your method/insights to be free from stogie ways of this science. Rock on.
Hi Honey, god talk about 'it's been ages'. Glad you're well (meow).
I'm laughing, because you're remembering that traditional astrology conference in Phoenix we attened, where I nearly got thrown out of the featured talks because of my irritating questions and challenges. (Moon in exact square to Uranus.)
I honestly believe Mars is "exalted" in Cancer. But I also think Cancer is completely misunderstood and should be ruled by Neptune, not the moon, and Saturn is not the taskmaster or planet of restriction it has come to be known as. I've studied astrology since I became pagan at the age of 20. Now at 46, I see there is more meaning and depth to the planets than traditional astrology gives them. As you said, we are not one dimensional, and neither are the planets and signs. Astrology isn't a science, like psychology and philosophy, it relies on interpretation. So, no one can be "right or wrong." It's why I write Twisted Astrology with my daughter. We both interpret things differently and like to share those viewpoints in hopes it will help someone else. In the end, that's the point of astrology. To make our lives better.
I like considering the possibility that a pagan mindset would help loosen the grip of the traditional hoopla, which is crazy limiting in different ways. But conversely, some folks prefer that stoic, fatalistic approach to astrology, by hoping to have events in their lives defined via that erstwhile lexicon. Removing free will from the equation. (Though I dislike the term free will, wish there was another term).
It's great that you are developing your own set of 'markers' and correspondences between the planets and signs. The planets, as Gurdjieff noted, are living beings, not simply archetypes floating around in the sky and stuck in slots of this or that rubric.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are many who prefer that fatalistic astrological approach. They are typically the ones who become offended by a difference in opinion on say Mars in Cancer when that opinion is meant to build on the current, historical meaning of said planetary placement.
And I agree, free will is a horrible term, I'm not entirely sure our will is 100% completely free. If we think about why astrology exists, it would seem free will is more deterministic! For example, those using predictive astrology - are they exercising free will? Or are they using a set of predetermined choices they gleaned from planetary placements?
My point being, astrology is more of a philosophy than a science and should be used as such. I personally feel Saturn is about defining the boundary between the ego and the soul, and that is what leads to the midlife crisis, which I am currently in. Had it not been for Saturn and my obsession with the planet, I would not be writing this comment. People want deeper meaning, but fail to see the deeper meaning in the very thing they use to find themselves.
Sorry for the rant. But I think I just wrote my next newsletter here... LOL
"Had it not been for Saturn and my obsession with the planet, I would not be writing this comment. People want deeper meaning, but fail to see the deeper meaning in the very thing they use to find themselves."
This was a cathartic and enjoyable read, thank you! (and I'm totally with you on zodiacal releasing...)
To speak frankly, I think astrology is in a dire state. While I realize that astrology is not an exact science, it seems to me that traditional astrology (as its name would suggest) is totally at odds with modern sensibilities of reason, pluralism, evidence, nuance, etc. Its based almost entirely upon appeals to authority, and very antiquated authorities at that. That it's gained such a foothold in contemporary astrological discourse is nothing short of depressing.
My own view of astrology is largely influenced by Richard Tarnas and the evidence based approach that he pursued in Cosmos and Psyche. I understand that not everyone relates to this more empirical stance, and that there are other legitimate ways of relating to astrology, but Tarnas provides many hundreds of examples to substantiate his claims and for that reason he should be taken seriously. As far as I'm aware, there is no comparable body of evidence to justify any of the claims of traditional astrology. Moreover, it lacks the elegance and richness that comes with the archetypal/depth psychological framework.
We need an astrology that is compatible with modern ways of seeing and understanding the world, and that means being open to criticism, questioning longstanding assumptions and changing our minds when confronted with new evidence. I think it's entirely possible to do this while remaining open to the more poetic and numinous dimensions of astrology (and intuition definitely has a big role to play here). It's all about finding the right balance between rigor and imagination.
There is a lot to respond to in your comment Robert.
If you haven't already, I would recommend checking out the arguments against 'psychological' or modern astrology, because you'll come away with a better understanding as to why the traditional school is valued so highly by those who practice it. And in some ways, I see their points -- people often want specific answers to very specific questions (or quandaries) and the traditionalists see their approach as fulfilling that need. (Never mind the hubris that's involved in making such pointed judgements).
One of the books I list in my recent post about recommended astrology books: t.ly/n9Iy1 is Ben Dykes' Traditional Astrology For Today. Ben highlights the difference in an intelligent way between both schools.
The traditionalists view modern astro as wishy-washy, but then one could say that about the nature of the human psyche -- it isn't easily cornered and a good psychological astrologer needs the skills (and language) from that school to bring to chart interpretation, even if it's just a one-off with a client. The traditional school seems to have forgotten how mercurial Mercury is -- the figurehead of our consciousness' mailability.
On the flip I like what Stephen Arroyo wrote recently about the traditional school:
“Are we trying to create a cult, a religion, an ego trip? Or is it just another of the endless instances…of recycling old theories without testing and modernizing them? Although I have respect for much astrological tradition, I do not hold it in religious reverence.”
I think astrologers need to let go of the cause of trying to 'prove' astrology -- to me that's like someone trying to 'prove' art. It's focusing our attention in the wrong direction (and for me, it's a time waster, which is why I never get into arguments with folks who claim it's a pseudo science, etc.)
Thanks Frederick, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. It's entirely possible that I've overlooked some of the intricacies at play here. I will add Ben Dykes to my reading list. I'm familiar with Stephen Arroyo and I agree with his statement here.
With regards to the cause of 'proving' astrology, I respect your approach, and experience has taught me that arguing with skeptics is a waste of time, more often than not. However, I don't think the art analogy holds in every case. To my mind, astrology is somewhere in-between an art and a science.
Most astrological correspondences are quite subtle in nature, but not all. I think there is a large body of evidence that simply hasn't been given a fair hearing; for instance, the well established correlations between the Saturn-Pluto cycle and many of the major crisis points of the past few centuries.
I think there are people of a more scientific persuasion, who would be open to considering this sort of evidence if it was presented in the right way, and that astrologers should try to build bridges here.
As you can probably guess, I find the marginal status of astrology to be very dissatisfying. As more people start to question the materialist assumptions of our culture, I hope that some will be open to reconsidering astrology, and that this could offer a renewed source of enchantment to our beleaguered world.
Yes, but my problem with these terms is that 'weak' is considered bad and strong is considered good. So these childlike rubrics get established. These might be fitting definitions but the mind often leans towards pessimism or the negative when divination is involved and I like to steer clear of anything that gets that ball rolling, especially in a consultation with a client.
One could look at Dahmer's exaltations and what not as to why he felt so emboldened, or had such incredibly mindblowing luck in evading being caught.
I was making a stupid point in my comment to Maurice because I wanted to free myself from the argument I should have never entered into in the first place -- social media is a suck-hole.
As a guy who’s only been diving into the deep well of astrology for about five years, who has been taking a two-year course in traditional astrology since last November, and who has a very tight square from Uranus to my ASC, I very much appreciated this manifesto.
Ultimately, I believe rigidity and appeals to authority when practicing a divinatory art are training wheels that may serve some function as one gets started but should be discarded.
I also do find it funny that hardcore traditionalists will immediately buy into some of the more convoluted techniques invented thousands of years ago, but can be quick to criticize modern inventions.
Anyway, much as my Capricorn stellium might make it seem like I’d be a stickler for tradition, as an eclipse baby I’ve always marched to the beat of my own drummer and respect others who do as well, even when I can’t “hear” their particular beat! Well done!
Thanks for this Bryan, and yeah, Uranus on my asc senses your Uranus square compelling your comment. HA!
Robert Anderson, above in this thread, highlights the same point about ancient authorities with their theories and 'rules.' And yes, the wild techniques that the traditionalists employ are sorta comical.
I've always thought that there's a 'nerd' or 'geek-like' vibe to people drawn to the traditional school. And many of the ones that I've met out in the wild have an 'on spectrum' vibe about them (you DID NOT hear me say that just now, btw).
In the end there seems to a be a form or type of astrology for every sort of practicing astrologer, which is why I consider astrology an art above all else -- there are millions of artists out there, each employing their own techniques for applying the colors or media. Goddess bless us all.
I agree with all of that, though you also didn’t hear me say it!
And if it makes you (or anyone) feel any better, the astrologer I’m studying under, Adam Elenbaas, refers to it as a “divinatory art.”
I think Adam has a grounded, intelligent and open-minded way of approaching this “debate,” so I’m glad I found him.
Like I said, I have a Capricorn stellium (Sun, North Node, Moon, Jupiter conjunction between 14-18 degrees with Mercury at 0 degrees), so I appreciate traditions and was even drawn to studying ancient astrology because I found some of the modern techniques to be too “out there” for me. Then, I come to find out, that “woo woo” is as old as time, lol.
Anyway, it’s all good, so long as we can apply it to help ourselves and others through this crazy world…
Great article! When reading client charts we are interpretating a life story in a snapshot, a picture speaks a thousand words. All the statistics in the world can't match the complexity and colour in a engaged chart reading.
There was much disagreement within traditional astrology, just as there is in modern times. To think there was consensus is nonsense!
Essential dignities are off, there is no this or that. BUT I am a Mars in Carpicorn rising and must say it's not a bad placement to have 😄 Mars speeds up Capricorn while Capricorn cools Mars and provides longevity 😉
Right. This is human nature: you can pick any topic, subject, whatever and there will be a world of opposition that spins out against it. It seems to be the nature of 'evolution' or whatever you want to call.
I mean, look at philosophy, which is essentially one person having a monologue with himself/herself that they then share with the world and then that sets someone else spinning about this or that and then THEIR new philosophy gets traction.
As Terence McKenna noted, people are attracted to novelty, not in a meaningless way, but as a way to keep Mercury entertained. LOL!
Cool stuff, thanks! Amateur here who hasn’t put much into dignitaries, etc beyond which planets rule which signs, which seems to hold. My rebellion against Astro traditional rules enters when the planets are gendered. Probably because I’m queer with a pagan background, but aside from maybe Sun and Moon, all the others can be regarded as either gender or both. Ex: Saturn as any of the Crone goddesses, Pluto as Kali. Neptune as the Christian Holy Spirit which is regarded as feminine. Mars as Athena or any of the warrior goddesses. Venus as Eros or maybe Krishna… Thanks for stirring the cauldron!
Yes, I've been bristling about this genderfication of the planets and lights for a long time now. In Mesopotamia the Moon was considered feminine, as one small point on this subject.
Your comment is an example of someone forging their own set of impressions and images and associations with these living beings, and that's what is most important when working with a client, that the astrologer has an intimate relationship with these more profound existences.
I don't see the planets as symbols or archetypes, but, as Gurdjieff noted, the lights and the planets are alive and exert tremendous influence given their 'position' within the scale of Being.
Maybe you’ve already written at length on it but if you haven’t could you say more about the planets being living beings? I’ve accepted them as archetypal energies for which us humans can attune to and understand individually and in aspecting relationships, and I am intrigued and open to hearing your thoughts on how they are actually alive. Do you think of the signs in the same way, as also living beings?
The concept of archetypes is interesting, and I see it as one system that can help us understand the various functions at play in the solar system, but I also find that archetypes are one-step removed, meaning, they become stand-ins for simply acknowledging that the planets are alive--and can be perceived in a direct way, without having to involve a concept to define them. I did write at length about this notion here: https://woodruff.substack.com/p/life-is-short-archetypes-are-forever?
When the organic relationship is taken into account, between us as Earthlings and the planets and the lights as entities (for lack of a better word) in their own right, everything becomes simplified.
Although, admittedly, this idea seems too radical for a lot of astrologers, and I understand that.
I am 71 and have been studying astrology since I was 14 yrs old ..we live in very strange times and astrologers as a rule are not getting ‘ it ‘ Uranus / Neptune are creating mayhem in astrological prediction making it very difficult to predict anything.. so many astrologers even good ones are ending up with egg on their faces and it is making the study of astrology look ridiculous..good luck
This is why some hardcore traditional astrologers don't pull the three outer planets into the mix, which seems shortsighted if not downright nonsensical. My focus, re transit work, has been on the outer planets and trying to comprehend their 'function' in an organic way -- meaning that I base my observations on firsthand experience with myself and clients.
THANK YOU FOR THIS, from someone who’s shamelessly identified as a psychological astrologer for 25 years of my practice, yet has often felt outside of the online astro discourse because of the way I do astrology. It’s indeed about the dialectic: this is how you actually help humans understand their problems and patterns and make space for them to grow.
Yes, an interesting intersection took place just as the internet got traction in the late 90s, a push to make Hellenistic astrology THE touchstone for all astrological authenticity took off. We've been working our way free of the cult ever since.
I have studied astrology since I was 21 - and am now 73 - and still learning. From my perspective effectiveness is a measure of truth. If it works I use it. If it doesn't work after much observation I discard it.
Good sound principle Gillian!
Oh my you did it again, your rocked my world, you remarkable wordsmith you! So much fun reading about astrology and simultaneously lifting it above and beyond the world of mundane charts. Bless you.
Oh, wow! Thank you WS.
LOVE this! I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm not meant to learn all the "rules" about astrology. I've tried to learn it, and it just doesn't stick. I rely on the wisdom of people like you, and my own intuition.
Life seems divided into two camps, rule abiders and rule breakers. Welcome to the latter camp, Angie. LOL.
Hey Frederick! How many planets do you have in rabble rousing? 😆😆
Ha! I gotta turn that around on your Brydie and ask what's in YOUR chart that responds so enthusiastically to what some folks consider obnoxious about my style?
But to answer your question, I think it's Uranus and Pluto on the Leo ascendant, with the Moon in an exact square to Uranus. As soon as I enter a room I seem to disrupt the status quo in some way. LOL.
I love your way and appreciate how you explain it. Don’t you have a moon/uranus conjunction? I think this really leaves open your method/insights to be free from stogie ways of this science. Rock on.
Hope your well, Meow xo
Hi Honey, god talk about 'it's been ages'. Glad you're well (meow).
I'm laughing, because you're remembering that traditional astrology conference in Phoenix we attened, where I nearly got thrown out of the featured talks because of my irritating questions and challenges. (Moon in exact square to Uranus.)
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Omg I love it when you go after the cult :)
Yikes, I think that description is starting to 'stick.' But did you listen to Nick and me hash it out in the last cast I posted?
How is TikTok going for you...talk about broaching the belly of the beast, that is one crazy-ass platform.
More a manifesto than a screed. Blunt talk is perceived as offensive, which is too bad. I like the shift in energy when we proudly declare who we are.
Should I change the title to Manifesto? I'll think about it. Thanks, Monica.
I took your suggestion Monica, and changed to title this morning. Thanks.
I honestly believe Mars is "exalted" in Cancer. But I also think Cancer is completely misunderstood and should be ruled by Neptune, not the moon, and Saturn is not the taskmaster or planet of restriction it has come to be known as. I've studied astrology since I became pagan at the age of 20. Now at 46, I see there is more meaning and depth to the planets than traditional astrology gives them. As you said, we are not one dimensional, and neither are the planets and signs. Astrology isn't a science, like psychology and philosophy, it relies on interpretation. So, no one can be "right or wrong." It's why I write Twisted Astrology with my daughter. We both interpret things differently and like to share those viewpoints in hopes it will help someone else. In the end, that's the point of astrology. To make our lives better.
Great observations Mel.
I like considering the possibility that a pagan mindset would help loosen the grip of the traditional hoopla, which is crazy limiting in different ways. But conversely, some folks prefer that stoic, fatalistic approach to astrology, by hoping to have events in their lives defined via that erstwhile lexicon. Removing free will from the equation. (Though I dislike the term free will, wish there was another term).
It's great that you are developing your own set of 'markers' and correspondences between the planets and signs. The planets, as Gurdjieff noted, are living beings, not simply archetypes floating around in the sky and stuck in slots of this or that rubric.
Thank you for your engaging comment.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. There are many who prefer that fatalistic astrological approach. They are typically the ones who become offended by a difference in opinion on say Mars in Cancer when that opinion is meant to build on the current, historical meaning of said planetary placement.
And I agree, free will is a horrible term, I'm not entirely sure our will is 100% completely free. If we think about why astrology exists, it would seem free will is more deterministic! For example, those using predictive astrology - are they exercising free will? Or are they using a set of predetermined choices they gleaned from planetary placements?
My point being, astrology is more of a philosophy than a science and should be used as such. I personally feel Saturn is about defining the boundary between the ego and the soul, and that is what leads to the midlife crisis, which I am currently in. Had it not been for Saturn and my obsession with the planet, I would not be writing this comment. People want deeper meaning, but fail to see the deeper meaning in the very thing they use to find themselves.
Sorry for the rant. But I think I just wrote my next newsletter here... LOL
This is like a fabulous koan Mel:
"Had it not been for Saturn and my obsession with the planet, I would not be writing this comment. People want deeper meaning, but fail to see the deeper meaning in the very thing they use to find themselves."
Yes!
I am so appreciative of your insight and what you offer as this
has given light and energy to what I have been feeling for quite some time about astrology…thank you
Thank you very much, Susanna. I'm glad it comes together for you here.
This was a cathartic and enjoyable read, thank you! (and I'm totally with you on zodiacal releasing...)
To speak frankly, I think astrology is in a dire state. While I realize that astrology is not an exact science, it seems to me that traditional astrology (as its name would suggest) is totally at odds with modern sensibilities of reason, pluralism, evidence, nuance, etc. Its based almost entirely upon appeals to authority, and very antiquated authorities at that. That it's gained such a foothold in contemporary astrological discourse is nothing short of depressing.
My own view of astrology is largely influenced by Richard Tarnas and the evidence based approach that he pursued in Cosmos and Psyche. I understand that not everyone relates to this more empirical stance, and that there are other legitimate ways of relating to astrology, but Tarnas provides many hundreds of examples to substantiate his claims and for that reason he should be taken seriously. As far as I'm aware, there is no comparable body of evidence to justify any of the claims of traditional astrology. Moreover, it lacks the elegance and richness that comes with the archetypal/depth psychological framework.
We need an astrology that is compatible with modern ways of seeing and understanding the world, and that means being open to criticism, questioning longstanding assumptions and changing our minds when confronted with new evidence. I think it's entirely possible to do this while remaining open to the more poetic and numinous dimensions of astrology (and intuition definitely has a big role to play here). It's all about finding the right balance between rigor and imagination.
There is a lot to respond to in your comment Robert.
If you haven't already, I would recommend checking out the arguments against 'psychological' or modern astrology, because you'll come away with a better understanding as to why the traditional school is valued so highly by those who practice it. And in some ways, I see their points -- people often want specific answers to very specific questions (or quandaries) and the traditionalists see their approach as fulfilling that need. (Never mind the hubris that's involved in making such pointed judgements).
One of the books I list in my recent post about recommended astrology books: t.ly/n9Iy1 is Ben Dykes' Traditional Astrology For Today. Ben highlights the difference in an intelligent way between both schools.
The traditionalists view modern astro as wishy-washy, but then one could say that about the nature of the human psyche -- it isn't easily cornered and a good psychological astrologer needs the skills (and language) from that school to bring to chart interpretation, even if it's just a one-off with a client. The traditional school seems to have forgotten how mercurial Mercury is -- the figurehead of our consciousness' mailability.
On the flip I like what Stephen Arroyo wrote recently about the traditional school:
“Are we trying to create a cult, a religion, an ego trip? Or is it just another of the endless instances…of recycling old theories without testing and modernizing them? Although I have respect for much astrological tradition, I do not hold it in religious reverence.”
I think astrologers need to let go of the cause of trying to 'prove' astrology -- to me that's like someone trying to 'prove' art. It's focusing our attention in the wrong direction (and for me, it's a time waster, which is why I never get into arguments with folks who claim it's a pseudo science, etc.)
Thank you for your stimulating comment.
Thanks Frederick, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. It's entirely possible that I've overlooked some of the intricacies at play here. I will add Ben Dykes to my reading list. I'm familiar with Stephen Arroyo and I agree with his statement here.
With regards to the cause of 'proving' astrology, I respect your approach, and experience has taught me that arguing with skeptics is a waste of time, more often than not. However, I don't think the art analogy holds in every case. To my mind, astrology is somewhere in-between an art and a science.
Most astrological correspondences are quite subtle in nature, but not all. I think there is a large body of evidence that simply hasn't been given a fair hearing; for instance, the well established correlations between the Saturn-Pluto cycle and many of the major crisis points of the past few centuries.
I think there are people of a more scientific persuasion, who would be open to considering this sort of evidence if it was presented in the right way, and that astrologers should try to build bridges here.
As you can probably guess, I find the marginal status of astrology to be very dissatisfying. As more people start to question the materialist assumptions of our culture, I hope that some will be open to reconsidering astrology, and that this could offer a renewed source of enchantment to our beleaguered world.
Re Dalmer, exhaltations and dignified are not "good", just strong.
Yes, but my problem with these terms is that 'weak' is considered bad and strong is considered good. So these childlike rubrics get established. These might be fitting definitions but the mind often leans towards pessimism or the negative when divination is involved and I like to steer clear of anything that gets that ball rolling, especially in a consultation with a client.
One could look at Dahmer's exaltations and what not as to why he felt so emboldened, or had such incredibly mindblowing luck in evading being caught.
I was making a stupid point in my comment to Maurice because I wanted to free myself from the argument I should have never entered into in the first place -- social media is a suck-hole.
As a guy who’s only been diving into the deep well of astrology for about five years, who has been taking a two-year course in traditional astrology since last November, and who has a very tight square from Uranus to my ASC, I very much appreciated this manifesto.
Ultimately, I believe rigidity and appeals to authority when practicing a divinatory art are training wheels that may serve some function as one gets started but should be discarded.
I also do find it funny that hardcore traditionalists will immediately buy into some of the more convoluted techniques invented thousands of years ago, but can be quick to criticize modern inventions.
Anyway, much as my Capricorn stellium might make it seem like I’d be a stickler for tradition, as an eclipse baby I’ve always marched to the beat of my own drummer and respect others who do as well, even when I can’t “hear” their particular beat! Well done!
Thanks for this Bryan, and yeah, Uranus on my asc senses your Uranus square compelling your comment. HA!
Robert Anderson, above in this thread, highlights the same point about ancient authorities with their theories and 'rules.' And yes, the wild techniques that the traditionalists employ are sorta comical.
I've always thought that there's a 'nerd' or 'geek-like' vibe to people drawn to the traditional school. And many of the ones that I've met out in the wild have an 'on spectrum' vibe about them (you DID NOT hear me say that just now, btw).
In the end there seems to a be a form or type of astrology for every sort of practicing astrologer, which is why I consider astrology an art above all else -- there are millions of artists out there, each employing their own techniques for applying the colors or media. Goddess bless us all.
I agree with all of that, though you also didn’t hear me say it!
And if it makes you (or anyone) feel any better, the astrologer I’m studying under, Adam Elenbaas, refers to it as a “divinatory art.”
I think Adam has a grounded, intelligent and open-minded way of approaching this “debate,” so I’m glad I found him.
Like I said, I have a Capricorn stellium (Sun, North Node, Moon, Jupiter conjunction between 14-18 degrees with Mercury at 0 degrees), so I appreciate traditions and was even drawn to studying ancient astrology because I found some of the modern techniques to be too “out there” for me. Then, I come to find out, that “woo woo” is as old as time, lol.
Anyway, it’s all good, so long as we can apply it to help ourselves and others through this crazy world…
Great article! When reading client charts we are interpretating a life story in a snapshot, a picture speaks a thousand words. All the statistics in the world can't match the complexity and colour in a engaged chart reading.
There was much disagreement within traditional astrology, just as there is in modern times. To think there was consensus is nonsense!
Essential dignities are off, there is no this or that. BUT I am a Mars in Carpicorn rising and must say it's not a bad placement to have 😄 Mars speeds up Capricorn while Capricorn cools Mars and provides longevity 😉
Right. This is human nature: you can pick any topic, subject, whatever and there will be a world of opposition that spins out against it. It seems to be the nature of 'evolution' or whatever you want to call.
I mean, look at philosophy, which is essentially one person having a monologue with himself/herself that they then share with the world and then that sets someone else spinning about this or that and then THEIR new philosophy gets traction.
As Terence McKenna noted, people are attracted to novelty, not in a meaningless way, but as a way to keep Mercury entertained. LOL!
Cool stuff, thanks! Amateur here who hasn’t put much into dignitaries, etc beyond which planets rule which signs, which seems to hold. My rebellion against Astro traditional rules enters when the planets are gendered. Probably because I’m queer with a pagan background, but aside from maybe Sun and Moon, all the others can be regarded as either gender or both. Ex: Saturn as any of the Crone goddesses, Pluto as Kali. Neptune as the Christian Holy Spirit which is regarded as feminine. Mars as Athena or any of the warrior goddesses. Venus as Eros or maybe Krishna… Thanks for stirring the cauldron!
Yes, I've been bristling about this genderfication of the planets and lights for a long time now. In Mesopotamia the Moon was considered feminine, as one small point on this subject.
Your comment is an example of someone forging their own set of impressions and images and associations with these living beings, and that's what is most important when working with a client, that the astrologer has an intimate relationship with these more profound existences.
I don't see the planets as symbols or archetypes, but, as Gurdjieff noted, the lights and the planets are alive and exert tremendous influence given their 'position' within the scale of Being.
Maybe you’ve already written at length on it but if you haven’t could you say more about the planets being living beings? I’ve accepted them as archetypal energies for which us humans can attune to and understand individually and in aspecting relationships, and I am intrigued and open to hearing your thoughts on how they are actually alive. Do you think of the signs in the same way, as also living beings?
I don't think I've written specifically, at length, on that theme, although this post alludes in a more general way as to what I'm getting at: https://woodruff.substack.com/p/astrology-is-a-real-experience?
...and I quote Gurdjieff here on that topic: https://woodruff.substack.com/p/how-the-fuck-is-it-september?
The concept of archetypes is interesting, and I see it as one system that can help us understand the various functions at play in the solar system, but I also find that archetypes are one-step removed, meaning, they become stand-ins for simply acknowledging that the planets are alive--and can be perceived in a direct way, without having to involve a concept to define them. I did write at length about this notion here: https://woodruff.substack.com/p/life-is-short-archetypes-are-forever?
When the organic relationship is taken into account, between us as Earthlings and the planets and the lights as entities (for lack of a better word) in their own right, everything becomes simplified.
Although, admittedly, this idea seems too radical for a lot of astrologers, and I understand that.