25
Mark wrote:Kirk wrote:
Astrology has always had this uneasy blend of the factual and the imaginal.
Indeed. This sounds very reminiscent of Geoffrey Cornelius' ideas in his book 'The Moment of Astrology'. He used the terms of an astrology based on supposed 'causes' versus 'signs'. Sounds like this discussion is migrating to the philosophy forum.... Mark
Im not British but am an Empiricist.
I suggest testing claims rather than wonderful philosophical lectures on grandiose ideas :lala

26
jorge wrote: Im not British but am an Empiricist.
I suggest testing claims rather than wonderful philosophical lectures on grandiose ideas :lala
You say this, but what does this mean? In what sense are you an empiricist and to what level have you tested the claims? Be they of sidereal astrology or tropical astrology?
That suggests seasonal influences(winter,moist etc) which again ,are a headache if you`re an Australian Astrologer. An Aquarius born in Sydney would then have Sunny,dry qualities like Leo,rather than Saturnine ones.
Remember those were the days of flat Earth. If you wanted to learn Astronomy would you by a book by Ptolemy or by say,Carl Sagan?
If you disagree with tropical astrology then you should consider taking up sidereal astrology. There is a sidereal forum on this website with some great sidereal astrologers who participate on this newly created forum.

Some tropical astrologers in the antipodes do indeed alter their understanding of the signs to accommodate for the seasonal differences. I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, just observing that it happens.

I agree that the hemisphere issues are a potential problem with the tropical model but also agree that there are equally problems with the sidereal model. Nothing is perfect. We're just going to have to deal with that.

In the meantime we return to the issue of Aquarius and being individualistic, or not.
I personally do not think that Aquarius is all that individualistic, not any more so than any other sign. I do not think that 'individualism' is determined by one planetary placement with respect of only examining its dignity in a sign. I dont' think that makes sense to me and I don't think I've observed it to be true in reality.

27
Paul wrote:
jorge wrote: Im not British but am an Empiricist. I suggest testing claims rather than wonderful philosophical lectures on grandiose ideas :lala
You say this, but what does this mean? In what sense are you an empiricist and to what level have you tested the claims? Be they of sidereal astrology or tropical astrology?
That suggests seasonal influences(winter,moist etc) which again ,are a headache if you`re an Australian Astrologer. An Aquarius born in Sydney would then have Sunny,dry qualities like Leo,rather than Saturnine ones. Remember those were the days of flat Earth. If you wanted to learn Astronomy would you by a book by Ptolemy or by say,Carl Sagan?
If you disagree with tropical astrology then you should consider taking up sidereal astrology. There is a sidereal forum on this website with some great sidereal astrologers who participate on this newly created forum. Some tropical astrologers in the antipodes do indeed alter their understanding of the signs to accommodate for the seasonal differences. I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, just observing that it happens. I agree that the hemisphere issues are a potential problem with the tropical model but also agree that there are equally problems with the sidereal model. Nothing is perfect. We're just going to have to deal with that. In the meantime we return to the issue of Aquarius and being individualistic, or not. I personally do not think that Aquarius is all that individualistic, not any more so than any other sign. I do not think that 'individualism' is determined by one planetary placement with respect of only examining its dignity in a sign. I dont' think that makes sense to me and I don't think I've observed it to be true in reality.
Actually the more i read Manwaring on Aquarius the more I think it rules Scandinavia ans the Sun and Leo the South especially Italy, but the entire south was heavily influenced by Rome,hence the gaps betwen the powerful, who are above the law, and the poor.
The individualistic Aquarius is a Uranian thing

28
Kirk writes:
The signs have taken on some pretty radically different characteristics the past century or so. In the astrological literature of the two thousand years before 20th century astrology you don't find talk of Aquarius being individualistic or rebellious, or of Leo dancing around and wearing a lampshade on its head ? anything to get some attention.
In a later post, Mark quotes Deb on some of the more ancient attributions. In our modern world view, perceiving Aquarius as "Uranian" and therefore wild and perky, we tend to forget that this is a fixed sign -- solid and unalterable. Horoscopic astrology had been going along quite nicely for some 1900 years before the discovery of Uranus. At that time Aquarius was ruled by Saturn. It was cold, windy, and rainy, according to the Greeks. Its most positive quality was that it seemed to have the ability to develop Saturn's more philosophical side (though even this could be a bit morose, as Ficino points out in his constant recommendations that Saturnian intellectuals ought to spend their time walking in bright meadows, seeking sunlight, and eating concoctions of cinnamon and honey to restore their solar joy).

While I admit that I have met individuals with a large Aquarian component who do seem to fit the modern, "Uranian" personality profile of Aquarius, I have met just as many who exemplify the Saturnian side. If you want a superb historical example of an Aquarian with a Saturnian consciousness and appearance, try Abraham Lincoln.

I think it is best not to make snap judgments about Aquarians. Got to check 'em out and see where they're coming from.

30
kirk,

it seems as though you have attempted to suck all the air out of aquarius and make it very wet! so which will it be - aquarius standing apart, or connecting? air separates while water connects is my simple understanding of the elements as they relate to astrology...

the aquarius symbol of a person carrying water, is not the same as the fish that represent the following sign pisces for example. i believe the focus is on the person, with what they are carrying a 2ndary consideration.. aquarius always seem to come across as ideologues, fairly fixed in their view point.. i associate this with the fixed quality of the '''air''' sign..

32
dorian gieseler greenbaum wrote a very good book on temperament.. perhaps you have read it too? i am familiar with the ''hot, cold, wet, and dry" principles as applied to astrological thinking, and how they overlap onto the elements..

i like your answer "both" as it implies an ability to see the relativity of astrology.. astrology as symbolic language is something different from astrology as unchangeable... i think this is where the dilemma about how to incorporate uranus in a contemporary practice of astrology presents itself.. whether one wants to make an association with the sign aquarius and uranus is an individual choice... whether one wants to observe the role of uranus in a chart by transit and etc etc and make these types of symbolic astrological associations that astrologers typically make is also an individual decision. to ignore these outer planets is also an option too, but not one i have made! i do see a connection with uranus to aquarius fwiw, even if i can find no reference to it in a traditional astrology book from a few hundred years ago..

33
I've really never felt or understood why a fixed sign would somehow match the planet of sudden change and disruption. It's never made sense to me, and, for what it's worth, if we are to even go down the old sun sign route, I don't know any people with aquarius strong in their chart who are prone to suddenly changing or to disruption. They're just pretty much like the other fixed signs in that they don't change or adapt as quickly as some others. They prefer to weather it out.

I don't use modern rulerships, but I do use the outer planets and do have a sense of "this planet can correlate with that sign" or recognise some overlap. I personally see Uranus as having more overlap or correlation with Aries as it happens. There is a sense of inception, volatility and change which I think matches both.

34
Well, as an Aquarian, I can say that whatever the book preach, Saturn rules Aquarius.
I don't think we really have a handle on the Outer Three yet, and it may take another hundred years before we do.
All the hype about the "Uranian Aquarian" is nice, it sounds good, but it simply isn't true. It makes us sound romantic, possibly even visionary, but Aquarius is a fixed as Gibraltar, and as flexible as a steel pipe.

35
LeeRutland wrote:Well, as an Aquarian, I can say that whatever the book preach, Saturn rules Aquarius.
I don't think we really have a handle on the Outer Three yet, and it may take another hundred years before we do.
All the hype about the "Uranian Aquarian" is nice, it sounds good, but it simply isn't true. It makes us sound romantic, possibly even visionary, but Aquarius is a fixed as Gibraltar, and as flexible as a steel pipe.
Spoken like someone with an Aquarian emphasis; my Dad had some too, and Sa was the man.

- Ed

36
Kirk wrote: The qualities assigned to Uranus and then recently brought to Aquarius seem too self-consciously 'individualistic'. We're probably all a little tired of hearing about the baby-boomers, but the focus of and upon youth had a huge and lasting effect. From the late 1960s Uranus and Aquarius have been adapted to cater to a society that prizes and aims at forming 'individuals' that stand apart from a collective norm (while at the same time still maintaining norms for everyone to follow ? economically based, it seems). That's the commonly vaunted 'individuality' of the recently created Uranus/Aquarius model. But these are the concerns and desires of youth and its impatience. The resultant image is of self-focused chatter and busyness. However, Aquarius is a much slower and more thoughtful sign than is now (erroneously) believed.
Any references?

What I find odd about this, although I am well aware by now Psychological Astrology is not something you have looked into, is that this model, which emerged in the 70's and is arguably the manstream Western schema nowadays, does not associate the 'Individual' with either Aquarius or Uranus. So one wonders who does in this 'contemporary' arena you are commenting on.