193
Hi everybody

The topic of planetary rulerships is one that I have given a lot of thought to over the years. In fact, I am currently working on a magazine article pertaining to this theme.

Over time, I experimented with various approaches, but my conclusion is that the assignment of Uranus to Aquarius, Neptune to Pisces, and Pluto to Scorpio really works best. However, it's true that the ancient rulership system is geometrically and philosophically very pleasing. Can it be reconciled with the modern approach? I think so.

I have found strong evidence that the classical planets that were formerly exclusively ruling these signs should still be considered co-rulers. For reasons of symmetry, it could be argued that Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto should then be co-rulers of Capricorn, Sagittarius, and Aries. This is an area open to research.

Does it make sense to assign Saturn and Uranus to the same sign(s)? Well, the reactionary and the revolutionary have more in common than one might first assume. The two resemble each other in their intransigence and pursuit of standardization. Indeed, whether somebody is seen as belonging to one or the other category often depends only on the observer's ideological perspective. And it is a sad fact that a revolution often leads to a system that is worse than the one it has overthrown. Furthermore, bear in mind the interdependence of science (nature's laws; Saturn) and technology (Uranus).

Of the four signs that, in the modern scheme, still share their rulers with another sign, I believe that Gemini and Libra are most directly expressing the nature of the respective classical planets per se, so Taurus and Virgo would still be waiting for their new primary rulers. I don't quite agree with the attempts to assign various asteroids to these signs. Even though, from my experience, these bodies ARE influential and may be associated with certain signs, they are not planets, after all - they belong to a different class.

Neither would I assign sign rulerships to the various Plutoids. I didn't get to an in-depth study of the subject yet, but the observation that they are all quite plutonian may be applicable.

The scheme that I am suggesting coincides with a model I found in "Lehrbuch der klassischen Astrologie" by traditional astrologer Rafael Gil Brand. Brand fits the caducaeus (Hermes' wand, bearing the twin snakes) into the classical diagram. The "snake of the Moon" connects the classical planets, winding itself from Saturn in Capricorn to Jupiter in Sagittarius, Mars in Aries, Venus in Libra, Mercury in Gemini, and finally to the Moon in Cancer. The "snake of the Sun" connects all the transsaturnians, from Uranius in Aquarius to Neptune in Pisces, Pluto in Scorpio, a still undiscovered planet in Taurus, another in Virgo, and finally to the Sun in Leo. First, one might wonder about the Sun being associated with the transsaturnians. But I remember Dane Rudhyar writing that, just like Mars is balanced by Venus, etc., the outer planets find their counterpoise in the interior of the Sun. Also, the transsaturnians are opening the solar system to the stellar world - and isn't the Sun a star, really?

There is indeed strong astronomical evidence for the existence of still undiscovered major bodies in our solar system. On the one hand, the Kuiper belt breaks off at a distance of approximately 48 astronomical units. This could well be due to the gravity of a further planet, which would at the same time explain the extremely eccentric orbits of some TNOs (Transneptunian Objects) such as Sedna. Additionally, the anomalous retrograde perihelion precession derived from recent data collected by the Cassini spacecraft strongly suggests the existence of one or more undiscovered planets.

Talking about first principles, I like to regard astrology as a basically simple system of archetypes that are being expressed on the three levels of: signs (spiritual background), planets (mind) and houses (physical expression); therefore having twelve signs, twelve houses, twelve planets makes perfect sense.

The nature of Uranus in terms of the four elements is an interesting question. This planet is certainly quite airy but at the same time fiery (in the way of electricity); so one could easily tend to associate it with Aries.

In response to Mark's inquiry into celestial light, I would suggest reading the relevant chapters in Frances A. Yates: Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition as a point of departure. Yates treats this topic at length.

Michael

194
waybread wrote: Paul, I am not out to "discredit your argument" through Hellenistic astrology! Rather, I had hoped to be helpful to Mark's OP project (which apparently he has now moved-beyond) of identifying one strand in traditional astrology's rich history that seemed to offer an opening for a more flexible view of planets in detriment, exaltation, and fall.
Waybread, according to you (Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:31 pm) the reason was to weaken the argument of association via detriment of the Sun. This is what I was referring to. This was many pages back so it can be hard to keep track.
I find this passage bewildering. If it relates to the OP, then I hope you will clarify it. However, if you feel I've belaboured Hellenistic astrology for too long already, perhaps this is a digression, as well? Again, the Hellenists had multiple doctrines: do you mean, something more specific, like a method/ology?
I mean to refer to the several times and places on this thread where you've suggested that my idea of disinclination against Uranus with Aquarius because of my association with the Sun not working in Hellenistic astrology. You have defended the focus on Hellenistic astrology particularly and it is this apparent contradiction that I have in mind.
If Hellenistic astrology is the best way to understand domicile dignity then why ignore the rulership scheme as per Hellenistic astrologers? If it is not the best way, then why the major focus on it?

This is what I meant. You've made away from this now, which is good, but that is what that quoted paragraph referred to.
In the matter of terms, faces, triplicities..... The opening argument ran something like this. 1. Mars (A) is like Uranus (C). 2. Mars (A) rules Aries (B) 3. Therefore Uranus (C) affiliates with Aries (B). My point was that essential dignities don't entirely work this way. There's no straw man: just the table of essential dignities to substantiate my point. We have several traditional authors stressing the significance of traditional sign divisions, for example. To Firmicus Maternus 2.6.1:
Right, and I guess to belabour my own point which doesn't seem to have been understood, Mark never mentioned triplicities or term dignity for Uranus - hence it's lack of relevance to Marks' point - and more importantly, Mark EXPLICITY stated that he wasn't making this association of Uranus to Aries as part of the doctrine of essential dignities. So countered an argument not made by anyone on the thread - hence my accidental strawman, accidental because it is based on holding to the mistaken notion that Mark is talking about essential dignity.

This doesn't appear to have sunk in your post that I quote from, your later posts appear to accept that premise better.
My memory of past posts is good but imperfect. On an association of Mars with cardinality I'll merely stand by what I wrote. Say it again, Paul--that I am not "damned if I do, and damned if I don't." I wonder. :lol:
Waybread I'm afraid I do not know what this refers to. My memory is equally good but not imperfect so I may have forgotten or understood some context here. For the record I was referring to Uranus and caridnality (not Mars) and the damned if you do and damned if you don't was in relation to your position regarding aquarius and uranus. These were your sentiments (Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:00 am), I was merely offering you a way around it by examining Aquarius pre-Uranus, especially as you have been so focused on Hellenistic authors, it would seem to correlate to your interests too.

195
Mark wrote: I never suggested it was 'dignified' in Aries. Just that in terms of world events it is far more activist than many other signs. However, the analogy I made with Mars and the Sun being dignified in Aries sounds very like that so it was rather a weak and confusing way to make a point about a Mars-Sun nature to Uranus.
Thanks for the sanity checks and agreement on ideas. It's good to know that someone of your knowledge and experience has similar thoughts.

Just to clarify the above, that you never suggested Uranus was dignified in Aries is precisely my point (I had waybread's domicile dignity in mind here) - if Uranus was dignified in Aries we might want to factor that into an interpretation, but of course we're not saying that.

I take Deb's point about Mars as dispositor, but it makes me want to examine the nature of when Uranus was in Scorpio and see if the same kind of timbre is there too. It's food for thought for me. I think ultimately if I was to associate Uranus with Mars, it might be better to say the diurnal qualities of Mars in the sense of their association with the diurnal sign, and less so with Mars as ruler of Scorpio. I think because I first of all made the connection of Uranus as having the nature of Mars and the Sun, this came first and then noticing how similar that was to Aries, in certain way, came second. It's similar in a way I don't think fixed water Scorpio is. Obviously the expression of any planet is influenced by the planet which disposes of its affairs and hosts it in its sign, so perhaps, in terms of practical astrology, this host relationship is probably more useful (as Deb is implying). I suspect it probably is.
The more I contemplate Brady's idea of 'association without rulership' the more nebulous and impractical I feel it is.
Right, in fact it may just be a case of paying lip service to both traditional and modern astrologers - it's okay traditionalists, your scheme isn't at risk, we're calling it something else, it's okay modernists, your planet associations are being kept. Sounds like a nice inoffensive compromise. But I just wonder about how practical it is, whether it provides us with any information that is useful. For me, I just think the Uranus-Aries connection is helpful as a kind of mnemonic more than anything, and is more about not recognising the Uranus-Aquarius connection than anything else. If we follow the planet is like sign approach of modern astrology then aries would have made more sense for me. Not that I delineate charts and start talking about Uranus' affinity in Aries and therefore [insert some astrological conclusion]. I think we're probably on similar wave-lengths here too.

196
Paul wrote:
Mark wrote:The more I contemplate Brady's idea of 'association without rulership' the more nebulous and impractical I feel it is.
Right, in fact it may just be a case of paying lip service to both traditional and modern astrologers - it's okay traditionalists, your scheme isn't at risk, we're calling it something else, it's okay modernists, your planet associations are being kept. Sounds like a nice inoffensive compromise. But I just wonder about how practical it is, whether it provides us with any information that is useful.
i think you're both correct to focus on this idea in this manner, as i do see it this way too. but, lets break it down a bit more... i think it is really about the role of rulership in astrology and how a planet ruling a sign helps bring the astrologer back to the sign/house where the said planet is supposed to rule being an important source for giving us more information on what the planet will be doing in the chart.. that is how i understand the idea of rulership and the basis for the importance of making this 'rulership' as opposed to 'association' connection.

then there is the philosophical issue of the wonderful pattern of rulerships that is broken if one incorporates an outer planet into the concept of rulership. it is almost like you are making a particular fashion statement, as opposed to focusing on the usefulness of it, or the clothes have to be useful in a specific manner and why bother adding something into this that isn't useful - or to use both of your word 'practical'?

personally i think there is something more to this then whether it is practical or not, but then i am not all that practical a person! i like the concept of a planet having an association with a sign. i think this is really what the basis of mars and sun have an association with aries and would have been some or much of the basis for the idea of rulership too.. at any rate, perhaps it all depends on the type of practicality one expresses whether they will incorporate uranus or not and just how they will incorporate it at all.. some astrologers very much into traditional astrology include uranus in their observations - deb, mark, and etc. etc. - and some don't - konrad and etc. etc.. the reasons for including it or not are all very personal it seems and may or may not be based on the usefulness or practicality of including uranus in all of this..

197
Nixx,

I wonder how much of Uranus' "sudden change" personality derives from the fact that the discovery of this planet is the very exemplar of sudden change to astrology. The American and French Revolutions obviously fit in here, buttress the case. But the revolution closest to home could arguably be that, after some three or four thousand years of astrology with seven planets, we suddenly had an eighth.

I think all the common descriptors of Uranus would apply to the subjective experience of astrologers as the planet was revealed and regarded. Here is something that came out of the blue, in a relative flash, challenging the old order, etc. Here is a planet literally acting its part.

Also, Uranus' sudden discovery and location beyond Saturn seems congruent to its symbolic relationship to that planet of limitations and boundaries.

It would then beg the question: was Uranus acting its part, or defining its part? Looked at from an "as above, so below" standpoint, this question becomes moot.

Phil

198
Hi Mark-- you wrote:
Perhaps the deeper question for us both to contemplate is can two logically contradictory approaches be equally accurate? Our answer, whatever it might be, surely tells is something profound about the nature of astrology.
Yes, absolutely! Perhaps we've all seen traditional and modern western, as well as Vedic/jyotish astrology, produce uncanny results. And the differences between these systems are striking. More and more, this leads me to think that astrology is a form of divination.

Hey, Mark-- with my sun, Mercury, and Venus in Aquarius (and sun trine Uranus conjunct MC) would you really expect me not to stick up for my beliefs????

While I don't think the Uranus-Aquarius rulership of modern astrology is inviolable, to poke sticks at it should equally make traditional astrology's standards open to question, no?
Have you noticed the strong historical association between Uranus in Aries and revolutions and rebellions? How do you reconcile that fact with your existing views?
I don't see a contradiction here. You do not argue for a Uranus domiciled in Aries-- as I understand your argument. However, in claiming a stronger "affiliation" for Uranus with Aries than for Uranus with Aquarius, you seem to depose Uranus's long-term rulership in modern astrology. This concerns me because Uranus operationalizes well as the ruler of Aquarius in modern natal astrology (alongside Saturn.)

Since Uranus changes sign every 7 years, on a global basis we will find all kinds of revolutions, novel events, and scientific breakthroughs happening throughout its 84-year orbital period. With Mars ruling Aries, it might make more sense for "martial" events to occur with Uranus in Aries. But then we might associate some sort of agricultural innovation to occur with Uranus in an earth sign; or a scientific discovery with Uranus in a mental air sign.

Michael, thank you for your informative post.

I suspect the idea that Uranus bursts through Saturnian structures comes from the old theosophical influence on modern astrology. The theosophists were so taken with the concept of evolution of human consciousness. They invented the idea (so far as I know) of an evolutionary order to the signs and houses. It would accordingly follow from this type of thinking that Uranus had to represent something dramatically different from grumpy old Saturn in human consciousness.

In a previous post, I argued that science partakes of both Saturn and Uranus energies. Uranus provides the innovative ideas, while Saturn offers the determination and persistence to complete the research. A similar pattern occurs with other Uranian phenomena like aviation and space travel.

Phil, I think your thesis that the discovery of a planet beyond Saturn shook up the astrological establishment makes a lot of sense. It would be interesting for a historian to look up newspapers, &c from the years post-1781 to see how Uranus was treated by the press and astronomers. I wonder if they used phrases like "sudden discovery" or "unexpected finding," such that the iconoclastic nature of Uranus in the public mind transfered over to astrology, ready-made.

199
Paul, my references to Hellensitic astrology are consistent with a site dedicated to traditional astrology, and where a variety of traditional and modern perspectives are entertained. As I mentioned above, I think early Hellenistic astrology offers some openings for Mark's overall project of working with Uranus from a traditional perspective, that seemingly close with subsequent astrologies; namely working with a modern planet while acknowledging that it doesn't fit into traditional tables of essential dignities.

This raises another question for me as a modern astrologer, as to whether the Uranus-traditional astrology problem isn't truly "a square peg in a round hole" mismatch all around.

I focus on the sun and Mars analogy with Uranus in a moment, but first some preparatory material on why I think you find my approach self-contradictory.

You are familiar with the distinction between "lumpers" and "splitters". Lumpers prefer aggregates, splitters prefer delineation and drawing distinctions. To talk about "Hellenistic astrology" in the whole cloth as though it comprised an essentially unified tradition is "lumping." Drawing out specific threads from the cloth is "splitting." To a lumper, "the tradition" seems an integrated whole that cannot readily be teased apart. ( I. e., If you believe A about it, then you must also believe B, C, D, &c or risk self-contradiction.) To a "splitter" component parts can and sometimes should be analysed separately, because their logical connection to other components is not essential to their individual natures.

So far as this sun, Mars, Uranus discussion goes, I am a "splitter." I do not agree in homogenizing "modern astrology" or "Hellenistic astrology" in instances where I see very distinct strands, for example. From this perspective, there is no contradiction in what I wrote about Hellenistic astrology, because I can assert "A" without thereby having to adopt "B, C, D, &c for purposes of a given discussion.)

Hellenistic astrology (whole cloth) evolved over many centuries, incorporating many different threads. We can look to early Hellenistic astrology for a more weakly developed concept of detriment, exaltation, and fall by sign (distinct strands) in a way that might just further Mark's overall project in a way that subsequent astrologies might not afford. Detriments seem a later development in Hellenistic astrology (cf. Caesar's pride in having his moon in Capricorn,) for example.

This strategy wouldn't work for traditionalists working from later traditions, obviously.

I also noted that the sun is not necessarily a vivifying agent in Hellenistic astrology. There are times when it clearly works as a malefic (as Ptolemy noted. Cf the recent sun thread.) While this doesn't make a clear case for Aquarius and Uranus, it hopefully clarifies the multi-natured operation of the sun.

Have we covered Hellenistic astrology sufficiently? Then moving right along into contemporary traditional astrology.....

If I understand your argument correctly, it works something like this: the sun and Mars share properties with Uranus. The sun is domiciled in Leo and exalted in Aries (ruled by Mars). The sun falls in Aquarius. Therefore Aquarius is a poor match for Uranus because it is like the sun (and/or Mars.) Moreover, the sun is a vivifying agent so it wouldn't be at home in Aquarius. Because the sun is like Uranus, Uranus wouldn't be at home in Aquarius, ruled by the sun's antithesis Saturn.

I see a fair bit of slippage in the comparisons, having pointed out multiple cases where Uranus and Aquarius work differently than the above scheme.
In traditional astrology today, the sun works well in detriment in Aquarius (or should I say, does not work well!) but this says nothing about Uranus and Aquarius (or another sign) if the sun-Mars-Uranus correspondence is questionable.

Regarding terms, faces, triplicities, &c. Here I think my point is missed. No, Mark did not mention them. He steers clear of essential dignities, prefering to talk about affinities. Yes, I mentioned essential dignities, in order to demonstrate the more general point of all kinds of planet-sign matches in traditional astrology. So let's agree that we are discussing planet-sign "affinities", "affiliations", or "correspondences" of which essential dignities would be a much higher order of affiliation than you or Mark intend.

However, where you find a planet-sign essential dignity, wouldn't you think you've got something? It is the basis of your argument from the sun and Mars, incidentally.

Again, if your argument runs something like sun/Mars/Uranus:Aries (or Leo) and not Aquarius on an affinity/aversion basis, then I find it interesting that Mars somehow winds up with terms in Aquarius, and anti-sun Saturn gets both terms and a face in sun-domiciled Leo. Wouldn't you think this couldn't happen if planet-sign aversions were so absolute? (And yes, I have read Deb's interesting article on terms.) So whether we call terms and faces "essential dignities" or a more inclusive, less concise term like "affinity", it seems clear that "affinities" of planets and signs are not strictly based upon like-minded characteristics.

If not an argument for a Uranus-Aquarius affiliation, it is at least not evidence against it.

Traditional attributes of Aquarius are not a problem for Uranus.
(to be continued)

200
Hello Waybread,

You have previously asked where I got the idea of Uranus as the transcendant Sun. I did provide you with the link to Curtis Manwaring's website where I first came across this idea. However, I suspect you missed this in the fast pace of exchanges here.

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... ation.html

I have selected the relevant part of Curtis's website and highlighted the sections referring specifically to Schmidt's ideas. As you will see it is totally different from the straightforward Sun-Mars association that has been proposed here. Schmidt proposes a single planetary association but it is more complex than a simple cross over of planetary symbolism. In large part because the nature of all the outer planets is seen as 'transcendental'.

As you can see below Schmidt suggests Uranus as the 'transcendental Sun', Neptune as the 'transcendental Moon' and Pluto as the 'transcendental Mercury'.

It would be great to have more from Robert Schmidt on this subject in article form. Unfortunately, all we seem to have is the short summary of Schmidt's ideas provided by Curtis Manwaring. These were from Robert Schmidt's lectures at Cumberland, MD in December 2000. I dont know if these were recorded or not.

Whether you accept Schmidt's theory on the nature of the outer planets or not it is certainly thought provoking. Because of their transcendantal and transpersonal nature Schmidt doesn't consider the outer planets relevant for more mundane matters like rulership of signs.

I decided to vary from Schmidt's theory and adopt my own by adopting a dual nature to all the outers. So I am using the term transcendant Sun not transcendental as Schmidt adopts. By the term I am thinking of Valens reference to the astrological Sun as 'the light of the mind'. In terms of its more positive manifestation I think Uranus can be a catalyst for the creative spark , genius or awakened states of consciousness.
There is even the issue amongst traditional astrologers if they can have rulership at all. Schmidt has brought up the fact that if the outer planets are transcendental, then for them to signify something in particular in the world is to degrade them from their transcendental nature. He instead says that they distort or perturb the significations of the inner planets while signifying absolute qualities of human life.

?.For the time being, when I look at the outer planets, I ask myself how they are distorting the significations of the inner planets, not what they signify themselves. This is because, as Schmidt has said, giving an outer planet stewardship over a given area of your life is to degrade it from its transcendental status.

?.Some astrologers have said that the outer planets are higher octaves of the inner planets, but there are a number of schemes relating to this issue. One sect says that Uranus is the higher octave of Mercury. This is probably because communication as represented by Mercury often takes electronic form these days. Also if the mind and thought patterns are represented by Mercury, then mental breakthroughs are represented by Uranus.

However, another sect says that Uranus is like the higher octave of Mars. The reasoning here is that Uranus represents disruptions, violent lightening storms, and wars as represented by Mars. The scientific symbol for Uranus looks very much like Mars but with a dot in the center of the circle. Incidentally, the dot in the center of the circle is reminescient of the Sun which brings me to

the third sect that says that Uranus is the "transcendental Sun" The idea here is that if Uranus represents enlightenment and breakthroughs in understanding, then it is somehow a transcendent form of the Sun, the realm of Nous which is the realm of the pure ideas (called eidetic forms) or the absolute idea.

Schmidt calls Neptune the "transcendental Moon" stating that Neptune represents the absolute existent; which generates illusion when compared to the existent of human life.

Schmidt says that Pluto is the "transcendental Mercury", representing alogos rather than logos (which is Mercury) because it distorts by trying to relate the absolute idea to the absolute existent. This is especially interesting because transcendence itself is a Mercurial matter. For Mercury to be transcendent beyond it's normal transcendent state could be seen as an impossibility, so Pluto, by relating absolute idea and absolute existent creates enigmas, paradoxes and contradictions.


The fact that the outer planets can be schematized in these ways hints that they are transcendent and are somehow beyond normal everyday 1:1 signification or representation.
[/b]
Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

201
waybread wrote:Paul, my references to Hellensitic astrology are consistent with a site dedicated to traditional astrology, and where a variety of traditional and modern perspectives are entertained.
There is little point in repeating our points I think. I suspect you do not understand the crux of mine, and perhaps I am not understanding yours.

We shall have to just agree to disagree. I suspect that you have more involved in defending the modern rulership of Aquarius than I have in playing with a thought experiment of associating Uranus with Aries.

As I said, I always knew we would all leave this conversation just as fixed in our opinions as when we entered it.

202
Phil wrote:Nixx,

I wonder how much of Uranus' "sudden change" personality derives from the fact that the discovery of this planet is the very exemplar of sudden change to astrology. The American and French Revolutions obviously fit in here, buttress the case. But the revolution closest to home could arguably be that, after some three or four thousand years of astrology with seven planets, we suddenly had an eighth.

I think all the common descriptors of Uranus would apply to the subjective experience of astrologers as the planet was revealed and regarded. Here is something that came out of the blue, in a relative flash, challenging the old order, etc. Here is a planet literally acting its part.
You might have expected a more negative reaction as its appearance presented so many challenges to the thinking?s and doings of the time. (To the extent these existed as horoscopy seems to have been the pastime of the very few in this era). It does appear to have been seen by some as ?evil ?or malevolent early doors, going by my skimming of Champions Vol 2 and Curry?s Prophets book. Campion does not seem all that fond of what he sees as this re-emerging stoical fatalistic astrology, Ignorant of Plato?s living universe, Aristotle?s celestial causes and the Hermeticists sympathies and correspondences. It might be crucial to process Uranus?s earlier meanings within this context? The Astrologers cited seem to be Sibly, Worsdale, Raphael and Zadkiel. If anyone has access to their writings they could seek clarification. I also looked briefly at Tarnas's Cosmos and Psyche as well, in this he seemed more focused on the Uranus/Pluto aspects and its relevance to the nativities of some folks more directly involved in the USA and French revolutions and the LATIN American and European uprisings in 1816-1824 than the events around 1781.

Other than the Varley anecdote I?m not noticing much about quickness of effect to date in this (1780-1850 ish) period

Also, Uranus' sudden discovery and location beyond Saturn seems congruent to its symbolic relationship to that planet of limitations and boundaries.


It would then beg the question: was Uranus acting its part, or defining its part? Looked at from an "as above, so below" standpoint, this question becomes moot.

Phil
I?m not sure I understand your notions/questions here?

203
Mark (or Paul? Curtis?) could you say more about this concept of the esoteric sun? Either here or on the separate sun thread? I read Curtis's blog article, which offers some of the "what" but not background reasoning. If there is more to Schmidt's thesis, or some additional subtext to the sun-Uranus connection, it would be very helpful to read it.

It looks like the Schmidt lecture is available on CD through the ?Phase lectures? of Project Hindsight?, one titled, ?Transcendence and the Outer Planets.? The abstract for it is:

?How do we come to characterize the outer planets, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto? What does it mean when we call them 'transcendental' planets? Robert Schmidt offers a lucid philosophical approach to transcendence, framed in a discussion of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. He makes suggestions about the outer planets as the Transcendental Ideas outlined by Kant. In this talk, he presents a foundation for a new science to investigate metaphysical assertions, including the concepts of intensive magnitude and intensification and remission of forms?
http://www.projecthindsight.com/archives/lectures.html

If this set of ideas is the basis for your sun-Uranus connection, then please say more!

My knowledge of Kant is sketchy, but he doesn't use "transcendental" and "transcendent" in the identical way, nor does he use "transcendent" in the ordinary sense. If the meaning of "transcendent" is taken in a more usual way to mean a phenomenon beyond our ordinary awareness, as in ?transcendental meditation? or ?transcending ordinary existence,? then we probably don?t need Kant to do this.

I personally don?t find Uranus to be "transcendental" or "transcendent" in either sense. (Or put differently, all of the planets have both esoteric and ordinary meanings.) I don't see the outers as higher octaves or esoteric expressions of another planet: Uranus is its own planet. I am unclear as to what is achieved astro-logically by adding an intervening layer of esoteric interpretation here. (Cf. Occam?s razor.)

:oops:

204
Nixx,

My thinking is much more simplistic: the most basic, obvious trait of a planet having an influence on its enduring symbolism. Along the lines of blood red Mars, for instance. What were the moods of people - astrologers and non-astrologers - what were their feelings, regarding this new planet Uranus? Was there a popular feeling in the air of a great and sudden new discovery and breakthrough? If this was the popular feeling, apparent in, say, the newspapers of the day, as waybread considers, that's something. Even if not a pop sentiment, I'd have to imagine there was such a sense among astrologers of the day. This was the first discovery of its kind, basically ever.

I've read that myths take a kernel of truth, perhaps a real hero or event, and grow from this. But this kernel remains essential. Also, I've read that much of what we think we objectively see, or logically deduce, comes from somewhere deeper within us, a place much more steeped in feelings and emotions. It seems very coincidental that a paradigm challenging, flash out of nowhere planet is imbued with just these traits as its own symbolic essence.

More to your point, could the unexpected challenge of the planet, the vexing question of just what to do with it astrologically, be the germs of its definition as malefic? Even now we speak of "dealing with the challenges of" Uranus.

And the fact that this planet shows up beyond Saturn - with its own symbolism with which we are all familiar - usurping its place in a sense, could lead to what Joanna Watters writes here on skyscript:

"Uranus symbolizes the rebel and is a direct response to Saturn's austerity. Saturn plays by the rules, but Uranus says that rules are there to be broken or challenged. Saturn is sensible, Uranus throws caution to the winds."

This Uranus vs. Saturn dynamic-as-descriptor of Uranus seems pretty common. We don't see this with, say, Neptune vs. Saturn. Certainly the mythological Uranus vs. Saturn conflict would point in the opposite direction in terms of rebellion symbolism. I wonder how much the sudden astronomical usurpation of Saturn by Uranus plays here?

The "as above so below" part is my musing on astrologers? use of the flow of symbolism. We often experience things on Earth, "below", then observe the skies, and deduce what things mean "above". Consider Ptolemy's statements on how even a fool can deduce some astrological facts based on simply knowing the seasons.

But if the aforementioned thoughts have any truth to them, here we'd have events in the sky itself that are being directly experienced. Uranus the planet literally did something: it suddenly revealed itself. That action, directly witnessed "above", might in fact have been extrapolated to provide a reason for what's going on "below". So which way is the symbolism, or the arrow of deduction, flowing? Is Uranus being defined by what we experience on Earth? Or is it defining itself by jumping out of nowhere and shaking things up? Just like Mars, perhaps, declares his own violence by being blood red.

To anyone, such as astrologers, steeped in the "as above so below" concept, the direction of this flow mightn't matter. The symbolic correlation would just speak for itself. That was the thought and I apologize if I?m way off topic!

Phil