[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: VMs: Modern Astrology vs. Traditional Astrology
I've learnt a tremendous amount from this thread (especially from Pamela's
most recent posts), and so don't think it's quite time to take it off-list
FWIW I think of "modern astrology" as Ficino onwards and (say)
"contemporary astrology" as roughly 1850 onwards, but that is informed by a
literature (primarily historian-driven, and more specifically historians of
ideas) quite parallel to the literature (primarily
practising-astrologer-driven) on which Pamela is relying. Essentially,
"modern" is one of those words-that-mean-what-you-want-them-to-mean (as per
Humpty Dumpty), so we should be careful with it.
This is particularly important if we want to relate the VMs to the
literature(s) of history of astrology - we have to know *which tradition*
we're talking about.
I also completely take Pamela's point per Jung and alchemy (IIRC, he bought
a book on alchemy and had a dream, and that's where his ideas basically all
came from) - very much like the enneagram, Wicca, and numerous other 20th
Century inventions. I need to think about this more.
Pamela: (as mentioned above) I do believe that our readings are from quite
two parallel literatures. Which is why your kitten is ~fairly~ safe (though
I'd predict that Ioan Couliano did practise some medieval predictive
astrology - he did lecture on a mixture of predictive techniques at his
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: