skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

AP - Everyone knows Mars is the traditional ruler of Scorpio

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Archived Post



Joined: 15 Oct 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Skyscript

Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:43 pm    Post subject: AP - Everyone knows Mars is the traditional ruler of Scorpio Reply with quote

11 Jul 2003

Deb:

You'd think that most people belonging to astrology discussion forums would know that Mars is the traditional ruler of Scorpio, wouldn't you?

There's a couple of astrology forums running threads that claim the question "which planet is the traditional ruler of Scorpio" in the dignities quiz is a trick question.

[This post has been edited to remove the links - see reply below]

Sue:

You'd think so. But a few years ago I studied for a while with a relatively well-known astrologer who never mentioned that Mars was the traditional ruler of Scorpio. As far as she was concerned Mars ruled Aries and Pluto ruled Scorpio - end of story. I think you will find a lot of that going on. Some people seem to equate traditional with obsolete and believe they are being progressive by ignoring the traditional rulerships.

--------------------

Donnarose:

No disrespect to beginners and students - but that is so funny to see people genuinely shocked like that !

Do you think someone should point out that planets travel across the sky from east to west?

-------------------------

Deb:

I’ve noticed nowadays that a lot of well-known astrologers who used to refer to the outer planets as sign-rulers now tend to refer to them as co-rulers and frequently include details of the traditional rulers as well. This is in general, modern natal work, which I think is a big step forward from the situation that existed ten years ago when you used either one set or the other and engaged in battle with anyone that disagreed

Anyway, after reading these two posts, I decided to remove the links in case it does seem disrespectful to students who, as you rightly point out, can only learn what they are taught. I was amused by the apparent angst and confusion set about by the realisation that Pluto hasn’t ruled Scorpio since year dot. You get the impression that some people are quite annoyed that astrologers haven’t always had a Pluto and would rather not know how astrology managed to ‘struggle on’ without it.

------------------------

Sue:

You'd think it would be easy enough to work out that since Pluto was only discovered a little over 70 years ago and our use of Scorpio has been around for much longer, something other that Pluto must have had rulership over Scorpio.
At least the quiz got them thinking (hopefully) and this is always a good thing.

--------------------------

Tom:

Ever wonder how Pluto got to be the ruler of Scorpio, or for that matter how Uranus got Aquarius (a mismatch if there ever was one) and Neptune was assigned to Pisces (thereby damning all of us clear-eyed Pisces to the stereotype of drugged out space cadet)?

According to an interview Robert Hand gave several years ago, a 19th century astrologer (Hand said "Raphael," but he [Robert Cross Smith] died in 1832 and therefore never knew of Neptune, but it could have been one of the subsequent astrologers who used that pseudonym after the original's death)noted that the traditional rulers follow the order of the planets. So Mars ruled Scorpio, Jupiter, the next planet out rules Sagittarius, the next sign, and Saturn Capricorn, and so it seemed only logical that Uranus, the next planet out would be assigned to the next sign, Aquarius, and Neptune to Pisces. The astrologer's popularity guaranteed the acceptance of this change.

Then Hand told of an unnamed German astrology organization who put Pluto's rulership to a vote! Pluto ruled Scorpio, right? Wrong! The organization voted against it, but one disgruntled advocate of Pluto ruling Scorpio went to press as though it was a fiat accompli, and due to the power of the printed word, it stuck.

Obviously, the genesis of these "rulerships" aren't too impressive. However, the all time champion of rulerships is one I heard a couple of years ago at an astrology gathering. It seems the part of fortune has a ruler. No, not a dispositor, a ruler, and it is one of the asteroids (You all thought Chiron right?); I forgot which one.

I don't understand this compulsion to change things that worked well for millenia. I welcome the fact that tradtional rulers are at least getting equal biling lately, and I've noticed a few astrologers give up on the modern rulerships once they start working with the traditional ones. These are good signs that some decorum in being re-introduced to astrology.

-----------------------------

Richard:

Quite.

Fair comment on my other post (although I think this proves my point)

If you want to get Mars firmly re-established as the principle ruler of Scorpio just write a conspiracy theory: “Mars, the secret Ruler of Scorpio – what they didn’t want you to know”.

I can guarantee it will become the most widespread, talked-about, hyped up and popular notion – astrologers in forums such as those will just love it.

---------------------------

Sag:

Even I knew Mars was the traditional ruler of Scorpio!

*grins*

Ask them whether Jupiter once also ruled Pisces -- that'll confuse 'em.

----------------------------

Deb:

I don't think anyone made it that far

But then Neptune's confusing enough as it is. Smile

Tom's comment made me laugh:
"thereby damning all of us clear-eyed Pisces to the stereotype of drugged out space cadet"

Poor old Pisces, fancy having Jupiter taken away from you!

------------------------------

Deb:

Since I’m getting silly now, I love this quote from John Frawley’s Astrologer’s Apprentice:

Quote:
“While we find that the idea of the outer planets ruling signs - or part-ruling signs, or 'being associated with' signs, or being nodding acquaintances of signs - betrays so vast an ignorance of the foundations of astrology that its bearers cannot be taken seriously, neither can we agree with those who would disregard them altogether. If we consider the possibility of an astrologer resident in Australia, undiscovered in Lilly's day, refusing to use Uranus in a chart because it was undiscovered in Lilly's day, we can begin to see the absurdity of this view.”


http://www.johnfrawley.com/mag.html

-----------------------------

Graelhaven:

because you do not know of the existance of something, that does not mean that it doesn't exist. It does not mean it doesn't have an effect on you, nor does it negate its being. discerning its presence merely stretches your existance, meaning, understanding of the universe. It does not make much diference to Pluto whether you acknowledge his existance or not. Nor does he particualrly care, I would imagine, that you do or do not acknowledge his effect on you. (nor if you lack the knowledge that you have cancer, does it negate its effects in killing you)

When Einstein first proposed E=MC squared, ignorant people went around telling how Einstein disproved Newtons theories of force and gravity. that is completely untrue. While it is true that f=ma is not identically equal to e=mc squared, e=mc squared is IDENTICALLY EQUAL to f=ma... huh? force is equal to mass times acceleration ... in the macro world one can use the LOOSE equation f=ma, in the micro world one must be more precise. force or energy is equal to mass time the speed of light squared (a) .... so presume Lilly to be newton and a more current day astrologer (Hand if you'd like since he is very highly regarded) as einstein and then I invite you to think about your conclusions again.

------------------------

Deb:

Since no one in the forum has suggested that Pluto doesn't exist, or denied that it has an astrological effect, what conclusions are you suggesting should be reconsidered?

------------------------

Sag:

LOL, Dhoulding.

I think MissB is referring to my thread which isn't even in this forum. I'll reply to her in the appropriate thread (beginners forum - "pluto").

-------------------------

Graelhaven:

actually I was refering to the disparaging way rulership of houses by the outer malefics was refered to in this post, as in why would anyone think that one of the outer planets might rule a house... etc... they are there, they were there before humanity discovered them lack of knowledge of them does not mean they do not have rulership in the sky, though of what, I think, is certainly debatable.

to quote Newton, since he is much on my mind "I do not know what I may apear to the world; but to myself I seem only to have been like a boy playing by the seashore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

As to foundations, Newton believed in the ether, it doesn't exist, in its place is space. But because people were so drenched in thinking Newton Must be right, the Michaelson Morely spectrometer was denied to science for more than 2 decades because they thought they had sone something wrong with there experiment, after all newton would not be wrong, now could he? =) foundations are NOT the be all end all of truth, but the beginning, one should not lose the beginning, neither should one think that is ALL there is or that no other truth exists... At least in my opinion. Now having said that I do agree that the foundations of Astrology are far to deeply and to often ignored.

MissB (libra rising showing through or just my legist heritage? balance and harmony is all...)

--------------------------

Deb:

If you read this thread again I think you’ll find that the disparaging attitude centres on the disheartening realisation that some astrologers would not know the answer to the question ‘what planet is the traditional ruler of Scorpio?’; nor would they believe that there ever was a ruler of Scorpio except Pluto. Whatever your views on modern or traditional rulerships it is a fact that from classical times until less than a century ago Mars was the undisputed ruler of Scorpio in western astrology and a great deal of the symbolism that is used in traditional and modern techniques today arises from that fact.

I don’t think, that in a forum dedicated to the Ancient, Classical, Traditional and Historical practice of astrology, it is out of place to express surprise and dissatisfaction at how poorly the heritage of our system of study is appreciated. Nor to raise information on how the rulerships were established in the first place, or who took the decision to amend the scheme in recent times and why. You will also see that before your post this discussion had descended into light-hearted banter and traditional astrologers telling jokes at their own expense.

What concerns me most though Beth, is that when you make remarks, you don’t attach them to any solid reference, demonstration of astrology in practice, or reasoned philosophical theory that astrologers can relate to. You discuss them in terms of equations used in physics. I may as well respond to you in Javascript. Neither is really a useful way to promote intelligent discussion of points concerning the evolving theory or practice of astrology.

I will go to my grave before I start questioning whether there is a valid philosophical link between Mars and Scorpio. I do not know that Pluto has no valid philosophical link with Scorpio and I certainly wouldn’t disrespect the views of many fine modern astrologers of my acquaintance who do recognise that connection and whose abilities as skilled and competent astrologers are beyond question. However, in the practical application of astrology, it is a disadvantageous association within certain branches of astrology (for reasons explained in my articles), and outside of that kind of symbolic reasoning, it doesn’t seem to matter one way or the other. People can use Vulcan to rule Virgo if that’s what they want. Except that I would expect them to discuss it in an appropriately like-minded forum and I wouldn’t expect them to be in any way surprised that in this forum such topics are likely to be treated in a most disparaging manner.

--------------------------

Sag:

After reading your post Dhoulding, I've come to the conclusion that you'll make an excellent astrologer one day. Laughing Laughing

I agree on all points.

My understanding is that if you believe in something so strongly (i.e. Pluto rules Scorpio), you should be able to argue it - or at least let it be open for argument among others in your discipline.

* Steps off soap box *

---------------------------

Deb:

Buoyed by your confidence in me young Sag, I'm going to make an effort to study it properly now. Cool

----------------------------

Graelhaven:

deb remarks:
Quote:
What concerns me most though Beth, is that when you make remarks, you don’t attach them to any solid reference, demonstration of astrology in practice, or reasoned philosophical theory that astrologers can relate to.


Beth replies: in future I shall attach reference as above so that you see exactly what I'm responding to. I shall also try to refrain from alegory as you seem not to relate well with it. I shall also try to recall that Philosophy is to remain in terms that only you agree with.

------------------------------

Deb:

I think that implies an autocratic disposition on my part. I have made this an open, public forum so that anyone can share their views and discuss them, or argue points that they wish to support. They can also argue against points they disagree with and I hope that any such discussions take place with a good humour, a fair degree of tolerance and a realisation that anyone aspiring to be an astrologer should aim to rise above petty intellectual disagreements.

I am more than willing to enter into a rational discussion on the merits of planets ruling signs. In fact I have a lot of undisclosed views on this subject that I would willingly share as part of a reasoned debate. But Lilly is not Newton and Hand is not Einstein and the question of whether E=MC squared disproves f=ma, even at an allegorical level, takes the discussion to a place where in fact, you are using a philosophy that only YOU can agree with.

My comment was to make you aware of that and to suggest that you put forward your points of view in the form of a more grounded argument that other forum members can relate to. To prevent our discussion taking a personal slant, I have said what I have to say on this, and see this as an end to it. Let’s keep the forum for talking about astrology.

-----------------------------

Donnarose:

Yes I found that particular post confusing and difficult to follow. It sounds like you are suggesting that Pluto was always the ruler of Scorpio even before the planet was known to exist. Is that what you are saying?

-------------------------------

Ekati:

I don't think so. Probably the planet that was later on discovered and named Pluton, did have an effect, but it was not known among the astrologers.

I think that the astrological properties of the three newer planets (Uranos, Poseidon and Pluton) have not been observed for enough time. Let's not forget that Astrology begun as an observation-based science and the properties of planets, zoidia and later on, of the houses, emerged out of a long observing process, where experience played a major part and also the mythology and the cosmological systems of the ancients. That is why there is a connection with Gods, who "borrowed" their properties to the planets, and also a mythological corpus that "borrowed" properties to zoidia.

In antiquity, Astrology was defined as Logos (analogy) between the Asterai (Stars) and the Ideas they carry. The Stars, were considered to be the living bodies of the Gods, the visible idols of Gods, through which, their Ideas emitted, travelling in space and finally creating life on a planet, through a "getting cold" process. Interesting to note, here, that the name Psyche (soul) means "this which thickens, this which gets cold". Plato has written quite a lot over this matter, in Timaeus.

So, what we have is a new situation, with the three outer planets. The assignment of those planets as rulers of certain zoidia, was careless and not reasonably established, nor derived out of observation and experience. Moreover, it was not done accordingly to the ancient way of thinking and the cosmological systems that gave birth to Astrology. So what now?

Should we try to keep in accordance with the ancient cosmology that created Astrology? If yes how? Should we not? If not how should we try to incorporate them in Astrology in a harmonious way, without polluting it?

Personally, I believe at least that the traditional rulers of zoidia like Scorpio, Pisces and Aquarius, should not be cast aside and forgotten. For example, in the matter of Scorpio, Ares (Mars) as ruler implies a different nature than Pluto as ruler.

Ares cleans (apart from the war symbolism, god Ares "cleans" and "clarifies" situations, especially through releasing of tension) and is also connected with blood. There is an underlying medical symbolism in Scorpio and in its myth, where Asclepius (god of therapy and of medicine) plays an important part. In addition Asclepius is symbolized with the Ophiuchus constellation, and this lies exactly next to Scorpio - above it, in fact.

Medicine, death, portions, poisons and "filters" (medicines)... Athena gave to Asclepius some of the Medusa blood, from her vessels. The blood from the right vessel cured and even stopped someone from dying, the blood from the left vessel killed. Again the Blood symbolism here, in connection with medicine.

On the other hand, Pluton, implies very different Ideas than Ares. Pluton is the ruler of Hades, the underworld. He is titled chthonios Zeus (chthon = earth, ground) and has to do with justice, with judgind the dead. But how many know today that Pluton is the very same God Dionysus? The god of wine, of ecstacy, of sacred "madness" (not in the negative sense) and also of theater, of creating morals and ethics through theatrical plays... And also connected with the "fruits of the earth" (minerals, gems, etc) and along with goddess Demeter, plays an important role in agriculture? In addition, the ancients believed that all Plutos (wealth) in a native's life, comes from Pluton and Demeter, as a reward. The very same name of Pluton is connected etymollogically with wealth. Compare this with the ancient name "Gate of Hades" for the 2nd House, that shows income and wealth.

There is a strong relation among Pluton-Dionysus and the Aegyptian God Osiris. Should Pluton be connected with Scoprio? Or are there other zoidia where Pluton is more appropriate as a co-ruler? And which are those zoidia?

-----------------------

Graelhaven:

Etaki;

Exactly!
---------------------

Deb:

I think you’ve made some very thoughtful points.

I feel we ought to also bear in mind the important distinction between planets that are capable of being observed with the naked eye, and those that don’t reveal themselves directly to us. As you point out, the ancient foundations of astrology were observational in nature and the way that planets were seen from the viewpoint of the observer on the earth – their colours, their strength of brilliance, the speed and nature of their movement - offered important reflections upon their influence, in the same way that we recognise planetary signatures in plants, humours, tastes, temperaments, etc. The ‘invisible’ planets seem to have a different nature than the others. I don’t believe that they are in any way less important, in fact I’ve always been impressed with the strength and power of their effects when they are angular or close to a significant planet. But unless they are on an angle it seems to me that they reveal their influence – at a personal level – through the intermediary effect of the visible planets. I expect that this would be open to debate but personally I feel that we should maintain some kind of philosophical awareness of the visible limits of our solar system

Another thought on my mind is that until recently astrologers were more conscious of the fact that there are two fundamentally different ways of using astrology – with clear distinctions between the branches of ‘judicial astrology’ and ‘natural astrology’. Judicial astrology, as the divinational side of the craft, rests heavily upon symbolic principles and the interpretative skills of the astrologer. It’s often said that it has had a controversial history because it implies a fated existence, but I doubt that this was ever fully the case. What it certainly does do is place the astrologer’s understanding as a crucial element at the centre of their work. The astrologer translates the symbolism according to his or her understanding and then interprets the meaning of the chart accordingly. As someone who practices horary astrology, I have no doubt of its potential for use and abuse. This branch doesn’t just rest on what is physically, or if you like, scientifically happening in the sky, because it is seen as a study that marries astronomical movement with symbolic meaning and broader judgement. It recognises the ‘magical potential’ of a human being to gain information beyond what is consciously obvious, through stretching our senses, (using the chart as a focus as well as a source of information). The importance of its symbolic elements have always been subject to shifts and fashions - we have had periods where rulership by face was extremely important, other ages when triplicity rulership dominated, plus a whole lot of symbolic systems that have been and still are recognised under some approaches and not others.

Natural astrology on the other hand aims to capture the undiluted effects of astronomical movements and celestial effects in a manner that should stand as a reliable tool regardless of the astrologer’s unique symbolic approach to the judgement. Mars on the midheaven, for example – can we reliably expect this to reflect a certain type of event regardless of whether or not an astrologer is monitoring it? Astrology started as a study that included scrutiny of all aspects of the sky; as parts of it become verified by science they move out of natural astrology – the study of the shape, colour and meaning of clouds was once a part of astrology, but now that it’s been verified it has become meteorology.

My point on this is that many ‘modern’ astrologers today pride themselves on taking a more rational, scientifically grounded approach to astrology, but I think that very few of them actually do, and most are not prepared to look critically at what they are working with for fear of having to relinquish some ingrained belief. There are too many elements of ‘scientific’ astrology where the reasoning is not based directly upon observable effects but an integrated assessment of various forms of symbolism and mythology that the astrologer is affected by, mostly without knowing it. The distinctions of ‘judicial’ and ‘natural’ have become blurred because even the astrologer claiming to use the most ‘scientific’ perspective continues to be heavily entranched in myth and symbolism (and distorted myth and symbolism). Of course we could say that myths carry truths, but are they consistent, indpendent truths as ‘scientific astrology’ claims them to be?
And where do the planetary rulership over signs fall into this? They have a valid role in judicial astrology but in natural –scientific - astrology I have not been convinced that they have any place at all. The irony is that the corrupt reasoning that led to the change in sign rulership was justified by the view that doing so would make astrology more scientific and up to date.

I am not suggesting that planetary rulership over signs is necessarily insignificant outside of judicial astrology, perhaps through that basis we come to a valid understanding of areas where a planet’s influence is more effective for reasons that we struggle to explain in any other terms. Or maybe it’s the power of our belief that makes it so. In either case this argument can’t be fully explored until we come to a more honest assessment of what astrology actually is and how we use it. Judicial astrology unashamedly admits a symbolic bias and doesn’t really need to worry about it. Here the argument is a different one – which form of symbolism is the most valid, practical, philosophically sound and meaningful in a lasting sense; and should we bear in mind that alteration of symbolism laid down by an underlying philosophy may produce a ripple effect that dilates the power of all associated symbolic tools?

I share your views and see this as an issue that deserves deeper consideration than simply defining the rulerships by whether you take a ‘traditional’ or ‘modern’ approach.

------------------------------

Tom:

Very thoughtful Deb. Just to keep the pot boiling a little, 17th French astrologer Jean Baptiste Morin rejected the idea entirely that the meanings of the planets have anything to do with mythology. Morin was no mere crank either, and his ideas are still studied and practiced. More about him in the not too distant future.

This is also a good time to mention, if it hasn't been mentioned elsewhere, that our own Deborah Houlding has an atricle on the origins of the zodiac published in the current issue of The Moutain Astrologer Magazine.

For tradtional fans this issue also contains an interesting interview with John Frawley that might raise an eyebrow or two.

----------------------------

Ekati:

Tom, can you name one single planet that its meanings do not come from mythology?

----------------------------

Tom:

>>17th French astrologer Jean Baptiste Morin rejected the idea entirely that the meanings of the planets have anything to do with mythology.<<

>Tom, can you name one single planet that its meanings do not come from mythology<

See above: I didn't make this or any other claim. Morin did. Whatever I name or don't name is irrelevant. From Morin's viewpoint, the answer to your question is: "All of them."

I can better answer this question: Why does he believe that or how did he come to that conclusion?

Briefly (and a bit superficially), Morin accepted Aristotle's belief in an original source of all power in the universe, the primum mobile, or unmoved mover. St. Thomas Aquinas used this idea as one of his proofs of the existence of God. God being Aquinas' understanding of the primum mobile.

Morin argued that the ultimate source of all power was the primum mobile, the final starless crystalline sphere that provides all power to all things. The twelvefold division of the zodiac is fixed and uniform with the primum mobile and the various powers (meanings) of the signs come through the primum mobile. Think of light passing through a prism. The light that emerges from the other side is different than the light that enters it. It is divided into several other colors, but it is still the same light.

The planets derive their meanings (powers) from the signs they rule by domicile rulership, exaltation, and triplicity. These meanings are fixed and universal, but as the planets pass through the various signs the meaning becomes mixed with the signs, but remain universal. The mixed meanings are further refined in the individual (or event, etc) through the meanings of the mundane houses in the sublunary world, where they take on unique meaning. Morin dismisses the idea that planets derive power or meaning from the myths (and the use of terms, faces, or Arabic parts other than Fortuna) using a Latin phrase that means, roughly, "silly notions."

His system is logical(once you accept the initial premise), neat, elegant, and, according to its adherents, very effective, and all without reference to the myths. He is observationally wrong about the existence of the several spheres, but the myths aren't historical records either. The only relevevant question about his astrology is: "Does it work?"

If you are interested, Morin explains his theory in some detail in volume 21 of his 26 volume work Astrologia Gallica (French Astrology). There are two English language translations of this volume, both available from AFA. I would guess, and since I don't read Latin a guess is all it is, that he goes into the subject in great depth in one or more of the earlier volumes of this work, that are not available in English, but might be available in Spanish and/or French, since he is still an influential astrologer in those countries.

----------------------------------

Sue:

Dennis Elwell would agree with taking mythology out of astrology but for different reasons. He tells us in Cosmic Loom that it is time to grow up and that mythology can no longer bring alive the universal truths for us. He says that, unlike the past, when mythology was the only way to approach the cosmic, we now have wide-awake consciousness and need to move on from explaining the universe through myth.
But there is something very powerful about looking up at the night sky and having a sense of how the mythology came about. I agree with Deb’s comment earlier that we should ‘maintain some kind of philosophical awareness of the visible limits of our solar system’. I spent a couple of hours last night looking at some quite spectacular sights. I am lucky that I live in a very small place with little light pollution so visibility is quite good. Just on dusk Jupiter and Mercury, which were in conjunction, dominated the sky. It was a truly magnificent sight. A couple of hours later, Mars rose over the eastern horizon, even brighter than Jupiter had been. It was the reddest I had ever seen it. No wonder so many people are feeling particularly irritable at the moment. I knew that Uranus was close by but I couldn’t see it so it didn’t have an impact on me. I have a good telescope and was able to have a close look at these planets but there is nothing quite like putting aside our modern knowledge of the sky and looking at it with the same sense of wonder that brought the myths to us in the first place.

-----------------------------

Ekati:

See above:
Quote:
I didn't make this or any other claim. Morin did. Whatever I name or don't name is irrelevant. From Morin's viewpoint, the answer to your question is: "All of them."




Morin is an ignorant then. We will get to this in the end, proving that ALL planetary properties origin from mythology. Morin was a christian, so he cannot know nor understand the polytheistic cosmological systems, or their mythology.


Quote:
I can better answer this question: Why does he believe that or how did he come to that conclusion? Briefly (and a bit superficially), Morin accepted Aristotle's belief in an original source of all power in the universe, the primum mobile, or unmoved mover.



But Aristotle never ever ever claimed such a thing. First, the text about the "primum mobile" comes from a book that was discovered just after Aristotle's Physics, which had no title. The book was then named "Meta ta Physika" (after the Physics) and attributed to Aristotle. We do not know for sure if it was Aristotle who wrote it. Nevertheless, let's say that it was Aristotle, who wrote it.

So, Aristotle says in this book, that he names "theos" (deus, god) this "inalterable thing, that primarly sets in motion other things". Apollon, for example, sets in motion situations relevant to music, so he is a god. Aphrodite sets in motion all situations relevant to beauty and form, therefore she is a goddess. Zeus sets in motion all situations relevant to rulership and management, so he is a god. Demeter sets in motion all situations relevant to earth and agriculture, therefore she is a goddess. And so on....

The nature of each god is inalterable and imperishable (poorly translated as "unmoved"), contrary to the things that each god puts in motion, things and situations that are subject to change. But of course. Apollon will remain the same god, even if the kinds of music and harmonies he puts in motion, are all different. God Hermes will remain the same god, even if he promotes different kinds of communication among different persons. Etc, etc, etc...

Now let's see Aristotles views about "an original source of all power". In the second chapter of the first book of Physics, Aristotle deals exactly with this matter, searching if there is one primary principle of the world, or there are many.

A translation of this, is found here:
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.1.i.html

So here, Aristotle, debugs some popular claims of Parmenides and Melissos, that stated that the Kosmos is one, unchanging and static. He continues, perceiving Change and Movement in the shape of the Kosmos, and vitiates those claims, and finally concludes that there can't be "one primary principle" but many.

"The most pertinent question with which to begin will be this: In what sense is it asserted that all things are one? For 'is' is used in many senses. Do they mean that all things 'are' substance or quantities or qualities? And, further, are all things one substance-one man, one horse, or one soul-or quality and that one and the same-white or hot or something of the kind? These are all very different doctrines and all impossible to maintain.

For if both substance and quantity and quality are, then, whether these exist independently of each other or not, Being will be many.

If on the other hand it is asserted that all things are quality or quantity, then, whether substance exists or not, an absurdity results, if the impossible can properly be called absurd. For none of the others can exist independently: substance alone is independent: for everything is predicated of substance as subject. Now Melissus says that Being is infinite. It is then a quantity. For the infinite is in the category of quantity, whereas substance or quality or affection cannot be infinite except through a concomitant attribute, that is, if at the same time they are also quantities. For to define the infinite you must use quantity in your formula, but not substance or quality. If then Being is both substance and quantity, it is two, not one: if only substance, it is not infinite and has no magnitude; for to have that it will have to be a quantity.

Again, 'one' itself, no less than 'being', is used in many senses, so we must consider in what sense the word is used when it is said that the All is one.

Now we say that (a) the continuous is one or that (b) the indivisible is one, or (c) things are said to be 'one', when their essence is one and the same, as 'liquor' and 'drink'.

If (a) their One is one in the sense of continuous, it is many, for the continuous is divisible ad infinitum.

There is, indeed, a difficulty about part and whole, perhaps not relevant to the present argument, yet deserving consideration on its own account-namely, whether the part and the whole are one or more than one, and how they can be one or many, and, if they are more than one, in what sense they are more than one. (Similarly with the parts of wholes which are not continuous.) Further, if each of the two parts is indivisibly one with the whole, the difficulty arises that they will be indivisibly one with each other also.

But to proceed: If (b) their One is one as indivisible, nothing will have quantity or quality, and so the one will not be infinite, as Melissus says-nor, indeed, limited, as Parmenides says, for though the limit is indivisible, the limited is not.

But if (c) all things are one in the sense of having the same definition, like 'raiment' and 'dress', then it turns out that they are maintaining the Heraclitean doctrine, for it will be the same thing 'to be good' and 'to be bad', and 'to be good' and 'to be not good', and so the same thing will be 'good' and 'not good', and man and horse; in fact, their view will be, not that all things are one, but that they are nothing; and that 'to be of such-and-such a quality' is the same as 'to be of such-and-such a size'.

Even the more recent of the ancient thinkers were in a pother lest the same thing should turn out in their hands both one and many. So some, like Lycophron, were led to omit 'is', others to change the mode of expression and say 'the man has been whitened' instead of 'is white', and 'walks' instead of 'is walking', for fear that if they added the word 'is' they should be making the one to be many-as if 'one' and 'being' were always used in one and the same sense. What 'is' may be many either in definition (for example 'to be white' is one thing, 'to be musical' another, yet the same thing be both, so the one is many) or by division, as the whole and its parts. On this point, indeed, they were already getting into difficulties and admitted that the one was many-as if there was any difficulty about the same thing being both one and many, provided that these are not opposites; for 'one' may mean either 'potentially one' or 'actually one'."

So, Aristotle is pretty clear on that matter. Read chapter 3, for his conclusions.

Quote:
St. Thomas Aquinas used this idea as one of his proofs of the existence of God. God being Aquinas' understanding of the primum mobile.


Of course. Christians tend to interpret anything under their own cosmological model, i.e. under christian eyes and their "supergod" notion. But, this leads to misinterpretations and distortions of the original ideas, found in non-christian books written by non-christian philosophers who never had anything to do with the christian "supergod" hypothesis. Take Aristotle for example...

Quote:
Morin argued that the ultimate source of all power was the primum mobile, the final starless crystalline sphere that provides all power to all things. The twelvefold division of the zodiac is fixed and uniform with the primum mobile and the various powers (meanings) of the signs come through the primum mobile.



But no primum mobile, in this sense. It was merely a misunderstanding and a distortion of the Aristotelean ideas. So Morin is completely wrong on that.

Quote:
The planets derive their meanings (powers) from the signs they rule by domicile rulership, exaltation, and triplicity. These meanings are fixed and universal, but as the planets pass through the various signs the meaning becomes mixed with the signs, but remain universal. The mixed meanings are further refined in the individual (or event, etc) through the meanings of the mundane houses in the sublunary world, where they take on unique meaning. Morin dismisses the idea that planets derive power or meaning from the myths (and the use of terms, faces, or Arabic parts other than Fortuna) using a Latin phrase that means, roughly, "silly notions."



Aristotle wrote that "if you begin developing a thesis with an inept (unreasonable), then all the conclusions you will arrive will too be inept". So the Morin conclusions are "inept notions". LOL


Quote:
His system is logical(once you accept the initial premise)



And completely illogical, if the initial premise is wrong, and origins merely from misunderstanding. Which is the case.


Quote:
...neat, elegant, and, according to its adherents, very effective, and all without reference to the myths. He is observationally wrong about the existence of the several spheres, but the myths aren't historical records either.


Heh, those idolater myths, really upset Morin...too bad for him

Myths were never historical records. Myths are a way of transferring knowledge, a special kind of code, that if understood, leads someone to discover that knowledge by themselves. Moreover myths must hide this knowledge from the eyes of the ignorant and of the uninitiated. So far, myths have done a pretty good job on that...

Finally

The planets, never ever took their properties from the zodiacal constellations. They already had those properties, a long long time before the zodiac ever came in use. How do we know? From the Orphic tradition and the orphic hymns, dated sometime before 1100 b.c.e. In those hymns there are already references to the planetary bodies as expressions of the gods, and it is also stated that the planets have a spiral motion, following the sun's spiral motion - this is confirmed in our century. But those ancient people, they had already known that...

To understand the ancient worlds, one has to view them through ancient eyes. Anything else will just lead to misunderstandings and distortions and we have had enough of that.

--------------------------

Graelhaven:

tom:
"morin believed in Aristotles..."

Beth: Is there anything that Aristotle ever said that hasn't been proved wrong? to call that misogynest swine my least favorite philospher is frankly putting it mildly!

that aside, the origin of all astrology is the mythology of the stars...babylon being the oldest we recall... Etaki, I love your style. Mine is far more shoot first and take names later... =) luckily I dont much care if other people agree with me or not. =)

--------------------------

Tom:

I genuinely don't understand the fuss. If you wish to argue with Morin, at least spend a little time reading him. I gave a most superficial explanation of a single idea and along comes an angry tome in reply. Anger tends to lose readers

You state, correctly that in order to understand the ancients we have to see things through their eyes. I couldn't agree more. But it doesn't stop at the ancients. A look at things through Aristotle's eyes, Morin's eyes, and Aquinas' eyes is also fair, and deserves more consideration than politically correct name calling.

I don't particularly care for Morin's astrology. There are too many things that he sees differently than the other classical astrologers do, so if you think I'm an advocate, you're mistaken. I prefer Lilly. But after spending even a little time reading Morin, it is impossible to come to an objective conclusion that he is ignorant.

--------------------------------

Richard:

Planetary characteristics are based on long observation of their correspondences. Myths have been used to portray their meaning, which does not mean that their meanings derive from myth. Myths have certainly shaped and modified our appreciation of planetary natures - which may have brought certain advantages, whilst it has also brought certain disadvantages.
To say that ALL planetary properties origin from mythology strikes me as a very strong expression of an unprovable viewpoint.

--------------------------------

Graelhaven:

I would say that the myths and the planets have been linked so long that proving one came first is a bit like attempting the old chicken and egg question, they are indellibly linked, one does not exist exclusive of the other. by name, description, or action. =) in my opinion of course, others invariably vary...

----------------------------------

Ekati:

Hello again. Sorry for not answering in time. Now that I am back from vacation, we'll continue.

Tom, I am not angry at all with you. Whoever is angry does not take the time to write long posts and argue with reason, OK?

Morin was an ignorant, since he ignored Aristotle and based his initial hypothesis on wrong facts. Further more he is wrong on stating that the planetary meanings come from constellations. Astrologers like Ptolemy, Vettius Valens, Hephaestion Theban, all state specifically that it is the other way round and they attribute planetary characteristics to the fixed stars of the zodiacal constellations.

E.g.
"Of the Power of the Fixed Stars.

As it is next in order to recount the natures of the fixed stars with reference to their special powers, we shall set forth their observed characters in an exposition like that of the natures of the planets, and in the first place those of the onesthat occupy the figures in the zodiac itself.

The stars in the head of Aries, then, have an effect like the power of Mars and Saturn, mingled; those in the mouth like Mercury's power and moderately like Saturn's; those in the hind foot like that of Mars, and those in the tail like that of Venus. "

[From Tetrabiblos by Ptolemy]

So Morin has to be rejected, if we want to examine his theory by science and reason. Otherwise science and reason have to be rejected

Now, the planetary meanings originated from mythology because there of all those ancient sources that speak of the gods and connect them with the stars. That connection took place much earlier than the development of any astrological system. Mythology did not develope to portray the meanings of the stars and planets, it was developed to describe the gods. The connection between "god" and "star" is so old, it is pre-historic. At those times, astrology as a solid complete system had not been developed yet.

This connection which was established practically everywhere, in Aegypt, in Persia, in Assyria, in Northern Africa, in Hellas e.t.c. later on gave birth to the astrological system. When? Truth is we do not know. But around 600 b.c.e. the zodiac was in use. That's all we know.

How? The "god" and "star" connection, later on became the object of philosophy, fist in Ionian states and a little later in mainland Hellas. As philosophy begun to develop, the "stars" became the "visible bodies of the gods". Each god was a trinity (eps. in the Stoic philosophical school) and constisted of the Noetic (i.e. the Idea), the Noeric (i.e. the Idol, the humanlike form with the symbols) and the Visible (i.e. the star).

The development of philosophy and the use of philosophy to investigate in cosmological matters, offered a solid philosophical basis on which astrological philosophy developed. I read somewhere, R. Schmidt's article on how the concept of "fate" by the Stoics gave birth to the astrological system of the Houses. Aegyptians also offered a lot to astrology's development, with their development of Iatromathematics, a science of the time, very complicated, that combined astrology, medicine and mathematics in orded to predict and to cure diseases.

Now about "ancient Babylonians". Babylon is the name of a city which was named Babylon after Alexander the great. Before that, there is no Babylon. There is no "ancient Babylon" or "ancient Babylonians". The city was called Ninevi and it was capital of the Assyrian empire. There was never a "Babylon empire", it was Assyrian empire those times. The Assyrians claim their origin from the mythical ruler Surmatreus (Sur-matr-eus, As-sur--> Assyrian). Assyria is also connected with the mythical woman-ruler Semiramis who -accirding to myth- created the famous "Gardens of Ninevi", who today are called "gardens of Babylon". But this is not correct since Babylon as a name, exists after Alexander the great.

History and historical research can be quite tricky...as you can see

Beth, by the way, have you ever read Plutarch's text on "who came first, the chicken or the egg" (somewhere in Symposiaca)?

---------------------------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Archived Post



Joined: 15 Oct 2003
Posts: 234
Location: Skyscript

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AP - This is an archived post, but may still be responded to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated