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

Aquarius
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
robin



Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 47

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
The point regarding the complexity of the modern world could possibly be used in an argument demonstrating the [alleged] folly of excluding Uranus from astrology, but the post as a whole is completely ineffective in arguing that Uranus should have the domicile rulership of Aquarius and not another sign. Why Aquarius should be the recipient isn?t even considered. Changing rulerships isn?t simply a question of the validity of a planet?s use in astrology, but whether a sign is well served by the ruler it has had for so many centuries.

Quote:

I'm often puzzled why people cling on to pre 20th century astrology so religously, when the same folks don't do the same with other 'sciences'.

Oh dear, we?re back to that: Is it a science or is it an art?


It's usually seen as both, preference seems dependent on where you sit in the natural/judicial debate. I prefer science as I tend to cling on to a more 'causal' paradigm.

The rest of your post seems to be responding to an argument I wasn't proposing. Aquarius dosen't today seem 'well-served' by saturn, even with todays fuller understanding of both this sign and planet. But uranus poses real problems in relation to aquarius's 'fixity'. Is it this that needs developing?
________
Gz Series


Last edited by robin on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
epurdue



Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 327

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

robin wrote:

1/ - the brain/mind - which we know responds to stimuli, so the more complex the environment the more functions are required.


How do we know that stimuli we are receiving is more "complicated" than before? The only difference possibly that I can see is that people seem to be less patient than before, but I've seen this in my lifetime. Would an ancient person be unable to function today?

This is part of the modern penchant for assuming that we must be "higher developed" than people 500 years ago. It's very superior kind of attitude.

robin wrote:

2/ - (what's the relevance of this question?) - how would we know for sure?
3/ - empirically, systematically, synchronistically, arbitrarily, mythologically, etc


I asked these two questions because I hoped that you would think through your love of the outer planets a bit. We may not have exact records of each and every method used to assign attributes to the traditional 7, however based on what we DO have, it appears that this happened based on long periods of observation and record-keeping, and the planets were named after the effects were observed.

The outer planets were named by astronomers (at least Neptune and Pluto) who had no interest in astrology. In other words these names were random based on following a framework of naming celestial bodies after mythological characters.

The attributes were then assigned with a combination using mythological symbolism of the random name given by scientists and taking some historical event that happened around the time of discovery.

If the outers were so carefully attributed, then why is Pluto so prominently used in astrological books less than 10 years after its discovery? What great amount of data subtantiated it? Why is Pluto as a name even appropriate to it?

If you don't believe me, last year in an issue of "Mountain Astrologer" had a cover story about the "new" planet "Eris" disovered less than 5 years ago. Again astronomers named the planet, and already astrologers are saying that Eris represents chaotic change. Based on what? Oh the myth based on the random name assigned by astronomers. The jury is still out on which sign it's supposed to take.

robin wrote:

4/ - it isn't, the argument is it seems as, maybe more, appropriate today. But I did stress for me this is debatable. (This leads onto another one of the interesting debates concerning should we consider uranus in charts of people born prior to it's discovery)?


I never use the outers. There is nothing that a skilled traditional astrologer can't answer with the original system - with the exception of modern pop psychology which is purely a modern concept, and it's universal efficacy can be debated. I am not convinced that the outers work. First of all I don't do psychological astrology. I am not saying it is wrong, but I don't see the benefit, since I would rather go to a psychologist if I needed that kind of analysis. I think most people really want to know if they are getting married, having kids, and getting a job. It seems like most modern attributions are randomly assigned at worst and intuitive at best which isn't enough for me to get behind.

You also say that less than 10% (how you got that number I have no idea) of Hellenistic astrology is used today as an argument against its being appropriate for today. I would countr-argue that that number doesn't reflect its validity, but people's lack of understanding the art of astrology. If you studied the history of astrology, you will see this change is based more on lack of understanding and laziness than a clinical study of if something works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Papretis



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 346
Location: Finland

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For all interested, I recommed Sue Ward's article about the astrological history of the outer planets, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, in investigation into the sources of their symbolism http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sueward/publications/urnepl.htm . It's a long article, and you have to pay a few Euros, but it's worth it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robin



Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 47

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mithra6
1/ - I don't think you've quite understood this. However it's dependent on your accepting evolution and the brain being organic. I'm referring to skull/brain size on one level, but more relevantly here is the relationship between the complexity of the world(s) we inhabit and how this impacts on the neurons/networks in our brains. The science here seems pretty clear cut?


2/3/ - We know that earlier on the planets were deities, to what degree this was related to perceived correlations/analogies will perhaps be dependent on our anthropological and arachaeological friends.

I'm not sure where you source your ideas on the newer planets names being arrived at differently.

I wouldn't know if Eris is now used much or not. I would hope that if it is it gives consistent outcomes.


4/ - I think this is where our understanding of the potential use of astrology differs. I wouldn't have thought astrology could give you much 'concrete' information and as far as I'm aware results/predictions are what you would expect. Psychological astrology has nothing to do with'pop psychology' or the vagueness of what you might be categorising as New Age Self-Actualisation Astrology. However I think you've hit the nail on the head if you haven't studied Psychology (Both Depth and Academic) then how would you be able to discuss the Outer Planets usefully? So it would make sense to ignore them i suppose.

If more than 10% of Hellenistic astrology was still useable, and i was throwing this in as a random figure, wouldn't this be extraordinary?
________
THE HILLS DICUSSION


Last edited by robin on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Currently about 10% of Hellenistic notions have stood the test of time, will this increase by more than a few percent?

...

If more than 10% of Hellenistic astrology was still useable, and i was throwing this in as a random figure, wouldn't this be extraordinary?

Your former statement implied as fact is now shrugged off as just Ďthrown iní as a random figure? Sloppy.


Quote:
The rest of your post seems to be responding to an argument I wasn't proposing.

That was my point. I was suggesting that you investigate the Uranus rulership of Aquarius that you were defending. Simply because others have told you that Uranus rules Aquarius doesnít mean you need to accept it without investigation. Aries or Gemini could be interesting, and just as wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robin



Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 47

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
Quote:
Currently about 10% of Hellenistic notions have stood the test of time, will this increase by more than a few percent?

...

If more than 10% of Hellenistic astrology was still useable, and i was throwing this in as a random figure, wouldn't this be extraordinary?

Your former statement implied as fact is now shrugged off as just ?thrown in? as a random figure? Sloppy.


Quote:
The rest of your post seems to be responding to an argument I wasn't proposing.

That was my point. I was suggesting that you investigate the Uranus rulership of Aquarius that you were defending. Simply because others have told you that Uranus rules Aquarius doesn?t mean you need to accept it without investigation. Aries or Gemini could be interesting, and just as wrong.


sloppy? - i said about- isn't 10% about right, when you trace the ideas back?

It's widely accepted that Uranus is the co-ruler of Aquarius. From the perspective that Aquarians are disposed to ' behave' in more Uraninan ways than any other sign. As to whether this percepetion is valid-who knows?
What was being discussed here is this enough to give it co-rulership in the light of Aquarius's fixity . But the original post said Aquarius was being changed to suit Uranus so maybe Aquarius will soon be considered a mutable sign?
The same thing might happen with Chiron and whatever, if anything, comes next?
Maybe your right Uranus shouldn't be seen as a co-ruler of aquarius, and i can't see how Chiron will rule or co-rule anything at the moment because it's 'energies' don't correlate with any one sign, as we currently interpret them, in any obvious way. But Neptune and Pluto almost seamlessly became co-rulers and now are seen as almost sole rulers. So should astrologers care if the system 'breaks down' in this Uraninan way?

A way-out or way-in is to ignore the outer's i can see that, but from what i understand a current chart lacks a real sense or grasp of the 'person' without including the outer planets.
________
Bmw M20


Last edited by robin on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A way-out or way-in is to ignore the outer's i can see that, but from what i understand a current chart lacks a real sense or grasp of the 'person' without including the outer planets.


I have no idea how you are able to say that! Confused The person is described in full color with the Sun & Moon, Ascendant & MC, Mercury, Venus & Mars Ė even with the farther out planets Jupiter and Saturn as Asc. ruler or through prominent placement. To not get a grasp of the person using the traditional planets and points indicates a poor astrological education, which seems to be pretty much the norm these days. The traditional bodies and points are the foundation. If people spent less time contemplating Uranus and Neptune and put more time into thoroughly understanding Mercury and Venus they would know what they were doing when looking at a chart.

The outers are add-ons and, in my experience, are lurking detached and uninvolved in the shadows unless closely tied in by configuration. Iíve come to see them not so much as factors or qualities of the person but as influences that shake-up, dissolve, challenge or attempt to remake the person who is indicated by the traditional bodies and points. But once again, there needs to be an indication through contact that an outer planet has business to transact with a chart native. This is a good argument for not giving the outers sign rulership: the outer planets arenít essentials, but factors only for certain people, places and times. They are accidental, not essential.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But Neptune and Pluto almost seamlessly became co-rulers and now are seen as almost sole rulers. So should astrologers care if the system 'breaks down' in this Uraninan way?


Neptune and Pluto are seen as sole or co-rulers by those who havenít the slightest idea of where the rulerships originally came from and don't understand the thought behind them. They are led by a horde of similarly undereducated astrology superstars who write articles and books and do the conference scene rather than work as librarians and accountants. Astrology has turned into mind candy for those who want to be Ďalternativeí. Why should we let a lack of education destroy a system and then call it a Uranian process, as if it were a necessary change?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This post is simply to advance my number of posts from 666 to 667. I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea.














Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robin



Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 47

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm gaining the impression you've got some strong views here Kirk.

where did the rulerships come from?

can you give me a link to a description of someone born after 1900 which excludes the outer planets 'essentially'?, written by an astrologer you hold in high esteem.
________
FORD PRODIGY PICTURE


Last edited by robin on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
epurdue



Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 327

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

robin wrote:
I'm gaining the impression you've got some strong views here Kirk.

where did the rulerships come from?

can you give me a link to a description of someone born after 1900 which excludes the outer planets 'essentially'?, written by an astrologer you hold in high esteem.


Yes. Ben Dykes, and excellent astrologer did one in these forums on Michael Jackson. It's around the middle of the page, and if this link is off, it starts on the third page:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=549&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robin



Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 47

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks

yes i read this one before.

I experienced Liz Greene interpreting Michael Jackson's chart, we are world's apart in terms of depth, clarity and resonance.

Micheal Jackson is a very good example of outer planets, as his life echoes Plutonian and Uraninan themes. Namely, Obsession and Perfection.

But if this is a 'typical' medieval appropach then it highlights the different approach of astrologers then and now in terms of what they were looking for and the tools availiable to do the looking.

Personally, no doubt understandable astrologically, i'm interested in what's going on behind the conscious and overt behaviour.

But i accept this is not everyone's focus and if your more interested in these aspects of Jackson's life then i'm open to the idea that these techniques can reveal them.

It demonstrates how traditional and modern astrology are using different languages so any comparison in terms of virtue is pointless?
________
Justin bieber


Last edited by robin on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wrote:
Quote:
Neptune and Pluto are seen as sole or co-rulers by those who havenít the slightest idea of where the rulerships originally came from and don't understand the thought behind them.

It was my turn to be sloppy. There are historically knowledgeable astrologers who use the outers as co- or even sole rulers. But the fact is I walk away from such people. Sounds terrible, doesnít it? They can be well informed on the history of astrology and the thought behind the traditional sign rulerships, but Iíll have nothing to do with them if I find out they use the modern rulerships. I can be reading and enjoying an article written by one of them, but as soon as they use modern rulerships in the article I drop it and wonít finish reading. I wonít buy their books. That one fatal flaw in their reasoning kills any chance they may have had in my estimation. In contrast, if theyíre using the outers in a delineation in a way that I feel is giving them too much importance Ė but they donít mention modern rulerships Ė Iíll get annoyed, but will keep reading. Iím not against a cautious use of the outer planets. But once I find out that they have bought into the modern rulerships my respect for them plummets and I move on. Heartless, I know. I just donít see how a thinking person can allow the rulership structure to collapse and accept such a mishmash as a replacement.


Quote:
I'm gaining the impression you've got some strong views here Kirk.

Iím really just a meek little thing who trips over his feet.


Quote:
where did the rulerships come from?

Hereís a start: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html


Quote:
can you give me a link to a description of someone born after 1900 which excludes the outer planets 'essentially'?, written by an astrologer you hold in high esteem.

Try the mystery chart delineations (the answer threads) in the Traditional Forum and see what Tom has to say. For the most part Tom leaves out the outers. In both the mystery chart presentation and answer threads read anything by Steven. If I remember correctly he mostly or completely ignores the outers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Julie K



Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 378
Location: Australia

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:28 pm    Post subject: Aquarius Reply with quote

[quote="Kirk"]The point regarding the complexity of the modern world could possibly be used in an argument demonstrating the [alleged] folly of excluding Uranus from astrology, but the post as a whole is completely ineffective in arguing that Uranus should have the domicile rulership of Aquarius and not another sign. Why Aquarius should be the recipient isnít even considered. Changing rulerships isnít simply a question of the validity of a planetís use in astrology, but whether a sign is well served by the ruler it has had for so many centuries.



Kirk,

Uranus was 'discovered' at the time of the American Civil war and French rebellion in 1781 by Willian Herschel. If you look at the time of year when the Sun is travelling through Aquarius - the weather is cool and crisp, snowy and icey. Saturn was considered the Ruler of Aquarius by the Ancients. Upon the discovery of Uranus this new planet was given Rulership over Aquarius - sign of the reformer, the one who fights for a cause, be it Greenpeace or the IRA. Aquarians can be cool and crisp, cold and icey - detached. Just who and how this Rulership of Aquarius was assigned is something I need to read up on again.The weather in the Southern Hemisphere at this time of year is hot and humid!

Julie K
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Arihant



Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 66
Location: INDIA

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Kirk ,
During my University days , many of my early february born friends, have this weird style of walking into college , sometimes in their bathroom slippers ..without a least bit of hesitation & they are so friendly (even those days they were friends , but emotionally attached to no one) to everyone, always ready to arrange meetings /students welfare activities...like true humanatarian & brotherwood ...and so technology minded ...many become computers whiz-kid, 25 years back,leaving us Taureans , behind one generation.

Years Later , when i read the description of uranian types..unusual , independence , detached ...scientific oriented... description so well suited about them...And , there i could recall nothing Saturnian about them , except they never showed their emotions in public...only fun& their tricks!

regards
Arihant
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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