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

The New Planets in the Outer Solar System
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kim Farnell



Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Posts: 256

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If there is a progressive astrologer on this list who does think we should move with the times and the processions I'd really like to hear what you think about the new planetary discoveries.


There's more than one type of progress. Many of us here were originally taught the type of astrology inherited from Hone/Carter or from a theosophical standpoint (Leo to Rudhyar etc). It's only relatively recently that we've been able to access texts and theories predating the late nineteenth century. I'm amongst those who think I made progress by rejecting numerous modern theories that don't appear to to be effective in favour of older techniques that work. For a long time, we only had the option of watered down versions of the old techniques, and they didn't really stand up well against modern astrology.

Of course, it does depend on what sort of astrology you do. It's far easier to make a case for the outers if you're practicing mundane or modern esoteric astrology. It's much harder for horary/electional.

But saying that we need the outer planets because times have changed, we've lots of new inventions, people are different now etc is about the weakest rationale as far as I'm concerned. It assumes that times didn't change dramatically during the millennia that we used only the classical planets - which is clearly nonsense. We can move with the times, but one way in which we can do this is through greater respect for our heritage and by shedding the idea that all people were inherently stupid until the last couple of centuries.

There may well be a place for outer planets, asteroids, hypotheticals etc etc etc. But just because something is discovered in our lifetime, that doesn't make it more important. Allocating associations based on observation/research is one thing, sharing out rulerships previously delegated to the seven classical planets so that the new ones don't feel short changed is another. As is throwing out older techniques because we have a philosophical objection to them, or it's hard to fit them into a system that places so much value on the newer planets. But then, everyone is in such a hurry...

It's been very simple for me. Although an outer planet aspect or transit can resonate when I'm doing a chart, the same information appears through more traditional approaches and as I don't like clutter I don't generally use the outer planets.

Moving with the times is fine, so long as we continue to look backwards as well as forwards. This isn't really the venue for the type of "progressiveness" you seem to want.

Kim

Btw Coder, I note that you picked up Tom on his mispelling of "Bailey," so you'll obviously want to be aware that "Rudhyar" is the correct spelling.
_________________
www.kimfarnell.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Coder



Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 143

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kim:
Quote:
I am about as psychic as a sausage roll

And synchronicity exists after all <ironic>. As inside, so outside. By coincidence I had just read Garry's interview with you on this site, and was idly wondering about enquiring of you both, which one of you thought you were being the more subversive of astrology <grin>.

Quote:
why Coder is so determined to sell a theosophical construct.

As I seem to have materialised you in person, and the only referent in the above statement I agree with is the word "Coder" (and even that is not real), and this seems more about theosophy than astrology, I'd better do the honourable thing and take it off thread. E-mail you... well, I expect you already know when (I don't).

Quote:
be aware that "Rudhyar" is the correct spelling.

Tho not the original name. Would he rotate in his grave as fast to get it wrong?

skippy:
Quote:
Quote:
I suggest you widen your investigation of the outer planets beyond returns,


{Colorful exegesis removed here} The outers cannot possibly influence the earth coz they ain't going to revolve around me {and here}


An interesting view - refreshingly different from the usual "traditional/modern" and visible/invisible to the naked eye" distinctions, and makes my suggestion irrelevant in principle. So how do you work this?

Does that mean excluding Neptune and Pluto, but including Uranus and Chiron? And how do you interpret those two? Do you adjust the set of planets depending on the life span of natives known to be deceased, so that for infants dying in the their first 11 years you don't exclude Jupiter and Saturn from consideration, etc? (Forget Methuselah and animals). Do you restrict the set of planets in prognostic charts to those which have completed an actual revolution in the life of the native when the chart is drawn up? Do you avoid delineations of the future beyond that time when the next planet out completes a revolution - i.e. for a native age 18 you forecast only until they are 29 or so, since after than the inclusion of Saturn might make a difference to the forecast?

Seems perfectly "workable", even if you are pulling our leg(s). Shame about not getting any of that Pluto sex stuff in, tho. Still, as outside, so inside.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skippy



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 88
Location: england

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Coder I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Kim is there some une - written rule on this forum which states that one cannot talk about progressive astrology. If so, point me to it and I'll be out on the next train. New people can and will join this site all the time. I have written to the big wigs who postulate about the topic and asked them if they want to join as I am sure it is a free country and a list where open and free debate is actively encouraged nay welcomed - one hopes. I'm all for keeping history alive, the meaning of the word progress is to advance, to gain, to move forward. Whilst you are burying your noses steeped in history you will notice that there has been shifts in the cosmos at the same time.

Also for those who have made snide remarks about history repeating itself. I haven't actually seen anything discussed previously about new planets and their possible meanings. Just stuff about traditional versus modern. As an old Scezhuan saying states:
'It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white just as long as it catches mice'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kim Farnell



Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Posts: 256

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Kim is there some written rule on this forum which states that one cannot talk about progressive astrology. If so, point me to it and I'll be out on the next train.


Not at all. I'm simply saying that if, as it seemed, progressive meant to you adapting astrology to include outer planets etc, you'd have a more difficult time with that concept in a traditionally oriented forum than elsewhere. Many people have ended up here precisely because they don't agree with that sort of astrology. Doesn't stop you saying whatever you like about it though.

Perhaps if you defined what you meant by progressive it would make for an easier discussion - otherwise people simply assume.

I do like the idea of closing posts with a cat quote though. Here's mine: "Supposing you're trying to find out how a cat works - you take that cat apart to see how it works, what you've got in your hands is a non-working cat." Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide.

Kim
_________________
www.kimfarnell.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
skippy



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 88
Location: england

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think I can be any more specific than I have been in my posts tbh.
Modern astrology is out by about 2000-3000 years out of date is one such example of a progressive argument. I think with that type of argument it would seem more attractive to just bury the head in historical books. I'd like to think I'm encompassing both. It is a long time since I worked in a traditional manner but as yet no one has looked at mr cobains chart and shown me the boon that states something different from (new planetary) outer to personal planet delineation.

New planets and their meanings are another. So the notion that I'm a modern astrologer is to some quite laughable. As I've said new things are being discovered and it has and always will be the job of any serious astronomer/astrologer to ascertain the value of such hypothesis and their influence in relation to other things in the Cosmos and how that may or may not affect the planet Earth.

Maybe Deb could to put in big bold red letters this is a site for those who wish to discuss traditional astrololgical matters only. Then you might get some reprieve from the monotony you all keep complaining about - just a polite suggestion.

Yes I like the tradition of cat quotes: so here's another.
'Doesn't matter how much cats fight they will always produce kittens' Abe Lincoln.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kim Farnell



Joined: 18 Dec 2003
Posts: 256

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Modern astrology is out by about 2000-3000 years out of date is one such example of a progressive argument. I think with that type of argument it would seem more attractive to just bury the head in historical books.


I'm not sure what that means. You're saying that modern astrology is 2-3k years out of date? I don't think it's a choice between practicing modern astrology and burying ourselves in textbooks.

Quote:
Maybe Deb could to put in big bold red letters this is a site for those who wish to discuss traditional astrololgical matters only. Then you might get some reprieve from the monotony you all keep complaining about - just a polite suggestion.


She can if she likes, it's her site after all. But I don't know where you're finding all the complaints about monotony.

You asked what we thought. I told you what I think. But no-one here is actually obliged to say anything. You're not convinced by what others have said about Cobain's chart - fine, you don't have to be. The discussion clearly hasn't gone the way that you wanted it to, but getting snitty because of that won't encourage further responses. Threads never go the way you expect when you start them anyway. It'll take me years to recover from the ones I started...

Kim

Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a function. Joseph Wood Krutch.
_________________
www.kimfarnell.co.uk


Last edited by Kim Farnell on Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
skippy



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 88
Location: england

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I ain't getting snitty you quite catergorically stated that this is a site for traditional astrologers. What the hell snitty means I have no idea but it takes one to know one.

Neither did I protest about the conversation going the way of traditional astrology to some extent it has to but there is no need to get snitty about repitition either and those who made those comment always make those comments. So I politely steered it the way of the question which you ever so politely but not in the least bit politely remind it ain't gonna get answered as this is a site for traditional astrologers.

The ideal of calm exists in a sitting cat.
Jules Renard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While this is predominantly a traditional site and you will find that most people who post frequently lean towards traditional astrology this does not mean that other views are not welcome. No one believes that traditionalists have all the answers. This forum in not meant to convince anyone of anything. It is simply an avenue for discussing the various views of astrology. It is unlikely that traditionalists can convince modern astrologers to see it their way in the same way that modern astrologers are unlikely to convince traditional astrologers to their way of thinking. Even though I am very much a traditional astrologer I am always interested to know the views of others. If either side closes off their minds to what others are thinking then we are all in danger of imploding on ourselves. When we come to a forum like this we have to expect that others will disagree with our views. If you take a look through the posts you will see that traditionalists disagree with each other frequently. You don't have to agree with someone's views to have respect for them. The main criteria for posting on this site is that we all treat the views of others with the same respect that we expect of our own views.

I don't have a cat quote but co-incidentally I did have a dream about my cats last night (all five of them). They are staying elsewhere and I haven't seen them for months.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
skippy



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 88
Location: england

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sue your last post was just what I was thinking when I was looking through some old topics today. Where are those cool cats now?
Is Garry P theGarry P. There were others who had some really profound insights and knowledge toboot.
So here's another one to cheer you up Sue
'As every cat owner knows, nobody owns a cat'. - Ellen Perry Berkeley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skippy



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 88
Location: england

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never once mentioned asteroids. I like to think I study planets until some other can convince me that I should be studying asteroids. I also get really excited about discoveries of new ones just as my forefathers did. NO ONE has yet convinced me that I ought to be studying asteroids.

Dearest Sue I'm also more than for happy people to burst my little bubble I might just learn something that way.

I've found this:
It seems there are astrologers out there who are astronomers afterall
http://www.karmastrology.com/cgi-bin/qforum/quaoarbb.cgi?forum_name=main_forum&message_number=240


it also states that vulcan is now Orcar (I guess named by the scientific community - 2004DW. They talk about it being a higher otctane of Mercury succintly and in a respectful way but at the very least if you are interested you can ask them what their views are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do think there is a risk this discussion becomes oversimplified as a debate between modernists and traditionalists.

Tom,Sue and Kim express very well the outer planet 'sceptic' view within traditional astrology. Astrologers such as Sue Ward and John Frawley share similar views. I fully respect where they are coming from and why they take this line.

Nevertheless, traditional astrology today is not monolithic in its approach to the use of outer planets not least because traditional astrologers in the classical, medieval or early modern period didn't have to deal with the issue.

It seems to me there are three basic approaches a traditionalist can adopt.
In all cases they would be outside the traditional essential dignities and rulerships.

1 Ignore them totally

2 Treat them like fixed stars-only counting conjunctions on key points such as angles or significators as with fixed stars.

3 Use them in consideration of all Ptolemaic aspects and assign an orb as with other planets.

I know Deb uses outer planets in her horary judgements beyond the 'fixed star' approach suggested by Tom. In particular looking at aspects to the main significators and the Moon. I believe Lee Lehman makes extensive use of outer planets too.

I do think natal astrology is the source of many traditionalists frustration with the modern approach. There is almost a fetish with using outer planets at every opportunity often at the expense of sound delineation based on the digniities or main significators in the chart.

Nevertheless, this particular thread is under the Philosophy & Science heading. People don't have to be card carrying traditionalists to post here. At the same time people should be willing to have their assumptions about astrology challenged without taking it as a personal rebuke. Surely, debate and discussion is the essence of good philosophy?


Last edited by Mark on Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Nevertheless, this particular thread is under the Philosophy & Science heading. People don't have to be card carrying traditionalists to post here. At the same time people should be willing to have their assumptions about astrology challenged without taking it as a personal rebuke. Surely, debate and discussion is the essence of good philosophy?


Absolutely. As I said before, no one has all the answers. This forum gives us a great opportunity to debate issues that we might not otherwise be able to debate. And having our ideas challenged can be quite rewarding. None of it is meant to be taken as a personal attack. Regular forum readers will probably know that out of all the people on this forum I probably disagree with Tom more than anyone. But there is no one on this forum I have more respect for. He constantly helps me sharpen my astrological skills because I am so busy trying to prove him wrong that I actually learn something along the way. Very Happy But it is all in the name of good natured debate.

In terms of the outers, the way I was taught by Deb was more along the lines of number two in the list in a similar way to that suggested by Tom. Unless they are on an angle or in close conjunction with a significator they are largely ignored. This is how I use them. If an outer planet is on an angle I certainly take note. If it is conjunct a significator (including the Moon), again, I take note. I do not consider them if they are in other aspect to significators. Horary is largely about the here and now and the immediate future. The Moon is the clue because it is so active in the chart. Its recent movement and its future movement is full of information. The outer planets do not give that sense of movement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4924
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Sue,

Quote:
In terms of the outers, the way I was taught by Deb was more along the lines of number two in the list in a similar way to that suggested by Tom. Unless they are on an angle or in close conjunction with a significator they are largely ignored. This is how I use them. If an outer planet is on an angle I certainly take note. If it is conjunct a significator (including the Moon), again, I take note.


Well thats interesting. Its more restricted than I thought Deb used the outers. In particular your following point:

Quote:
I do not consider them if they are in other aspect to significators


There seem to be two issues here..what orb do we use for outers and what aspects do we allow for the outers?

Deb's article seems to suggest allocating a 5 degree orb for such non-luminous points. This dates back to Ptolemy and his view of planets contacting the Ascendant.

: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html#mo

On the issue of using other aspects you seem to be stating that if for example the Moon or a primary significator's next applying aspect was an opposition to Uranus you would ignore that in your judgement.

I thought Deb would consider such an aspect but I better let her speak for herself when she returns. It wouldn't be the first time I have got muddled!

Personally, I certainly would use such aspects. Moreover I have found them quite important in several horary judgements.

Quote:
Horary is largely about the here and now and the immediate future.


Agreed

Quote:
The Moon is the clue because it is so active in the chart. Its recent movement and its future movement is full of information.


Agreed

Quote:
The outer planets do not give that sense of movement.


Well not in themselves agreed. However, I think the more dynamic nature of Horary or Electional work calls for a different approach. For example, what if one of the outers form the next applying aspect of the Moon or a key significator?


Last edited by Mark on Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:21 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
skippy



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 88
Location: england

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know much about the rules of Horary as I don't find I need it. I use other methods in astrology to predict as well as other methods per se.

This argument about slow moving planets is a valid one only if you have one way of looking at things. It reminds me of a debate that rages from medical doctors to Homeopaths. 'Get rid of them' they cry. 'Awful people - quacks - a danger to public health'! Yet and yet over 70% of the population in the UK have visited a homeopath dern dern dern. The medics reasons simply stems from the idea that homeopathic pills are made of water they do not stand up to the scrutiny of Avogadros number. The homepaths just roll their eyes and get on with it and the paying public continue to visit homeopaths. Why? For some reason it has worked - not only has it worked it has treated medical diseases which continue to baffle the scientific community and that really gets them riled. It works on subtle energy but given they have no idea what that it is they think it is nonsense. This tiny pill which has been diluted so many times as to make the original formula totally insignificant is more powerful more effective than some of their remedies and they can't stand that. Homeopaths are labelled magicians, psychics, con merchants - what-ever.

I think there are parallels with this argument and obviously other similar ones that have raged. It doesn't stop me reading the sceptics views though. Whereas most others recoil in horror away from skeptics they don't scare me. I do not accept the ancients did not know about the energy of Pluto, Uranus, Vulcan, Neptune etc. They might not have been able to see them though - although I don't know that for sure - but they sure seemed to know they were there. Why else did they become part of their linguistics.

It also reminds me of people bandying around an Old Testament saying the Bible is true and only my version is right. My way or the highway. Really? Which version? Anybody actually find any remains of this character Jesus do we know whether he actually existed or not. No proof but there has to be something because several versions have been handed down to us. As to which one is accurate well who knows but the warring of who is right and who is wrong in these matters is what ails most of human society. It was one of the main reasons I walked away from astrology many years ago too. However, now I'm going grey and I'm having some major outer planetary transits and so by some bizarre reason I'm learning to get big broad shoulders.

I can handle Tom ribbing about modern views, he's attacking the views not the viewer. Frawley's views are hilarious. Sue is ever the diplomat I didn't know she had allegiance to the 'others'. Personally I find her views strictly moderate. The thing I like about the site is the way it is laid out and the Excellence of most of the contributors. Debbie has done by far the most fabulous job and I'm sure she has had help from others along the way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tumbling Sphinx



Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Skippy,

I think your post is timely in that I think they're soon to allocate a name to 2003 UB313.

In surfing the web, I happened upon this thread discussing naming of this planet which may be of interest to you:
http://pub48.bravenet.com/forum/4095425731/show/586725

This site focuses on ...

"Cosmodyne Technology, Asteroids, TNP's, Imaginary planets, and other more avante garde astrology is encouraged.  
"The decision making model of astrology is emphasized. 
"The only rule on this forum is that people act nice and not insulting to others."


Re Chiron, you may be interested in Zane Stein's investigations at: http://www.zanestein.com/chiron.htm

Best wishes,
TS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
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