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

Mercury as natural significator of astrology

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



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 11:53 pm    Post subject: Mercury as natural significator of astrology Reply with quote

Garry's article on Mercury and astrology http://www.skyscript.co.uk/mercury5.html is very enlightening indeed. I found it interesting that he placed Mercury as significator of astrology in a modern context that made so much sense. We have had many discussions on this forum before about scientific proof of astrology but looking at it from the point of view of Mercury and its elusive nature it is not surprising that proof has not been forthcoming. The suggestion that astrology which can work at its optimum, regardless of the mental state of the astrologer, is a contradiction in terms is, to me, further evidence that Mercury is it’s natural significator. As Garry points out in his article, it is consistent with the nature of astrology that it cannot be conclusively validated in objective, scientific terms.

I'm not really up on the details of when and why astrology was given to Uranus. Was it soon after Uranus was discovered or did it take some time for this to happen? And was it a simple matter of giving it to Uranus because of the muse Urania or were there other explanations put forward?

An interesting article Garry. Thanks.

Sue
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Fri May 28, 2004 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That’s a point. When, where and how did astrologers suffer a mental breakdown and decide to align themselves under the signification of Uranus? Well I don’t accept one jot of it, but I’m very curious as to when astrologers moved from the view expressed about Uranus in the early 19th century:

Quote:
...He has no houses allotted him, but participates of the nature of the malevolent planet Saturn in the highest degree; and it is therefore equally unfortunate…


…to considering themselves and their activities defined by this planet. I recently attended a meeting, the purpose of which was to discuss the resurrection of a local astrological society. The original ‘birth chart’ of the old society had Uranus conjunct Jupiter on the Midheaven and I suspect it was elected to capture the Uranian energy. Most members at the meeting felt that since Uranus was now on the square of that old Uranus/Jupiter/MC conjunction, this would be a good time to bring the activities to life again. (It was drawn to their attention that the last two people to lead the group were forced to quit due to dramatic accidents or events that put them in wheelchairs). I also recollect being on the AA council when a conference was organised that ‘commenced’ with Uranus/Neptune angular and receiving a malefic aspect from the Moon. I realise the AA had a very limited time frame but the aspect was very confidently predicted to represent a time of spiritual enlightenment and an ideal time to discuss the issues that challenge astrologers. (In fact it was particularly chaotic with lots of complaints during and after and most people commenting on the strange, stressful atmosphere).

In the ‘Outer Planet Signification’ thread Kim says
Quote:
“Everyone [astrological author] I looked at today, which was practically everything I could find in the late eighteenth into nineteenth century, insists that Uranus doesn’t actually rule anything.”


In another early reference, Raphael says of Uranus:
Quote:
”His effects are truly malefic ; but what he does of evil, is always in a peculiarly strange, unaccountable, and totally unexpected manner: he causes the native born under his influence, to be of a very eccentric and original disposition. Those persons are generally unusually romantic, unsettled, addicted to change, and searchers after novelty.”


Which might make Uranus a good significator for modern popular astrological drivel, but what idiot-astrologer or idiot astrological collective decided to tar us all with the same brush?

I also enjoyed Garry’s philosophical take on the traditional signification of Mercury over astrologers, and I was going to enlarge on a point I made in another post, about how astrological philosophy has been the inspiration behind some major scientific advances (ie. Kepler, Newton, etc), and yet once those ‘truths’ are discovered they usually end up as a means to undermine the astrological philosophy that inspired them – that seems very much in keeping with the enigmatic, ambivalent and elusive nature of Mercury the Mockery-maker. But then I realised I’m writing this post as a pathetic excuse to avoid something else that I should be doing, so I’m going to stop being so distracted and get back to some proper work now.

One last thing though; I don’t actually think any one planet is a complete significator for astrology and I prefer Jupiter as the significator of the ‘divine priest’ role of spiritual advisor where astrology is used to enlarge the capacity for self-understanding. But I think that one of the reasons why astrologers were anciently allocated under Mercury was because astrologers had to be skilled in mathematics, logic, astronomical cycles, numerology, geometry, as well as philosophy and the muses. Ancient sources do seem to place astrology firmly under the Mercurial influence, along with other augurs and interpreters, such as dream interpreters, so perhaps the onus is on the capacity for intellectual reasoning and the ability to interpret something in a way that satisfies the expectations placed upon it. Hence Mercury is a good general significator for a subject that has a huge variety of branches, styles and approaches. But I can't think of any good argument for putting astrology under the influence of Uranus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3447
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri May 28, 2004 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Deb and Sue,

I like John Frawley's observation regarding his preference for Mercury as general significator for astrology as opposed to Uranus:

"We are thinkers, not eccentrics."

Tom
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 -> 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