[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Modern Astrology vs. Traditional Astrology
At 06:30 27/09/2004 -0700, Pamela Richards wrote:
If someone has told you that "modern astrology is
essentially Ficianan" astrology, I am afraid they have
misrepresented both Ficianan and modern astrology. In
fact, I will bet you my favorite kitten that the
person who said that was not an astrologer, and of
course, was entirely modern.
And I do love my favorite kitten.
You may be placing your favourite kitten in somewhat unnecessary jeopardy
I should first of all say that I'm very pleased that we have a predictive
astrologer on-list - I wasn't aware of that before, sorry for skipping that
line on your mini-bio. Anyone who has sent Bob Zoller money is pretty much
OK by me. :-)
However, the cataclysm in astrology is a thing I have read about in many,
many (15? 20?) separate places (Ioan Couliano's excellent "Eros and Magic
in the Renaissance" springs immediately to mind, but that is merely one of
many), dating to 1480-1520, and located squarely in Florence - specifically
at the hands of such prominent individuals as Pico della Mirandola and
"What is astrology for?", Ficino asked - and proceeded, in the humanist
style I've mentioned in recent posts, to devise a new conceptual framework
that satisfied the many diverse constraints of his religious and political
context. At that point, astrology started on a different, internal, more
psychologically-focused course, from which the modern tradition eventually
developed: what changed was not really the astrophysical mechanics (that
was merely a matter of precision), but the purpose of the activity. Ficino
transformed it into something more like modern psychoanalysis (if you
believe Thomas Moore's "The Planets Within", etc(.
I'll try to dig up some proper references for you (but please keep the
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: