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

[Nick Pelling <nickpelling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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