30 August 2008

Astrology, Just Once More

Ok, I hope this'll be the last post about astrology for a while, but I need to reach some kind of conclusion on this topic.

The more I consider the selection of planets to use, the more I'm starting to feel that the simple set of seven classical planets is all I need. I think this is partly because I'd been studying traditional occult philosophy for a good while before I really started looking into astrology, and the concept of the seven planets is such a crucial part of traditional occultism that forcing additional planets into the scheme seems both difficult and unnecessary. The qabalistic Tree of Life has been a very useful tool for me in understanding various symbol structures, and I'm sure it'll be a great help in understanding the astrological implications of the planets as well. While one could try to reconcile the new planets with this scheme, there's really very little new that they could bring to it, and the usual interpretations of the newer planets often seem to overlap with those of the traditional planets (or at least the way that I've come to see the traditional planets).

To add a little spice into the mix I might use the north and south nodes of the moon. These are fairly traditional, and were used at least in medieval and renaissance astrology, so they fit in fairly well with the traditional occult scheme. (And I think they would fit in nicely with the qabalistic scheme as representatives of Daath, although I don't know if others have made that association.) The Arabian parts and other additional points I don't think I'll need (apart from the ascendant and midheaven, of course).

If I use fewer bodies, there will be fewer aspects as well. Because of this, I think I might use fairly large orbs, say 10° for most of the main aspects. I might also include semi-sextile and quincunx aspects I hadn't earlier considered using.

I don't think I discussed the choice of zodiac yet. As you might now, the traditional zodiac of astrology is based on the orbit of the Earth, not on actual constellations, which have moved since the times when astrology was created. This has led to the creation of the so-called sidereal zodiac which matches better with the actual constellations. For a while I was a little torn between the two systems, but then I thought, what's the most important cycle in the life of most creatures? The year of course, the cycle of the four seasons, of mating and harvest etc. So it seems right to me that astrology is linked to the rhythm of the sun, the rhythm of life, and not some endlessly distant stars. The Zodiac signs are symbols created by Man. Perhaps they were originally inspired by constellations that existed when they were created, but they are not really linked to them.

Ok, I think this'll wrap up this discussion for now. What's needed now is just, well, experience. Whether I'll stick to this scheme or add something to it remains to be seen.

No comments:

Post a Comment