Some late-life Bradley views on houses
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:48 pm
In the July 1970 issue of American Astrology, the following appeared as part of an answer to a reader's letter. It was signed only "Research Department," which is code for "ghost written by Donald Bradley."
Research Dept wrote:Readers will notice, incidentally, that among the more advanced astrological writers there is a decided downplaying, often a complete ignoring, of specific meanings for the various houses. The more thoughtful viewpoint, in serious astrology as something distinct from popular or commercial astrology, holds that the houses should be interpreted in a psychological context rather than in literal terms. Care should be taken to avoid a too rigid habit of thinking even using this more subjective approach, simply because studies of actual cases show a considerable breach between what is widely assumed to be true (as taught by standard texts) and what is actually so. For example, if it is true that the 5th house rules "children" in even an indirect way, it would be reasonable to expect that the birth of babies, not to mention other major events concerning offspring, would be related in some way by transits, progressions, or what have you, to mothers' 5th houses, but unbiased research shows this not to be the case. Likely, yt would be reasonable to expect the showing of at least an above-average specialness of the 3rd houses of identical twins who spend their lives together, but this logical house emphasis simply fails to be in evidence when actual cases are scrutinized. Obviously, the old-fashioned approach to house meanings leaves a lot to be desired in actual field work with astrology. The challenging task of serious astrologers is to separate fact from fancy, and empirical results from wishful thinking. When enough truly useful information has been isolated and disseminated, such fair but ticklish questions as the one you asked [not quoted in this excerpt will no longer prove embarrassing to answer without hedging.