[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: VMs: Modern Astrology vs. Traditional Astrology

Hi everyone,

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 (sorry Elmar).

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 university). :-/

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....

______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: unsubscribe vms-list