On Sudden Onset vs Gradual Development Debate
© 2017, Curtis Manwaring
I really don't understand the reason why the astrological community is even having this debate about sudden onset vs gradual development. It really boils down to who created what and when it was created. Then relatively arbitrary labels get attached to the development of techniques, some of which such as the Hellenistic label suggest that the reason for the commonalities in "Hellenistic" astrology is because Alexander the Great caused the whole region to be under one primarily Greek speaking culture which can only be partially true. If one thinks of the Akashic record, the actual reality is likely to be much more complicated than that.
This argument boils down to this:
- All new developments in astrology are always sudden onset at the time the astrologer invented the idea.
- All modifications to any pre-existing ideas are always gradual development.
The above argument is fundamentally about how you want to think about a somewhat arbitrary classification. Clearly we can see that both of the above happened, that there is clearly a systematic theoretic philosophy and also modifications to these core ideas.
Which brings me to the next point, that Schmidt isn't calling what Eudoxus is alleged to have done "Hellenistic" astrology. But now calls it "Greek" astrology. The alleged astrology of Eudoxus is not the same animal in a number of different respects to what was being practiced by Valens, Thrysallus, etc...