Ben Dykes’s Defence of Traditional Astrology

This article criticizes Glenn Perry’s recent NCGR article, “From Ancient to Postmodern Astrology: Toward a New
Synthesis.” Due to the nature, prominence, and length of his article, my response will not only defend traditional
astrology, but also traditional thought generally, and will introduce some concepts of fate, freedom, virtues, and
traditional psychology. I hope the ideas here will counterbalance the ignorant and superficial categories found in Perry’s
article. First though, a few observations about Perry’s overriding sense of contempt and his ignorance of traditional
views.

Perry barely bothers to learn what he sets out to criticize. His contempt for traditional astrology leads him into
carelessness, so that untrue or misleading arguments are mixed in with a number of basic astrological errors. I will not
go into detail into these errors, since Chris Brennan has already done so admirably on his blog. But it is worth at least
mentioning some of them: that Venus in the 8th is in the house of her detriment (due to Perry’s confusion between
signs and houses), that the predictive technique of firdariah is a system of primary directions through bounds, that a
planet in the twenty-seventh degree of a sign is always in the bound of Saturn, that a dispositor is equivalent to the Lord
of the exaltation, and so on. These are the kinds of mistakes that make a traditionalist shudder. He also makes many
assumptions about what traditionalists must believe “below the surface” in order to believe in their Art, and it is clear he
has not thought them through. But more than that, he winds up unwittingly attributing to traditional astrology what is
actually more true of modern psychological astrology, and comes across as a whiny teenager puffing himself up about
the wisdom only he has—not the sort of thing we’d expect from someone immersed in a superior, Evolved, self-aware
form of astrology.

Thesis
Normally in an article that promotes a certain point of view, we expect to see a thesis that can be shown to be proved.
But Perry’s article does not really have a thesis. Rather, he has a starting assumption from which everything else
automatically flows. At many points his exposition stumbles on many errors which would show him to be wrong, if he
knew about them. But for him it seems his starting assumption is all that matters. What is that assumption?

Perry says that (1) stages of astrology reflect (2) stages in the evolution of consciousness, which in turn reflect (3) the
stages of an individual’s development. By definition this means that whatever is older historically is both intellectually
less sophisticated and emotionally and morally childish. Whatever is modern is “evolved” and mature. Everything in
Perry’s article is shoehorned into this model, so there is really nothing to argue about, in his view. For him it is simply
self-evident that, like a stereotypic child, traditional people were unintellectual, unintrospective, childish, fearful, made
simplistic moral judgements, and only thought about themselves and their own needs. Therefore, traditional astrologers
think only in terms of good and bad, have haphazard and foolish beliefs, only tell people about satisfying pleasure and
pains (in the form of money, marriage, etc.), have barely any psychology at all, and seek control over the external world
because they are afraid of it. Q.E.D.

Below I will be addressing many of these topics, but I want to direct attention immediately to a recurring theme in
Perry’s article: his constant projection onto traditionalists of faults he and modern psychological astrology exhibit (at
least, the psychological astrology he describes). Let us address three of them right now: being self-oriented, seeking
control, and being generally immature. On the matter of being ego-oriented, Perry criticizes earlier people (and children)
by saying they are ego-oriented and have a need for control due to their sense of helplessness and weakness. But this is
actually a description of the modern astrology Perry promotes. For instance, Perry claims that for traditionalists, the
chart is the native. But Perry has it exactly backwards. Traditional astrology does not believe that the chart is a
description solely of the native (or especially the native’s mind)—that is what modern psychological astrology believes.
For a traditionalist, only a certain set of features in the chart signify the native’s mind. Everything else signifies events
and people who are not the native. For instance, traditional astrology says the 2nd house signifies the native’s movable
assets and allies. These things are not the native. But in modern astrology, the 2nd signifies the native’s feelings about
assets, or else his values in general, reducing assets and allies to reflections of the native’s mind. This subjectivization of
the chart is rampant in modern astrology. How much more true then, to say that modern astrology is self-absorbed!

Nor does traditional astrology have an overdeveloped sense of the need for control. In fact the very division of the chart
into the native’s mind and things not in our control is an example of traditional astrology not thinking the native can
control everything—even if the native can occasionally harness good opportunities or mitigate bad things predicted by
the astrologer. Normal people do this all the time in non-astrological settings. In fact one could go further and argue that
modern astrology craves control, is more fearful and has a sense of weakness: how else to explain the fact that modern
astrologers often look first to Pluto and Uranus to find terrible traumas and abuse and crises in the chart, and then
constantly need to talk about their escapist fantasies about how they create their own destinies—sorry, I meant to say
they are engaged in “transformation” and “evolution.”

In terms of traditional astrology being immature, it is worth noting that despite Perry’s boasting about how Evolved and
adult and conscious psychological astrology is, his attitude and claims unwittingly turn him into a smug teenager angry
with Mom and Dad. What sort of things would such a teenager say? Mom and Dad have too many rules, many of which
make no sense to him; they overcomplicate matters; they are too old-fashioned in their views of good and evil, unlike
the sophisticated teenager who sees all the grey. He would be dismissive and pretentious. He would say that Mom and
Dad have forgotten about really feeling life, being free, envisioning alternative experiences. Their world is one of straight
lines and sharp corners, whereas his life is full of curves. Their life is cramped and fearful, but he stands before the
glorious horizon, bravely greeting the dawning Sun. Mom and Dad make too many judgments about people, and love
giving advice—why can’t they just leave people (and especially him) alone to make their own decisions? Adults are
always worrying about money, jobs, health, but only he really understands that it’s the process, the experience, that
matters. Or more to the point, why can’t they understand how Wise and Evolved he is? All of these themes abound in
Perry’s article: traditional astrology has too many rules, is rigid, has black-and-white thinking about ethics, is fearful and
full of worry, and doesn’t care about process or experience. All of these charges are false, and I will be dealing with them
below.

But Perry conforms to the teenager type in an even more amusing way. Although this modern, Evolved, adult period
allegedly began around 1600 (I guess that makes William Lilly an Evolved, modern astrologer?), Perry later corrects this
and says the proper psychological astrology really only came onto the scene in the 1980s. That would make Perry’s
whole movement literally teenaged, too. And what is more appropriate for a teenager than to think that real time only
began with his own birth? Poor Mom and Dad listen to stupid stuff like Miles Davis—can’t they see Miles Davis has
nothing on P. Diddy? Perhaps then, Perry is just going through a phase; he’ll grow out of it if we’re patient.

It is worth asking, though, whether Perry’s belief that modern astrology enhances creativity and freedom makes much
sense in light of his childishness-maturity model. According to Perry, modern astrology is more creative because it tells
people they have an undetermined, spontaneous free will. And modern astrology is allegedly more adult. But isn’t it
rather characteristic of adults that their lives are overburdened and limited and less creative? In fact, isn’t it usually
children and teenagers as a group who are most able to envision creative alternatives, even if for a variety of reasons
they cannot produce them?

Back to the notion of evolving consciousness. Perry says consciousness is a capacity for forms of experience and
awareness, and it shows purpose, intelligence, and intent to learn. Over time, this produces “higher” and “more
integrated” states of awareness.

I am sympathetic to some of this, due to my traditional (and Hegelian) background. But we must be careful about what
exactly is meant by this, and where this so-called evolution takes place. The general thrust of Perry’s statements (and
that of modern psychological astrology as a whole) is that this evolution takes place in our own personal subjective
sense of individual selfhood. Now this is correct, so far as it goes: after all, it is still we who are thinking, feeling, and
acting in the world. So whatever is meant by this “evolution,” it must be at least reflected in our subjective sense of self.
But what we mean by our “sense of self” makes all the difference in evaluating this notion of evolution. For example, we
have a sense of ourselves and the world through the lowest forms of awareness and sensation, through social
relationships, as family members, by exercising our conscience about what is good and bad, as individuals pursuing
economic and educational goals, as citizens, as members of groups, in religious activities, and so on. Not all of these
outlets for our sense of self were as available or clearly differentiated in former times as they are today. So in some
sense we might say that evolution has taken place, though with my Hegelian hat on I would use other terminology.
Many of these forms of self-awareness and experience are also found in traditional astrology, and they are objective
features of a person’s life, not just instances of mere free will or pushes and pulls between different drives inside of us.

By contrast, my impression of Perry is that he is mainly concerned with the identity of the single individual qua
individual. This is a very limiting point of view, and we can see that he would have difficulties going beyond this
limitation because he thinks the chart is a description of the mind of the native. And it must be even more difficult for
him to describe these dynamics anyway, since according to him we can make all sorts of free will choices that allegedly
would make these dynamics in the chart moot.

That said, these kinds of self-identity and freedom may have little or nothing to do with astrology, strictly speaking. It
could still be that while the story of humanity is one more and more complex forms of social and individual choice and
expression, the greater events of history itself have a determined course, and we are determined in many fate-like ways
by the very institutions through which we have these freedoms. Even as individuals we could be fundamentally
determined in fate-like ways, however we use our puny faculty of arbitrary free-will. Put astrologically, traditional natal
astrology could still be giving us an accurate, on-the-ground picture of our fundamentally fated lives, and not have
anything concrete to say about the story of the meaning or trajectory or “evolution” of humanity as a whole. That is
certainly possible.

So while some of Perry’s psychological remarks are interesting, sadly they are not only tendentious and unfair
(relegating most of human history to childlike and adolescent forms of life), but they have little to do with astrology—
especially since it is clear he understands little of the astrology he wants to call childlike. Is there anything more tiresome
than someone in the present dismissing the human past as foolish, and “proving” that only their own time is good,
responsible, and adult? As I will mention below, ancient philosophers (many of whose ideas were used in traditional
astrology) had sophisticated and subtle understandings of the mind and emotions. Having used them myself and having
taught them to hundreds of college students, I would take any of their works over virtually any of the modern, feel-
good, create-your-own-reality casserole of psychobabble I have been hearing in astrological and New-Age circles for the
last twenty years.

Fate
Fate is a concept that astrologers need to understand and investigate more. Perry’s comments on what fate is have
some validity, but the conclusions he draws are unnecessary and historically inaccurate. For instance, Perry claims that
fate must be some external force that inexplicably and irrationally throws obstacles (or good things) at us. That is not
true—that is more the view of a polytheistic cosmos in which competing gods act according to whim. In views of fate
developed by the Stoics at least, fate is a rational structure that is woven through the entire cosmos, and we are a part
of it. Our actions help to enact fate, because, being the types of beings we are, we participate in certain ways with the
cosmic structure we are woven into.

We can call fate a power from a cosmic or God’s-eye point of view, but on the ground whatever is decreed by fate can
only be brought about by human action (as well as natural occurences, etc.). If then the natal chart shows what kind of
person the native is, and what the normal expected outcome of such a person’s life is, then we are entitled to say that
such a person will, by and large, perform in accordance with cosmic fate. The native participates in fate—it is not
external to him. It is actually a function of Perry’s psychological prejudice that he believes that the individual would be
external to the cosmos—an indication that self-centeredness and undue pride is actually a part of the psychological
worldview he himself holds. The ancients did not hold this egocentric view.

Nor does this view of fate I am suggesting mean that the chart has to show absolutely everything that is in some sense
according to fate (as Perry suggests). The chart will not show how many cigarettes I just smoked, nor will it show by any
counting mechanism how many hairs are on my head. Many things in the chart show kinds of things, not individual
things: it may show I will date a redhead this year, but if I walk past ten redheads today it will not necessarily show me
which one—and this is perfectly compatible with a view of cosmic fate.

This view of fate does not offer a perverse view of human nature. Quite the opposite, it accords with some common-
sense assumptions we already have. For one thing, we are already used to understanding ourselves as members of
groups and classifications of certain types, and we can be expected to have values and exhibit behaviors typical of them,
even if we do not fit stereotypic patterns to a ‘T’. Moreover, it is clear for anyone to see that most people—no matter
how self-creating they fancy themselves to be, often conform to a consistent personality type that is evidenced from
youth. So people already do not act as radical self-creators. Finally, most of us implicitly recognize that it is sometimes
more praiseworthy to be a good person less capable of change, than otherwise—but I will defer this to my criticisms of
undetermined free will below.

Even more important for Perry’s general evaluation of traditional views versus modern ones, he draws a wrong and
historically ignorant conclusion. On the one hand, he says that traditional astrologers made a kind of dishonest or
inconsistent compromise: namely, that they wanted both fate and free will, so they wanted to use free will to avoid or
exploit fate. But everything depends on what is being avoided or exploited. For instance, suppose you want to go on a
walk, and it rains. It is perfectly consistent with fate that clouds should act according to their nature by raining, and that
at the same time you should want to take a walk. Both you and the clouds are playing roles assigned by the cosmos,
based on what types of creatures you are. It is also consistent with fate that, being the kind of person you are, you will
decide that being wet is to be avoided, and that you should get an umbrella. There is nothing inconsistent here, and
talking about “exploiting” fate in some bad, manipulative sense is not pertinent. The person with an umbrella cannot
assume he is “cheating” fate.

But on the other hand, Perry praises modern psychological astrology because it is about free self-creation and co-
creation with the cosmos, instead of avoiding or exploiting the cosmic system. But his position is actually the ancient and
traditional view, as expounded by Stoics and Neo-Platonists—being in harmony with cosmic rationality, being co-
creators with the Demiurge, living in accordance with nature, and so on. In fact one could argue that Perry’s modern
view is one of cosmic disruption and contradicts his fundamental premises. In fact the source of the dishonest or
problematic compromise here is Perry himself. He thinks arbitrary free will, self-creation, or whatever, as a main mode
of being is not only possible, and desirable, but that this arbitrary free will somehow is consistent with being co-creative
with the whole cosmos. If the cosmos is integrated and an organic whole in the way that he believes, then radical self-
creation as a central goal and defining feature of human life is contrary to such a system. For a system has
interdependent parts that are combined according to a rational structure. Within certain boundaries, the parts may
undergo alteration and change; but large-scale, radical, undetermined change is disruptive to the notion of a system as a
whole.

Of course the kind of rational structure in play says a lot about what changes are consistent. As a Hegelian, I would say
that certain political revolutions are socially disruptive, but because they manifest something important about the
historical trajectory of human beings and fundamental human nature, they do not contradict the notion of a cosmos as a
whole. But Perry offers nothing along the lines of what the purpose of humanity is, or what structures matter, besides
platitudes about evolution and ego-transcendence. The point is that claiming radical free self-creation as a central
principle on the one hand, and harmonizing with something like cosmic rationality and organization on the other hand, is
either contradictory or empty without a further argument. At any rate, in Perry’s formulation it has little to do with
astrology, since by assumption the rational and organized movement of the planets do show that we are part of a
cosmic system.

None of this should be taken as though I do not believe we have choices. Philosophical therapy, especially in light of
what is shown in the chart, is important. But we have to have some common understanding of what is possible. From
the Stoic view, the chart could show many of your particular traits and talents, along with predictions about things you
can’t control, and Stoic therapy leads you to use these things constructively in such a way that you live in accordance
with nature, and avoid the kinds of emotional traps that cause unhappiness and distress. You are still the person shown
by certain features in the chart, along with all of the external events and relationships shown there; but you can improve
your mind so that you are not distressed or thrown by events of life, and you are able to better express the gifts you
have been given. Another more Aristotelian point of view is that we can strengthen or weaken certain psychological
traits in the chart, and try to handle the accidents thrown at us in a better way—we might not have a chance to be truly
happy, but we can maximize what we have. Nothing in this says that “adversity” has no role, as Perry claims
traditionalists believe.

It is true (as Perry notes) that some thinkers like Plotinus thought astrological influences had a limited effect—especially
upon our souls. But we cannot simply leave things there and assume that traditional astrologers were wrong. We have
to know what people like Plotinus thought the soul was. One reason for Plotinus’s statement is that he believed the
“real” human being was a rational, incorporeal part of the soul that never fully descended into the world as we know
it—therefore, since the stars can only affect this world, the soul is unaffected by them. In order to accept or reject this
argument, we need to take a stand on what the soul really is. Perhaps some psychological astrologers believe in a purely
rational, undescended, incorporeal soul that is distinct from worldly things, and that whatever psychological traits are
shown initially in the chart, this rational, undescended, incorporeal soul can make free choices about what to think and
feel after birth. This is their right, and they should say so. So far as I can tell, Perry does not believe in such a thing—so
his appeal to someone like Plotinus is a dead-end.

But what about free will? Perry gives us a clue as to what he means by free will, and it is exactly the kind of free will
which was posited by theologians all the way back in childish antiquity. It is the undetermined, spontaneous, uncaused,
arbitrary free will. Perry himself justifies its existence through appeals to modern quantum theory, and the theologians
did so through Scripture and traditional arguments, but it is the same thing. This faculty in us allows us to countervene
the normal course of things in our physical world, and do fundamentally different things. Theologically, it is akin to
introducing miracles into the world that make the rule-bound natural world veer off into another direction.
This is a complex topic. But because platitudes about free will are so common and so beloved, I want to make two
critical comments in order to let modern readers think about the personal appeal of such radical free will. First, free will
is overrated. Arbitrary, undetermined free will is ultimately a low-level concept or faculty. It is precisely because it is
undetermined (that is, unrelated to other things, self-caused, and spontaneous), that it says little about a person. It is
uninformative. The person who identifies primarily with spontaneous free will is a superficial person, someone who
stands for little or nothing, precisely because nothing is causing him to behave or think in any particular way at all. He
does not need a reason to do or believe anything, or point to anything independently existing and real, simply because
the reason only exists if he arbitrarily and spontaneously decides to engage with it. Once he is engaged in something, the
value or belief automatically exists and is validated by mere fiat. There are no standards of success or failure, because
anything could be equally counted valuable or unvaluable. Values, emotions, deeds—all of these are granted only by an
inexplicable arbitrariness.

Second, philosophies and psychologies based on arbitrary free will (e.g., 20th Century existentialism like that of Sartre)
sound good at first and can be helpful in guiding a person to take responsibility for his own thoughts. But they are largely
devoid of real content, because their notion of being free, “authentic” people is vague and largely uninformative. When I
taught college-level philosophy, I used to teach some Sartrean ethics after a unit on Aristotle and the Stoics. The
ancients had all sorts of ideas about what the soul and mind are, how they work, they have interesting advice and
therapies to offer. But on the level of the individual, existentialist ethics, while offering good analyses of problems, has
little constructive to offer beyond the importance of being “authentic.” We are not supposed to react in stereotypic
ways, feel other people’s emotions, and take for granted prevailing values. Instead, we are supposed to be spontaneous,
creative, exercise our arbitrary free will. But no one really knows what such a life would be like, especially since the
content of such an authentic, unique life would hardly apply to other people trying to be authentic. Everyone (especially
college students) loves the idea of being spontaneous, radically free, and unique—but is there anything more trite than
a conventional, middle-of-the-road person proclaiming his or her uniqueness and freedom?

We might oppose to this the traditional view of the virtues. Traditional people thought that a key to being happy was
developing states of character called virtues. Examples would be courage and temperance. These virtues had to do with
how the soul handles competing emotions and interests and values in a given subject matter. For instance, Aristotle said
temperance had to do with the right management of pleasures and pains in the area of food, drink, and sex. Such virtues
had to be built up over time, were concerned deliberate choice (rather than accident), had to be mediated by rational
thought and judgment, probably required good role models, and demanded we recognize that some things are helpful
to us, and some things not. Aristotle also thought some good luck was required in order to express the virtues, too—you
need money in order to know how to handle money responsibly, and we do not always have money. On this view,
adversity is not good in itself, but encountering adversity may help us learn how to develop virtues, and when we
actually exercise virtues we will be able to handle further adversity with equipoise and confidence.

This traditional notion of virtues relates to free will in the following way. According to the modern point of view, it is a
hallmark of modernity and maturity that we have the spontaneous free will to do something totally different at any
time—that defines the undetermined, uncaused free will. But a question arises: how much should we praise someone
for doing a good deed from their free will, when by definition they were equally capable of doing the opposite? If I
refrain from murder simply because I arbitrarily choose to, that is like saying I should be praised because, though I did
not murder, I am easily capable of it. From the traditional point of view, a mature person does not become more capable
of being immoral and changing drastically, he becomes less able. People ought to be praised because they are less
capable of changing drastically—assuming that they are good people. We neither want nor expect a well-trained and
seasoned soldier, who has the virtue of courage, to exercise his power of free self-creation and indeterminacy by
suddenly walking off the battlefield and letting his friends die.

We do need to have a lengthy discussion of fate and free will, if only to figure out what in the world we mean by these
terms. And the simplistic fate-freedom dichotomy does not just pertain to one’s overall view of life either—it touches
directly on technical issues in astrology: for instance theological concerns and what makes elections and horary advice
possible. And we can only really discuss them intelligently when we examine primary texts and ideas of smart people
who have made important contributions to the subject. This means reading works by philosophers and theologians.

Ego-Centered Concerns
In this section Perry comes off as both irresponsible and paternalistic. The basic thrust of the section is that traditional
astrology only deals with self-centered concerns of the native (like money, love, etc.) and has no therapeutic content.

As for irresponsibility, Perry offers the example of an astrologer who sees that a certain relationship would be bad for
the client. In his view, traditionalists would advise against a bad relationship because they believe “adversity serves no
purpose in life.” Of course this is complete nonsense. But consider what it must mean for him: the Evolved, conscious,
adult astrologer should not advise against a bad relationship, so that the client can have the benefit of living through
adversity. Can you imagine telling a client, “Go ahead, it will be an abusive, bad relationship, you will regret it all—but
hey, you’ll have the benefit of really experiencing life!” Not even your best friend would treat you this way.

But the really insidious thing is his paternalistic attitude, which yet again shows that Perry’s view is actually the opposite
of what he claims. Perry wants to say that we should be free self-creators, and he implies there is much strength and
“empowerment” in this. But on the other hand, he says that telling a client a relationship will be bad is dangerous,
because it will “reinforce neurotic fears” and “subvert a natural developmental process.” In other words, giving accurate
news about something unpleasant will damage the client! This is the very definition of saying that reality is bad for
people, because they are weak and incapable of handling the truth. But the fact is that clients appreciate hearing the
truth, because they are grownups. Most clients already have an inkling of possible problems—or they can imagine them.
Telling the truth to clients is what empowers people and respects them, not assuming they are weaklings, neurotic, and
can’t handle life.

Descriptions of Temperament
Here Perry makes two claims: that traditional astrology, unlike modern psychological forms, can only describe but not
explain; and that for traditionalists, the natal chart simply is the native—or rather, it is the native’s mind. Both of these
claims are false and yet again highlight both his shallow understanding of the material and that he accuses traditional
astrology of believing what is actually true of the modern sort. As for the chart being the native, I have already dealt
with this above. Below I will sketch a more traditional view of the native’s mind, and the reader can decide whether it is
“flat” and “simple” and “fixed in time.”

In terms of descriptions and explanations, Perry thinks a description takes the form of something like this: “The native is
X,” or “The native behaves in the manner X.” This is supposed to be “flat” and “simple.” An explanation is allegedly
something that states the reason for such behavior in terms of underlying psychodynamics, which take the form of
something like this: “The native behaves in the manner X, because of psychodynamic Y.” So, Perry says temperament is
merely descriptive, because it merely says how he will behave, and not why.

I agree that explanations seek causes. Explanations show why. I wonder if I should be ashamed to agree with this,
because all sorts of people from allegedly childish times also believed this—people like the Atomists, the materialists,
Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Epicureans, medieval theologians and natural scientists—and traditional
astrologers. So why should we think traditional astrology be so childish as to deal only with descriptions? If you read
Perry’s argument, you see the answer: he thinks an explanation must appeal to psychodynamics.

But do traditional astrologers ever appeal to causes and psychodynamics? Yes. In delineating a native’s temperament, or
quality of mind, or what Robert Zoller calls the “prime motivation,” traditionalists do appeal to causes. But they are not
always the causes that Perry wants. If a native is choleric, the astrologer may say “the native is choleric, and will behave
in such-and-such a way.” But the astrologer is too busy to explain to the client that this is because the rising sign is fiery,
etc. The configurations described in the chart explain why the native is choleric, and so why he will behave in a certain
way. (This is true primarily for astrological views of the planets and signs as causal rather than merely signifying things.)

Nor is this all. Temperament is only one factor in delineating the human mind. It is more of a physiological backdrop to
the mind (which is why it is associated with the physiological humors), showing certain features of energy level, outlook
on life, sense of motivation, and sociability. Other techniques include the Lord of the Ascendant and planets in the
Ascendant, Mercury and the Moon, the planetary significator of personality (along with their quadruplicities, aspects,
and so on), and many others. No one of these simply describes the native’s mind, and together they show a very
sophisticated and nuanced psychology. Nor does this traditional psychology mean that the native cannot respond and
develop. In fact, some features might show the native adapts and develops easily to new situations, others not.

It is worth re-emphasizing that part of the traditional background is the assumption that the purpose of life is not to
become more “evolved,” but to be happy. Traditional philosophers and astrologers assumed that certain things were
good or bad (or neutral) insofar as they helped or hindered people from realizing their potentials for happiness. Some
things were typically considered good and helpful: money, good relationships, honor, health. Others were typically
considered bad and unhelpful: poverty, isolation, being despised or enslaved, sickness and death. You can look at the
natal chart and assign these conventional goods and evils to various houses.

But the ancients were not so stupid as to think all of these could be described wholly independently of the individual’s
mind. In fact, Aristotelian and Stoic ethics would be incomprehensible without taking into account exactly those things
Perry thinks were invented by people like him: intrapsychic integration, flexible and considered reactions to external
things, achieving emotional maturity and balance, and so on. We are supposed to evaluate, integrate, deal responsibly
with the world, and form good habits and emotional responses that will reliably allow us to deal with the world. Mere
“free will” reactions from moment to moment are not enough: we need thoughtful reactions and emotional balance in a
consistent state of character, based on harmonious values. If Perry cared to crack open some books on ancient ethics, he
would find that these noble masters were offering sophisticated therapies 2,000 years ago, and they had never heard of
Ken Wilber or Carl Jung.

Traditional astrology describes both the external things the native is expected to encounter, and the internal faculties
and traits that the native typically has to deal with them. Different natives have different talents and interests, and some
interests may clash with other issues in the chart: the parents or spouse, for instance. A therapy-oriented traditional
astrologer has a long tradition of philosophical thought to draw on, if he wishes to help the native figure out strategies
for coping, enhancing or de-emphasizing various features of the chart. This is not really a matter of undetermined,
uncaused free will, but more a matter of working on the native talents and expected external events, within the
boundaries of the place in the universe the native occupies. Intrapsychic integration, development, and all of the things
Perry mentions can be part of this process, but the process is not the goal: the goal is happiness, which some people
attain more successfully than others. Hard news, perhaps, but true.
Rigid, complicated, and qualitative techniques
The remainder of Perry’s treatment of traditional astrology makes three points that continue earlier themes I have
raised. First, traditional astrologers use value judgments about planets, and this is bad. Second, traditional delineations
are one-size-fits all, not nuanced. Third, contradicting the previous point, is that traditional astrology is overcomplicated
because it makes too many qualitative refinements in planetary analysis.

I have already addressed some of the first point above. Perry seems averse to giving clients advice about bad situations
because it prevents them from having learning experiences. But these later sections also add something new: that it is
wrong and immature to say that planets perform better or worse in certain configurations, houses, signs, and so on.
Now, I know that in some circles it is taboo to say that anything is bad or good; we are not supposed to make moral
evaluations at all. But Perry seems to misunderstand completely what traditionalists are doing when they “judge” a
chart, and he does not understand that “bad” and “good” can be meant in at least two distinct ways.

On the one hand, traditionalists try to “judge” a planets performance. Planets signify various things. But just as it is one
thing to be merely alive, and another to live well, so the planets can be helped and hindered in many ways when they
are trying to produce their significations. Traditional concepts allow us to analyze different perspectives on this activity.
So for instance, in medieval astrology angular houses allow planets to operate quantitatively at a high level of strength,
while cadent houses are very weak. Thus it makes a big difference for the native whether he has an angular or cadent
Mars. Likewise, the planets are affected qualitatively by their dignities and debilities of all sorts. If various debilities and
afflictions are likened to a planet acting erratically and drunkenly, then just as it can make a big difference at a party
whether the guest are drunk and loud or drunk and quiet, so in a chart an angular afflicted planet differs from a cadent
one. That is one meaning of “judging” the chart: taking all of the testimonies into account, in order to figure out exactly
what the planet is doing for this native. Perry must have a cartoonish notion of moral categories and functioning,
because he thinks that balancing the various good and bad features of planetary functioning is “characteristic of
toddlers” and an example of black-and-white thinking. But in fact the various layers of planetary analysis in traditional
astrology is characteristic of nuanced thinking. Perry should not blame us because he doesn’t understand these concepts
and is averse to “value judgments.”

The second way in which traditional astrologers judge using categories like “good” and “bad” is when we say what a
configuration means for the native, in conventional senses of what is helpful or hindering. I hope Perry will excuse our
naivete in conforming to normal standards of good and bad when we say that dying, or being abused, or falling into
poverty, or being attacked by secret enemies are “bad,” and that having a happy marriage and good friends are “good.”
Likewise, we think many situations are mixed: we say that having friends you fight with can be an example of having a
“good” thing (friendship) that is mixed with occasional bad things (strife). These things are conventional goods and evils
that most people recognize. Perhaps Perry can enlighten us as to his notion of whether anything is good or bad, and
whether we should not think abuse is a bad thing because it just might be a “learning experience.”

So yes, traditional astrology is complicated. It has lots of rules. But that is because planetary situations are complicated,
and so is life. We do not have to apologize for recognizing reality.

All of this should be enough to show that traditional techniques are not one-size-fits-all, flat, rigid, and all of the other
things Perry claims through his slurs. But I do want to address one final point, and that is Perry’s quotation of other
people quoting Maternus and others, allegedly showing such rigid delineations. For instance, he quotes Barton’s Ancient
Astrology on Maternus, showing that a certain relation of Venus and Saturn will show sexual depravity. It is true that
traditional texts have many of these cut-and-dried rules—so do modern astrology books. But no serious astrologer
thinks that all of these rules apply equally, because charts differ. Venus squaring Jupiter might have some generalized
meaning, but in traditional texts these take more the form of instructive principles, and are not meant to be taken at
face value. If Venus is the Lord of the Ascendant, it will mean something for the native directly; if she is the Lord of the
2nd, something about wealth. Likewise, just as losing $10 means one thing for a rich man and another for a homeless
man, so some predicted hardship will mean something to one native and another to another—and their likely capacities
to cope or avoid the trouble will also differ. Again, if you told me that if I drove at 60 miles per hour for 1 hour, I would
go 60 miles, this is true enough. But if I lived on a street full of potholes and had a flat tire after 500 yards, I could not
assume that mathematics or physics were nothing. Context and details matter. Perry’s attack sounds more like what we
would expect from the ignorant astrology skeptics than someone who knows his trade.

The traditional revival is in full swing, and I do not see it stopping anytime soon. I think it has something to offer all
astrologers, but we cannot come to terms with it if we approach it with contempt or ignorance. Nor will we be able to
have insight into it, unless we explore other notions of psychology, the purpose of human life, fate, free will, virtues, and
other ideas. I’m sure other traditional astrologers will agree with me, and I hope that modern astrologers will be
intrigued enough to find out about them.

I would only add these philosophical thoughts from Kusyar Ibn Labban's "Introduction to Astrology";

Quote:
The powers of conjecture in what is imposed by the temperaments which belong to each one of the
planets have enabled him [the astrologer] to know many conditions before their occurence...and to
know the conditions of a man concerning his goodness, his badness, his tempers, his virtues, and his
vices.

Concerning whatever is useful in this science, man has thoughfulness and common sense which lead
him in the direction of being prepared for the incidents whose knowledge precedes their
occurrence...When he knows beforehand the occurance of an illness, he resists it with its opposing
measures, according to the characteristic power he has in his birth and according to what he gains
from this art of astrology...It might be possible to keep off some of the incidents which are
characteristic to the individual himself if they are evil. He might confront them in whatever is
appropriate and suitable if they are good.

This, as you have well pointed out, is the difference between ancient wisdom and modern psychological tenents;
The ancients counselled the native to be prepared with the natural characteristics he possessed! It didn't mean he
would not meet affliction or trials. Neither did it mean he was counselled to avoid them. He was only
counselled to be prepared for the meeting!

STEVEN

The truth of the matter is that our present culture has been called "the psychological society." To us psychology and
humanism only seems like big things, but that is only because, in my opinion, we have misplaced the measuring stick. A
husky boy seems large to his companions until he puts on his father's coat. Then he may appear merely ridiculous. If the
psychological and humanistic explanations of life and death, joy and pain seem impressive to us, it is because we have
forgotten or never known how much larger the ancient metaphysical explanations are. Little do we heed the prophetic
words of the ancients;

«And even as they did not like to retain God [i.e. an Intelligent Designer] in their knowledge [i.e. in their science], God
gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;»

The fact that psychologists are trying to help people often keeps us from asking whether they really know how to help.
We think it's bad manners to ask a man who is trying to help us if he really knows what he's doing. Of course, it's not just
manners that prevent us from questioning psychology. It's also faith--the kind of faith that makes us believe that school
teachers are doing what is best for our children. Or the kind of faith that tells you that the man in the clerical collar
won't knock you down and steal your wallet. Just the same, we ought to be asking if psychologists really do know how to
help. A good deal of research suggests that psychology is ineffective. And there is evidence pointing to the conclusion
that psychology is actually harmful.

Already in 1952 Hans Eysenck of the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, discovered that neurotic people who
do not receive therapy are just as likely to recover as those who do. He also noted in his conclusions that Psychotherapy
no more effective than the simple passage of time. Additional studies by other researchers reveal similar results. Dr.
Eugene Levitt of the Indiana University School of Medicine found that disturbed children who were not treated
recovered at the same rate as disturbed children who were. Yet more truth is revealed in the results of the extensive
Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. The researchers found that uncounseled juvenile delinquents had a lower rate of
further trouble than counseled ones. Other studies have shown that untrained lay people do jsut as well as psychiatrists
or clinical psychologists in treating patients. And the Rosenham studies indicated that mental hospital staff could not
even tell normal people from genuinely disturbed ones. It is possible to go on with the list. It is quite a long one. But I
hope this is sufficient to make the point that when psychologists rush in to help, they are not particularly successful.

Stanislav Andreski, a British sociologist, makes that point clear in comparing psychology and sociology to other
professions. He notes that when a profession is based on well-established knowledge, there ought to be a connection
between the number of practitioners and the results achieved:

"Thus, in a country which has an abundance of telecommunication engineers, the provision of telephonic facilities will
normally be better than in a country which has only a few specialists of this kind. The levels of mortality will be lower in
countries or regions where there are many doctors and nurses than in places where they are few and far between.
Accounts will be more generally and efficiently kept in countries with many trained accountants than where they are
scarce."

And what are the benefits produced by psychology and sociology? Professor Andreski continues:

"So, we should find that in countries, regions, institutions or sectors where the services of psychologists are widely used,
families are more enduring, bonds between the spouses, siblings, parents and children stronger and warmer, relations
between colleagues more harmonious, the treatment of recipients of aid better, vandals, criminals and drug addicts
fewer, than in places or groups which do not avail themselves of the psychologists' skills. On this basis we could infer
that the blessed country of harmony and peace is of course the United States; and that it ought to have been becoming
more and more so during the last quarter of the century in step with the growth in numbers of sociologists,
psychologists, and political scientists."

But this is not what has happened. On the contrary, things appear to be getting worse. Streets are unsafe. Families are in
tatters. Suicide cuts off young lives. And when the psychological society attempts to deal with such problems, it often
seems to make them worse. The introduction of suicide prevention centers in cities, for instance, is followed by a rise of
suicide. Marriage counseling often leads to divorce. And common-sense observation tells us that the introduction of
widespread public sex education has done nothing to check the increase of unwanted pregnancies, promiscuity, and
venereal disease. There is evidence, rather, that such programs encourage premature sexuality with its attendant
problems.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the prescription may be causing the disease.

"If we saw," writes Andreski, "that whenever a fire brigade comes, the flames become even fiercer, we might well begin
to wonder what it is that they are squirting, and whether they are not by any chance pouring oil on to the fire."

My first attempts at astrology was via psychological astrology and when I left the west and travelled and worked in the
other 2/3 of this world I quickly found out that its application was worth about as much as teats on a boar hog!It's
worthless judgments is what turned me in the early 90's to Classical and medieval astrology because it re-acquainted me
with the world of object reasoning and judgment instead of the flowery world of subjective "potential" evaluation that
has 0 basis in reality!

Our transformation into a psychological society has brought with it a new set of values. They are shallow and selfish
values for the most part, and they are the ruling values. But that is not the worst side of the situation. The disturbing
thing is the very effective suppression of alternatives as is brought out so well in all of Perry's articles!

It is the traditional or classical belief that it is the sacred things that give meaning to the rest of life. The effect of
suppressing the sacred vision has not been to make life more sunny and rational but to make it more absurd.
Psychologists have a habit of reductionism, of saying "this is nothing but this." Think of behaviorism, which tells us that
all behavior, no matter how worthy it may appear, is nothing but a chain of conditioned responses. Or Freudian
psychology, which claims that we are nothing but a system of psychic pumps, valves, and drains. Or physiological
psychology, which says that behavior is nothing but electrical impulses leaping across synapses.

Notice that in all cases, the "this" we end up with seems considerably less than the "this" we started off with.
Psychological thinking is reductionist in the full sense of the word. It reduces or makes smaller. It is always in the
business of ripping the curtain aside so that we may see that the Wizard [behind the curtain] is only a little man. This
approach amounts to saying that there is nothing behind things, or very little.

Popular psychological astrology will often appear as a psychic liberator--an intoxicating, vine-clad Bacchus. This, I
believe, is a mistake, the kind made by people who really know very little about psychology, and even less about
astrology. If you are looking for new worlds to explore, you had best look beyond psychology. It has the illusion of depth,
but then so do facing mirrors, and I am afraid psychology is very much like one of those hall of mirrors you find in an
amusement park. You get to see different facets and reflections of yourself, but that is all you see. A hall of mirrors is in
reality only a room, and sooner or later you will want to find your way out. You will want to find a door.

Classical and medieval astrology does not mix well with psychology. When you try to mix them, you often end up with a
watered-down astrology instead of a astrological based psychology.

MARTIEN HERMES

I would like to add something to your comments on Perry's article, which to me explains the problem modern
astrologers have in giving traditional astrology its due place.

I think there are three fields of knowledge – and also three fields of excellence – in astrology.
First we have astrology itself, as a worldview, stating and defining the paradigm(s) that are fundamental to its precepts,
methods and techniques. It is the ‘why?’ of astrology. Basically it says the heavens are the Logos of God, either in
speaking (Cosmic Soul), or in writing (the Christian view). This is knowledgebase #1.

Second we have horoscopy itself, which is applied astrology as a worldview. What is stated in the first field of
knowledge, is applied and worked out in the astrological instrument, the horoscope. Methods, techniques and doctrines
follow from the first field of knowledge, that explain the rationale behind the applied astrology. This is the second field.
The ‘how’ of astrology, what do you do with it? This is knowledgebase #2.

The third field, which is a modern one, is consultation skills. As we find no instructions at all in ancient texts on how to
deal with the people who have astrological readings, this field of expertise developed in the wake of modern astrology.
It was sorely needed! Client centered astrology is of course a much needed skill in addition to being a good reader of
charts. Communication skills enhance effective astrology, which itself is also a language. It also addresses ethics: ‘must
you really delineate and say everything you see in a chart?’ ‘Is it wise to talk about matters of life and death in a chart to
a client?’ et cetera. This field of kwnoledge can be further enhanced with therapy based on astrological findings or
chartreading. This is knowledgebase #3.

Okay, now here’s the problem. I have found that many modern astrologers exchange this third body of knowledge with
the first one, i.e. they confuse consultation skills, and the philosophies behind it, and the psychological dynamics of it, as
being the worldview of astrology, that inspires horoscopy.
This means that ancient cosmology (of knowledgebase #1) is replaced with secular humanistic psychological themes.
Cosmos becomes psyche, which is a much more narrow field of knowledge, and self-contradictory. Many a modern
astrologer is annoyed with traditional astrology as it refers mostly to knowledgebase #1 and #2, while the forte of
modern astrology is mainly knowledgebase #3.
Hence their confusion.

A Rejoinder to Glenn Perry’s Article ‘From Ancient to Postmodern

Astrology’
Posted by Chris Brennan on January 8, 2008 at 3:32 am14 Comments

I just finished reading an astonishingly misinformed article by Glenn Perry in the latest issue of the NCGR
Journal titled From Ancient to Postmodern Astrology, Toward a New Synthesis. Normally I would just let the
uninformed ravings of some random astrologer pass by without taking much notice and then continue on about
my day, but I was honestly caught off guard by the rather caustic nature of the article, as well as the string of
inaccurate and uninformed statements that it was riddled with. So, I thought that I would take the time to
address some of the issues with his article here. Such a misinformed and misleading tirade published by anyone
deserves to be rebuked and admonished, but especially when it is coming from a guy with a Ph.D who should
know better than to publish such a shoddy paper in an international journal.

Diatribe Par Excellence

While the title of the article implies that Perry intends to introduce or propose some sort of synthesis of modern
and traditional astrology, the vast majority of the rather lengthy 18 page article actually turns out to be just one
long diatribe directed against traditional forms of astrology in general. Actually, the emphasis of the article is
directed towards disputing and ridiculing the author’s own rather skewed and minimal understanding of
traditional astrology, which is not the same as saying that it is a legitimate critique of traditional astrology per
se. I say this because the author is clearly addressing the tradition without much background or knowledge of it,
which even Perry himself later admitted.
Perry actually reminds me of many of the modern day ‘skeptics’ or ‘debunkers’ of astrology who attack the
subject without really knowing much about it, and subsequently tend to make some pretty obvious mistakes in
the process. Perry even invokes the Barnum effect at one point on page 31, much like many modern debunkers
of astrology such as James Randi and Richard Dawkins are fond of doing. In general Perry also follows the
same framework that many modern ‘debunkers’ do, in relying mainly on his rhetorical abilities in order to get
his point across, rather than say, something more than a superficial understanding of the subject matter. This is
an interesting case though because Perry is actually an astrologer that simply has some sort of axe to grind with
the earlier traditions of astrology, for whatever reason. In the process of doing so Perry shows himself to be
quite an aspiring rhetorician, but rather incompetent when it comes to actual research and scholarship.

I will focus mainly on some of the more blatant mistakes in the article, many of which showcase Perry’s lack of
background or understanding of traditional astrology, as well as the history of astrology in general. (Update: for
another perspective see Ben Dykes’ article) The point of this little overview will be to highlight the fact that
Perry’s academic shortcomings far exceed his rhetoric, and thus undercut pretty much any point that he was
attempting to make.

Firmicus Maternus

On page 27 of the article Perry states that Firmicus Maternus’ Mathesis

…is considered the most detailed work on astrology to survive from the classical period

This is not really an accurate statement. While the Mathesis may be the longest text to have survived into the
present day, largely due to Firmicus’ cribbing of delineation material from other authors, it is generally accepted
by most people who have studied the tradition that the most detailed treatise on astrology that has survived from
the classical period is Vettius Valens’ nine book Anthology. James Holden writes in his book A History of
Horoscopic Astrology, which Perry cites at one point, that

…the Anthology affords us our best look at the materials available to and the procedures used by a Greek
astrologer of the Classical period.” (pg. 57, 1996)

Robert Schmidt makes the statement in his catalog of Hellenistic astrologers that

More than any other astrologer, Valens may represent the mainstream of the Hellenistic tradition.

Perry appears to know nothing of Valens’ work, outside of a few scattered quotes that he was able to collect
from secondary sources, so naturally this point escaped his notice.

Speaking of secondary sources though, if you look through Perry’s footnotes you will notice that citations of
primary source texts from traditional astrologers are conspicuously absent. He quotes from Wedel’s The
Medieval Attitude Towards Astrology for quotes from Bonatti, McCaffery’s Astrology: Its History and Influence
in the Western World for Ptolemy, West’s The Case For Astrology for Kepler, and Barton’s Ancient Astrology
for quotes from Firmicus and Valens.

So while Perry did a pretty good job of perusing the secondary literature in order to pick out catchy one liners
from various authorities, he never actually took the time to read any of the actual source texts! This completely
undercuts any argument that he makes about the techniques of traditional astrology being ‘highly questionable’,
not working in his ‘experience’ or being ‘unconvincing’ because when it comes down to it he doesn’t actually
know anything about the techniques, having never read any of the traditional manuals or authors. This fact can
be clearly demonstrated in the rather sophomoric mistakes that he makes in the rest of the article, as we will see.
Case Studies

In the next paragraph, on page 28, in order to somehow negate delineations provided by traditional astrologers
Perry speculates

we must assume that ancient astrologers were seriously compromised by a comparitive lack of reliable charts to
study.

This statement is shown to be somewhat faulty and meaningless when one examines the 100+ example charts
used in Valens’ Anthology, most of which clearly come from Valens’ own personal case studies, as well as
those of his predecessors. Perry would probably respond that he is speaking in relative terms, since he follows
up his speculation with the statement that

the modern astrologer can study more reliable charts in a week than a 1st century astrologer could study in a
lifetime.

Here Perry equates the number of charts that an astrologer has studied with the depth of his understanding of the
subject. This is arguably a rather questionable assumption to make.

Misunderstanding Sect

On page 29, in the context of attempting to discard the notion of ‘sect’, Perry tells us that

some planets are allegedly stronger during the day (Sun, Jupiter, Saturn), while others are stronger at night
(Moon, Venus, Mars). For example, if a person is born during the day and Mars is above the horizon with the
Sun, its functionality is allegedly weakened.

The problem with this statement is that sect isn’t a quantitative measurement, it is a qualitative measurement.
The sect status of a planet does not make it ‘stronger’ or ‘weaker’, as Perry assumes, but its main function is to
augment the benefic or malefic status or functioning of a planet. Perry’s ineptitude with respect to the subject
matter as well as his rhetorical ability shine through here because he is vehemently rejecting and even mocking
a technical concept that he doesn’t even fully understand. He even goes so far as to say that it is ‘impossible’ to
test the validity of the concept of sect, and

If there is no conceivable way to test the merit of a claim, then it is vacuous.

This is the very epitome of a straw man argument, in misrepresenting the nature of an opponent’s argument, in
this case a technical concept, and then rejecting it based on nothing more than your own mistaken assumptions
as to its purpose. Indeed, how could Perry test the concept if he doesn’t even understand how it is supposed to
be applied?

The Terms or Bounds

On the following page, in the context of disputing the ‘terms’ or ‘bounds’, Perry makes the faulty technical
statement that

a planet at 27 degrees of any sign would be in Saturn’s bounds…

Although I am not sure which version of the bounds he is referring to here, since there are several different sets,
this is a false statement nonetheless since Saturn’s bounds are not always located at the end of the signs, no
matter which system of bounds you use. So Perry has made a universal statement here, which happens to be
universally wrong. While this may be a simple technical oversight on Perry’s part, it is a rather obvious mistake
that he would have avoided if he had anything more than a passing understanding of the techniques underlying
traditional astrology.

The Exaltations

On the same page Perry attempts to dispute the exaltations, which are still used by modern astrologers, because

“unlike domiciles” they do “not follow a logical scheme for sign assignment”, and thus they “constitute an
arbitrary system…”

Perry, being less than knowledgeable as far as Hellenistic astrology is concerned, doesn’t know that there
actually is a logical scheme underlying the exaltations, which even ties in to the domicile assignments.
Antiochus and Porphyry point out that all of the diurnal planets have their exaltations in signs which are
configured to one of their domiciles by trine, and all of the nocturnal planets to one of their domiciles by sextile.
There is even a link to the houses that each of the planets are placed in when viewed in the context of the
Thema Mundi, which Schmidt points out in his forthcoming translation of Antiochus, and a pretty
straightforward rationale for how the domicile lord of each of the exaltation signs compliments the tendencies
of the exalted planet. This theory about the interaction between the domicile lord of a sign and an exalted planet
is spelled out by Rhetorius in his commentary on Antiochus’ work:

Why is it that where the Sun is exalted, there Kronos is depressed; and where Kronos is exalted, there the Sun is
depressed? We say that it is because the Sun is the storehouse of fire and light, and is the master of the day;
while conversely, Kronos, signifying the darkness, is cold. Then, at the place where the light of day is exalted,
there the darkness and the night is depressed, and that which is cold is warmed. But at the place where the
darkness is exalted, there the light is depressed and the day becomes shorter.

And again, why is it that at the place where Zeus is exalted, there Ares is depressed; and where Ares is exalted,
there Zeus is depressed? We say that it is because Zeus is the overseer of the life-breath and abundance, while
Ares is the overseer of death. Then, at the place where the life- breath increases, there the bringer of death is
depressed; and where death increases, there life is depressed.

And again, why is it that at the place where Aphrodite is exalted, there Hermes is depressed; and where Hermes
is exalted, there Aphrodite is depressed? We say that it is because Hermes is the master of arguments, while
Aphrodite is the overseer of desire and intercourse. Then, at the place where the intellectual increases, there the
desire and the pleasurable in intercourse is depressed. And where the appetitive and pleasurable is, exalted,
there the intellectual is depressed. … (From Antiochus of Athens, The Thesaurus, Translated by Robert
Schmidt, Project Hindsight, 1993, chapter 7.)

So, in fact the exaltation assignments are far from arbitrary, but they simply have their roots in a tradition and a
conceptual structure that Perry is entirely ignorant of. His ignorance of their systematic nature in the
astrological construct speaks more to his competence as an astrologer and a researcher than it does to their
validity or legitimacy in the system though. Even with their origins being somewhat obscure, it seems strange
for Perry to be disputing a concept that even many modern astrologers take for granted and use in their practice.

More on the Exaltations

Perry continues to exhibit his ineptitude with respect to the subject matter further down the page when he makes
the totally inaccurate and rather ridiculous statement that
In modern astrology, a dispositor is a planet that rules the sign that another planet is in… However, in
traditional astrology, a dispositor is a planet that is the exaltation ruler of a sign; thus, if Venus is in Aries, then
the Sun would disposit Venus since the Sun is allegedly exalted in Aries. But if the very concept of exaltations
is questionable, then the traditional method of assigning and assessing dispositors is likewise thrown into doubt.

Since he apparently didn’t read any of the source texts related to the subject matter of his article, Perry appears
to have gotten the idea that dispositorship only relates to the exaltation ruler of a sign, and that it was only
recently in modern astrology that dispositorship came to be associated with the domicile lord of a sign. Such a
statement is obviously as absurd as it is inaccurate, as the use of domicile lords as dispositors can be seen in
every single text on astrology from the 1st century through the 17th century. Perry of course gives no citation
for this bogus notion that he concocted, since none exist. It is interesting though, because it seems to explain
part of the reason why he doesn’t understand the function of the exaltations, and thus why he would reject them,
since for Perry a lack of understanding or insufficient knowledge of something apparently does not preclude its
rejection.

Anachronism

On the same page again Perry makes another obvious mistake when he says

I may observe that someone with Venus in Pisces in the 8th house negotiates financial transactions in a
deceptive manner… To say, however, that Venus is exalted in Pisces and is in the house of its detriment are
simply vague value judgements.

What he did here was to equate the signs with the houses, which is commonly done in modern astrology, but
was not done in traditional astrology, particularly in the Hellenistic and Medieval traditions. The notion that the
8th house = the sign Scorpio, the sign of Venus’ ‘detriment’, is more of a modern notion, which makes this
statement totally anachronistic, not to mention misleading since he also implies that a delineation of some sort
would not have been made for that placement by a traditional astrologer.

Misunderstanding the Timelords

Later Perry dismisses the Hellenistic ‘time-lord’ systems with the rather abrasive and prejudiced statement that

the technique of time lords in which different planets allegedly rule various periods appears so obviously made
up and arbitrary that it is difficult to understand how any person of discernment could believe in it. Each planet
is assigned a period of time, which purportedly determines the general tone of the life for that duration, e.g.,
Saturn rules 11 years, the Sun rules 10 years, Mercury rules 13 years, and so on.

In a footnote right after the first sentence in the above statement he explains that

Time lords are tied to bound or term systems, of which there are several variations – Ptolemaic, Chaldean,
Egyptian, and one created by Vettius Valens. Variations of the division of signs into differing periods
underscores that the system is made-up and arbitrary.

There are two problems here. The first is that in the footnote Perry refers to one specific time lord system,
sometimes called ‘circumambulations’, or ‘circumambulations through the bounds’. The problem is that the
actual time periods associated with the planets that he listed (i.e. ‘Saturn rules 11 years, the Sun rules 10 years,
Mercury rules 13 years’, etc.) come from a completely different Medieval time lord system known as Fidaria,
and the Fidaria system isn’t actually based on the bounds at all, as he claims all time lord systems are his
footnote. He is conflating two entirely different systems or techniques.
Second, the circumambulations time lord system is the only time lord system that is based on the bounds; there
are several other time lord systems that have nothing to do with the bounds. If not for the random conflation of
the Fidaria periods in the same paragraph in which he defines the time lord systems as always being “tied to
bound or term systems” in the footnote, then one would be led to assume that Perry is only aware of one of the
many time lord systems. Instead he appears to be aware of, but not quite able to accurately define, two time lord
systems.

While I guess that knowing about two time lord systems is better than just knowing about one, there are at least
7 major time lord systems in the Hellenistic tradition alone, as well as a host of others in the Medieval and
Indian traditions. With Perry’s lack of familiarity with the numerous time lord systems in the different
traditions, as well as his inability to even properly define the two systems that he is apparently aware of, what
basis does he really have for rejecting them?

More Faulty Statements About the Time Lords

Later in the same paragraph on time lords on page 31 Perry trumpets his minimal attempt at research into the
subject matter of his article even further with the statement that the time periods used in the time lord systems

do not correspond to actual planetary motions, i.e., they are not observational statements, but random
suppositions.

While Perry may simply be referring to his previous confused statements about the only two systems that he
appears to be aware of, this statement can be proven wrong in at least two other time lord systems contained in
Valens’ Anthology, which are partially based on the synodic cycles of the visible planets (i.e. the 8 year period
of Venus, the 12 year period of Jupiter, etc.), which are ‘actual planetary motions’.

The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy

On page 31 Perry makes what would be a pretty normal historical statement about 30 or 40 years ago, prior to
the widespread advent of scholarship on the history of astrology, with the statement that Ptolemy was

the grand master of Hellenistic astrology.

This view was prevalent back when Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos was the only real Hellenistic astrological text
available, and astrologers like Perry simply assumed that Ptolemy was the most competent and representative
astrologer of the Hellenistic tradition. Since the mid-80′s this common assumption has been rejected though,
once more texts from the Hellenistic tradition became available and it was realized that Ptolemy was actually
not representative of the mainstream of Hellenistic astrology, but rather he was more of a reformer. Some
people such as Holden have questioned whether or not he was even a practicing astrologer:

Ptolemy cites no astrological authorities by name, he gives no example horoscopes, and he certainly was not a
practicing astrologer. (Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology, 1996, pp. 48-49.)

The Luxury of Ignorance

Towards the end of Perry’s article it culminates with what seems to have been the implied premise of his rather
dubious argument all along

Exponents of traditional astrology frequently claim that superior, ancient techniques are now being recovered
for future generations. I find this claim, like the techniques themselves, unconvincing. The history of science is
one in which ideas that prove to be insufficient, untestable, or invalid are gradually eliminated, like vestigial
organs that no longer serve a purpose. It would appear that this is what happened to much of traditional
astrology…

Realizing that he is making a totally bogus claim, and likely in an attempt to soften his diatribe, Perry
backtracks a bit before he ends the sentence

…although it can be argued that its near demise in the 18th century was more for sociopolitical reasons than
scientific.

This last statement appears to have been tacked on in order to lessen the impact of the dubious historical
argument that he was trying to put forward with respect to the reason why much of traditional astrology didn’t
make it into the 20th century. Here lies, I believe, the crux of Perry’s argument, as well as his prejudices against
traditional astrology.

Perry’s writing indicates, and he even admits himself, that he knows very little about the techniques or the
concepts underlying traditional astrology, as I have demonstrated, thus his evaluation of the tradition is not
based on his actual experience with the techniques, but instead it is almost entirely based on his presuppositions
about their nature and provenance. Perry appears to be approaching the entire matter under the dubious
historical context that the techniques of traditional astrology were consciously discarded because they were
found to be of no value. This is a common, albeit mistaken, historical assumption that is made by many modern
astrologers, particularly by those who have not investigated the history and transmission of astrology.
Perpetuating this myth is quite possibly the biggest mistake that Perry makes in the entire paper.

Modern astrology, as it was practiced in the 20th century and as it is practiced even today by the majority of
western astrologers in the early 21st century, was not the result of a linear development and refinement of the
subject over the centuries which culminated in the form that it is in today. This is one of the great myths
surrounding modern astrological practice. Rather, modern western astrology is largely the result of a handful of
influential 20th century astrologers who inherited a few fragments of the astrological tradition and then created
a new construct around it which was then infused with their own religious, ethical and theoretical speculations.
Rob Hand explains this matter in his article Towards a Post-Modern Astrology:

…we have astrology up until about 1700, which had certain consistent patterns, ideas and principles and which
had a more or less a continuous tradition from something like – this date is extremely flexible – the fifth century
B.C.E. Then, in the 18th century we had a very long break. Conventional historians refer to this as the
Enlightenment. I prefer the term “Endarkenment,” based on what happened in astrology – it almost died. And
then in the 19th century a revival began, which for most of the 19th century was a revival of a portion of the
tradition that had nearly died in 1700.

But then with Alan Leo, and more recently people like Dane Rudhyar, and on another level people like the
Hamburg School and Cosmobiology of Ebertin, a rather new kind of astrology began coming into existence,
which it might be appropriate simply to call 20th century astrology, but I would like to call modern astrology.

Although recognizable in some of its basic technical principles, Modern astrology is actually quite different
than any system of astrology that was practiced in the various ancient traditions of the past, both technically and
in its theoretical and philosophical approach. The reason for this disparity between the ancient and modern
traditions is largely due to this gap in the astrological tradition between the 17th and 19th centuries when
astrology fell into disrepute and the techniques and concepts of the tradition stopped being transmitted. While
Perry’s inability to truly comprehend and accurately identify these distinctions between modern and ancient
astrology make the majority of his technical and philosophical critiques completely worthless, his argument
about the historical evolution of astrology which disregards the fact that there was a break in the transmission is
completely unfounded and inexcusable.
Concluding Remarks

Simply put, Perry has no business critiquing, much less rejecting or berating, a form of astrology that he knows
so little about.

My critique of his article has mainly been directed towards highlighting his technical mistakes and assumptions,
and I have not addressed the faulty philosophical arguments made in the article. A critique of Perry’s
philosophical misassumptions would be as long as this article on the technical issues has been, although I am
confident that these problems will be addressed by other astrologers in the near future who find his rather
shallow philosophical treatment to be as misleading and apprehensive as I did. (Update: see Ben Dyke’s
response)

Ultimately Perry’s article is more annoying than anything, because instead of engaging in some sort of
productive research or dialog he wastes his time writing frivolous and inaccurate attacks against the work of his
colleagues. He of course pays lip service to the main figures who have been leading the movement that he just
spent 18 pages attacking when he says towards the end of the article that

Regardless of why traditional astrology fell into disrepute, a huge debt of gratitude is owed to researchers like
Robert Schmidt, Robert Zoller, and Robert Hand for restoring our history.

The ironic part about these concluding remarks is that the work of these three scholars has already made a major
impact on the astrological community and will probably continue to influence astrologers for generations to
come. While their names will go down in the history books as those who made an effort to reconceptualize,
improve and reunite the astrological traditions, the names of others who engage in the type shallow scholarship
exemplified by the article under consideration will simply be forgotten.

Rules for Asking Horary Questions – Chris Brennan

There are a few important rules to keep in mind when asking a horary question. Please take a moment to read
through the rules below before you send me your question, as they play an important role in both helping to
properly formulate horary questions, as well as in determining which questions I can actually answer.

 The question must be important to the person asking it. This statement has two meanings. The first
is that in order for a horary chart to give an accurate answer the question must have a significant degree
of mental or emotional meaning to the person who is asking it. Trivial matters do not make for good
horary questions. In some sense it is best if the person asking the question is so consumed by it and
needs it answered badly enough that it almost doesn't matter what the outcome is, because they simply
want to know the answer even if it doesn't work out the way that they would prefer. A good horary
question is one that has been eating away at a person for at least a night and a day, so much so that by
the time that it is posed to the astrologer it has fully matured and can be articulated very precisely. The
other meaning to the above rule is that a horary question has to have great importance to the questioner
him or herself in a personal way, and therefore questions should not be asked for other people, or about
other people's business unless it has direct personal meaning to the person asking. Some would object to
this rule, and in certain cases there are exceptions, but in general I ask that this be followed pretty
closely by my clients.
 The question must be answerable. This seems pretty self-explanatory. The question must be verifiable.
Horary doesn't work very well with most spiritual questions concerning karma, or reincarnation,
theology and other such things like speculative history and philosophy for example. For example, "what
 is the meaning of life" is not a legitimate horary question, since there is no viable way to answer the
question with the techniques of horary astrology.
 The question can only be asked once. This is a generally accepted rule for most forms of divination,
such as Tarot and the I-Ching for example. The only possible exception being that if a great deal of time
has passed and circumstances have changed significantly since the last time you asked the question, then
it may be permissible to ask the question again in light of the new circumstances.
 Only one question at a time. This is also a pretty simple and generally accepted rule. At any given
horary consultation only one question may be asked at that time. Part of the reason being that this
ensures that the question asked is of the utmost importance to the querent. The other reason is that
horary astrology relies on a very narrow technical framework, and within the context of that framework
it is usually not possible to distinguish between multiple questions in the same chart. So, only one
question per horary.

Proper and Improper Horary Questions

Horary can be much more specific and precise than natal astrology, which can be both good and bad in certain
instances. While it is very good at answering specific questions like "will I get the job?", it is not very good at
asking broader ranging questions such as "what kind of a career am I best suited for?".

Most horary questions should be answerable with a straight forward 'yes' or 'no' response. Additionally, the
question should be directed towards determining something that either will or will not happen in the future,
although it should not be directed towards determining whether the questioner 'should' or should not do
something in the future. Horary is useful for determining what will happen in the future, but it is not very useful
for asking advice about what actions one should take.

For example "should I take the job offer?" would not be an appropriate horary question, because whether or not
the job 'should' be taken is ambiguous and involves some sort of subjective value judgement about the quality of
the job and its appropriateness for you at that point in your life, presumably. A more appropriate horary
question would be "will I get the job?" because it references something that definitely will or will not happen in
the future, and thus it has a straightforward yes or no answer. This is important because the second question can
be depicted in a horoscopic chart with much less ambiguity or subjective value judgements on my part, whereas
that is not the case in the first instance.

So, please do not pose questions about what you 'should' do, but instead think more in terms of questions about
what 'will' happen in the future.

One final point here: the question answered by the horary chart is always the one that is posed to the astrologer,
exactly as it is phrased, so it is important to think about your question quite a bit beforehand and to phrase it
very precisely.