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

Is Uranus Associated with Aries?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 901
Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark-- Corrections noted!

But just to clarify.

No, I do not think Uranus is a "higher octave" of Mercury. (Give me a little credit. Surprised ) The "octave" approach is from a brand of modern esoteric astrology to which I do not subscribe.

It always puzzles me (if I might lean on your post a little) however, when people describe Uranus in only negative terms. It isn't a malefic; a concept that many modern astrologers reject, in any case. If Uranus symbolizes disruption, it also symbolizes liberation. Things sudden and unexpected can be happy occasions. Think serendipity, or a sudden release from an unwanted circumstance.

Is social disruption always bad? If it were, Europeans would still be burdened with the feudal system. Women wouldn't vote, and so on. Nobody in a ruling class has a motive to give an under-class any human rights unless (a) either they get a major change in the economic or social circumstances; or (b) the under-class fights for them.

In the modern astrology to which I personally subscribe, any planet can have a positive or negative side. (Or to get out of stultifying binaries, it can be a mixture.) You find this to some degree in traditional astrology, where under certain circumstances even Saturn can have a beneficial influence.)

Political revolutions like the American Revolution (or rapid evolutionary change) are not ideosyncratic around the globe and over time. France? Russia? Latin America? China? India? The persistence of the British monarchy and its influence in British life is actually a bit unusual in this regard.

Well, yes, revolutions or any type of war are "bloody and destructive." So just ask the average Frenchman or Russian if he thinks the average person was better off under their bloated monarchy. Today there is some option for separatist movements to accomplish their goals without war, but this wasn't such an option in many nations of the past.

I agree that Uranus is not necessarily tied to liberal causes. I've looked at charts for the formation of the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement in the US, and Uranus figures prominently. But holy smokes, is the Tea Party ideologically driven!

Each of the political leaders you cite was/is ideologically driven. Sometimes ideology is merely a way to dress up baser motives, but it is very different from raw aggression in a "might makes right" calculus.

I am not sure what "whole theory" you believe I base anything on. But here is why Uranus isn't Mars. Mars is to raw agression as Uranus is to ideologies of liberation. Mars may symbolize the violence (beatings, lynchings) that keep the under-classes in their place. (Think slavery in the American South, or Rome, I suppose.) Uranus is the ideology that says, "All men are created equal." And of course, no planet works in isolation from other planets. Mars + Saturn vs. Mars + Uranus should play out very differently in mundane affairs.

I think the idea of Aquarius as a watery sign reflects the Mediterranean environmental heritage. When the sun is in Aquarius, this region is still in the midst of its winter rainy season.

More later on your further points, Mark. Thank you for starting such a stimulating thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 901
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark-- I appreciate your efforts to regularize the modern outers in some coherent way. Some further thoughts on the latter portion of your post to me:

Mark wrote:
.....

I adopt an approach to the outer planets in delineation terms rather like fixed stars in traditional astrology. (1) Like fixed stars they rule no signs. (2) Using the traditional attitude to fixed stars given by Ptolemy I think their nature should be related back to the nature of one of the 7 visible planets. Ptolemy’s approach to fixed stars has a primary planet followed by a secondary one. Here is a working model of what I propose:

Uranus: Mars and Mercury (hot and dry). Cardinal in operation
Neptune: Moon and Venus (cold and moist) Mutable in operation
Pluto: Saturn and Mars (cold and burning?) Fixed in operation

On reflection this is perhaps a more practical approach than trying to agree on sign associations as I originally proposed. (3) These bodies have no rulership of any sign. However, even points like nodes and lots have planetary dispositors. Hence the outers are strongly influenced by the dispositor planets of the signs they are in. Hence, we see a Mars disposited Uranus in the sign of Aries at present.

This approach will obviously not appeal to moderns using Uranus as a planetary ruler (or joint ruler). Its not intended to. I think the difference in approach is to wide to attempt a consensus on this. (4) However, I offer it more for traditional astrologers looking for an approach to the outer planets.

(5)
If Uranus , as many moderns insist, is really just a ‘higher octave of Mercury' surely it should have 'rulership' of Gemini and/or Virgo? And if Uranus is a higher ‘octave of Mercury why oh why is it linked to Aquarius? Both the mercury ruled signs are mutable while Aquarius is fixed??? I cannot see any logic or philosophical consistency in this approach.

(6) Frankly, I have found the idea of joint rulers only leads to muddle and confusion in terms of accurate delineation. Maybe it can be made to work in a fashion for a generalised psychological reading but for areas like horary, elections or natal prediction I think it is a recipe for total confusion. This is probably the principle reason I took up traditional astrology in the first place.

Mark


(1) An interesting approach, except that the modern outer planets do not operate like fixed stars. They operate like planets, just more slowly than the traditional seven. Uranus changes signs roughly every seven years. Even a "generational" planet like Pluto is now on its 6th sign in my lifetime.

(2) The modern outer planets rule their respective signs so brilliantly that I see no reason to boot them out. I note that the word "rule" has several different meanings in astrology, but as domicile rulers they work just fine, including as house cusp rulers (lords.) I use both traditional and modern rulers in natal chart interpretation and its derivatives, and have never had a problem with dual rulers.

I am less competent in horary astrology, but there it makes a little more sense to me to stick with the traditional planets only. A "generational" planet works well in a natal chart, because we are creatures of our generation. And a "generational" planet also becomes highly personal, however, when it aspects a planet or angle. In horary, which goes by the fleeting moment, I am less taken with the idea that every question over, say, a 10- or 20-year period will have Pluto in the same sign. There I would use the modern outers as supplementary info-bytes.

(3) I think modern planets work fine as dispositors. Depending on whether I go traditional or modern, I have Mercury in mutual reception with Uranus and/or Saturn. They both make sense to me.

(4) It would be nice to drive no further wedges between modern and traditional astrology. I don't think the moderns will pigeon-hole tidily into traditional essential dignities and debilities. And I don't see that as a problem.

(a) Karen Hamaker-Zondag, in her book on horary astrology, inserts the moderns as day rulers of their respective signs. Maybe this is just her thing, or perhaps it is more widely accepted in Dutch or non-Anglo astrology more generally, I don't know.

(b) The moderns work well in decans and dwads.

(c) The moderns work in accidental dignities and debilities

I recommend that traditional astrologers who wish to use the modern outer planets simply consider a different category for them. They are not traditional planets, fixed stars, Arabian parts, or what have you. This way, furthermore, the moderns don't intrude on the traditional system of dignities and debilities.

(5.) I really do not care for the "octave" idea of modern esoteric astrology. It is more like a spiritual belief about planets (if not "cotton candy for the soul") than a method with real utility. I have no idea how anybody could actually use octaves in a natal chart reading where the native asks about her ideal career or why she is still single at age 40.

(6). I don't think joint rulers of signs leads to any "muddle or confusion" once traditional astrologers are used to working with them. To cite analogies, many children have two parents, some citizens have two types of heads of state (president/monarch and prime minister), or two supervisors at work.

In analysizing a chart, I look at both traditional and modern rulers. No problem. To take the example of Aquarius sun people, usually it's a no-brainer to see whether Saturn or Uranus is the more influential planet in the person's life. If Uranus isn't up to much in the horoscope, yet the Aquarian sun's house cusp is in Capricorn with some other Capricorn planets besides, then let's give Saturn more influence than Uranus. If Uranus is a big focalizer in the person's chart and Saturn isn't a big player, then we've got a more Uranian guy or gal.

"Generalized psychological reading"? Big Ouch there, Mark.

To me, aspects are the most important part of a chart interpretion. The tighter the orb, especially with a hard aspect, the more the person is going to feel it. Planets in aspect are up there in the sky regardless of whether you use a tropical or sideral zodiac, whole-signs or Placidus, or any of the derivative itsy-bitsies of essential dignities or Arabian parts!

Each planet stands for something. It also has attributes (notably by element.) Uranus indicates sudden change, which can make it extremely useful in predictive work.

Once we grasp these two principles, there doesn't have to be anything mushy or muddly about astrology and its use of modern outer planets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil



Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 51

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
No, I do not think Uranus is a "higher octave" of Mercury. (Give me a little credit. Surprised ) The "octave" approach is from a brand of modern esoteric astrology to which I do not subscribe.


Hey any quick history of or takes on the "octave" concept? I've seen it mentioned on some of the information pages here on Skyscript.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 901
Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phil, I think the idea of modern outer planets as higher octaves of inner planets comes from Alice Bailey's brand of esoteric astrology-- maybe some of the theosophists developed it before her, I don't know. It was picked up by subsequent modern esoteric astrologers like Alan Oken, who studied with Bailey.

The esoteric astrologers (of various stripes) seem/ed to believe that people are on an evolutionary journey-- or should be. The contemplation of astrology, with its signs, planets, and houses serves as a set of stations through which the enlightened seeker passes. The outer modern planets supposedly stand for concepts like transfiguration, transsubstantiation, and regeneration.

This type of astrology wasn't designed to answer the ordinary, pragmatic questions of people's lives, but to reposition astrology as a kind of spiritual study through which higher states of consciousness could be achieved.

(Mark, this is one reason why I don't think the octave concept will help in fitting Uranus into astrological practice, if one's foci are the various pragmatic questions that most astrologers address. Equating Uranus to a "higher octave of Mercury" or "transfiguration" does exactly....what?)

Possibly the term "octaves" has its roots in the ancient Greek idea of the "music of the spheres," with distances between planets (or the spheres they presumably occupied) corresponding to different musical intervals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1405

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't followed all these posts, having only now seen the title.

My own view is that I associate Uranus with Aries and have done for some time now. I use traditional rulerships and recognise that some planets seem to have something in common with the timbre of a given sign - Pluto with Scorpio makes sense to me, though there are aspects of Pluto which I associate with all the Fixed signs (attachment and power). Similarly Neptune I associate with Pisces, though it has some affinity with all the mutable signs. Uranus with Aries though for me it has some affinity with all the cardinal signs.

I do not go so far as to talk of modern rulerships or higher octaves or anything like that.

Waybread mentions that this came from Alice Bailey. I am not sure about that. However one point from, I believe, Bailey is that Uranus is a veil of the Sun, Neptune a veil of the Moon. And there's something about this which I do think works or has some resonance with me. Seeing Uranus as an individuating process or a process of 'self' or separation of self from other makes a great deal of sense to me, and if you want to link that to the Sun, then I can see something in it that I could go along with. Similarly the Moon can have a receptive and 'blurring the lines' quality, the antithesis of definition and individuation that might be seen by Uranus/Sun, and I can go along with linking this with the Moon.

When I see Uranus in a chart, I am broadly thinking in terms of sudden change, disruption, separation and excitable conflict, and I think all the cardinal signs can relate to some degree with this changeable nature, and to some degree Aries more so. Similarly the 'separating' one from another, and the defining of a given thing from another is quite individuating in a way that does make me think of the Sun.
Just as the blurring together or melding or pooling effect of Neptune, and its tendency to give rise to illusion can remind me of the Moon.

I believe Melanie Reinhart takes a similar idea, also from Bailey, in one of her books (I cannot remember which one now).

Apologies if this doesn't further any of the discussion here, I just wanted to put my $0.02 out there simply because, like Mark is wondering, I associate Uranus with Aries myself. I do not discount Aquarius completely, but for me, it makes better sense to have an association with Aries. I have not read anyone else make the outer planet - mode connection, or suggest Uranus and Aries so for someone else to do it is really exciting for me. I have made a similar point as this on a few threads on astro.com over the last few years, just throwing out my ideas on it. It's interesting that someone else would come to the same conclusion independently.


waybread wrote:

It always puzzles me (if I might lean on your post a little) however, when people describe Uranus in only negative terms. It isn't a malefic; a concept that many modern astrologers reject, in any case. If Uranus symbolizes disruption, it also symbolizes liberation. Things sudden and unexpected can be happy occasions. Think serendipity, or a sudden release from an unwanted circumstance.


But what is the criterion of what takes on the quality of a malefic, and are malefics always seen as bad?
In my view no. Mars rules fire, for example, and we might see it as a good example of a malefic. Fire burns, hurts, kills, destroys. But it also warms, provides light and so on, and yet Mars is still a malefic.

I think the problem is in presuming that Malefic = Always Evil/Bad. And it doesn't. It means intemperate in its qualities. Fire is excessive or intemperate in its qualities. Uranus is also, hence malefic.

In any event even in the tradition, malefics well placed can act benefically, so traditional astrology has always recognised that context is an important criterion as to whether a disruptive or excessive quality produces positive or negative results.

Quote:
I recommend that traditional astrologers who wish to use the modern outer planets simply consider a different category for them. They are not traditional planets, fixed stars, Arabian parts, or what have you. This way, furthermore, the moderns don't intrude on the traditional system of dignities and debilities.


It's worth highlighting that Mark hasn't said he uses them as a fixed star or arabic part or what have you. He said he uses them like fixed stars, in that they do not rule signs - ie, they do not have domicile rulership over a given sign.
Of course modern astrologers do something different, but many traditional astrologers who do use modern planets do something similar to what Mark is saying here. I do the same. I think outers have natural symbolism, many of which can be seen by combinations of traditional planets. Maybe it would have been better to say "unlike traditional planets, they rule no signs" rather than "like fixed stars they rule no signs".

Of course by placing these caveats and conditions on the outer planets they are already placed into a different category than fixed stars, traditional planets, or arabic parts - it is just that we do not always have a word for this, unless of course the word we want to use is 'outer planet'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil



Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 51

Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, waybread. I'd seen the "octave" term here and there but didn't think much of it. I remember reading something Rob Hand wrote comparing Mercury and Uranus, noting how they're both visible to the naked eye but difficultly so, how they both "blink in and out of existence", or something like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4949
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was going to reply to Waybread's posts in detail but I lack the time for a line by line reply to her very extensive posts. Plus I feel that is a rather negative approach. We obviously disagree fundamentally on a number of issues and I suspect no end of discussion will alter that. I prefer to elaborate on my own take on this topic and let others decide for themselves where they stand.

However, .....just a few points I cannot let pass without a response.

Quote:
Well, yes, revolutions or any type of war are "bloody and destructive." So just ask the average Frenchman or Russian if he thinks the average person was better off under their bloated monarchy. Today there is some option for separatist movements to accomplish their goals without war, but this wasn't such an option in many nations of the past.


True. But the views of modern Americans or Russians today are far removed from the experiences of the generation that lived through these revolutions. Much suffering and bloodshed had to be endured. That is all I am saying. It reminds me of Lenin's saying ' If you want to make an omelette, you have to be willing to break a few eggs.” . Unfortunately, people are not just eggs.

Quote:
I agree that Uranus is not necessarily tied to liberal causes. I've looked at charts for the formation of the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement in the US, and Uranus figures prominently. But holy smokes, is the Tea Party ideologically driven!

Each of the political leaders you cite was/is ideologically driven. Sometimes ideology is merely a way to dress up baser motives, but it is very different from raw aggression in a "might makes right" calculus.


This is why I concluded you were arguing Uranus was connected to Mercury.

Quote:
I am not sure what "whole theory" you believe I base anything on. But here is why Uranus isn't Mars. Mars is to raw agression as Uranus is to ideologies of liberation. Mars may symbolize the violence (beatings, lynchings) that keep the under-classes in their place. (Think slavery in the American South, or Rome, I suppose.) Uranus is the ideology that says, "All men are created equal." And of course, no planet works in isolation from other planets. Mars + Saturn vs. Mars + Uranus should play out very differently in mundane affairs.


I disagree. You keep referring to Uranus being synonymous with freedom and liberation. You repeat that positivist belief in the face of conflicting evidence from mundane astrology in the world around us. I dont deny , it can represent the principle of liberation in certain situations. However, I already gave you lots of historical examples refuting that view with its strong connections to radical conservatism or fascism. The Nazis and Sadaam Hussein were hardly 'liberating' to humanity yet they were strongly Uranian. I suspect these are inconvenient truths for many steeped in modern astrology where this is almost an article of faith.

Paul has a very similar view on the topic of Uranus sharing an association to the sign of Aries. He is clearly a brilliant and gifted astrologer. Laughing

Its interesting we have come to a similar view on the Uranus association with Aries. Perhaps because we both work from traditional principles and using them can lead to a similar train of thought. Although there are of course many fine traditional astrologers who choose to exclude them entirely.

I was trying to think where this idea originally popped into my head. I think the original seed was planted a few years ago when I read Deborah Houlding writing on Aquarius and why it was totally odds with the nature of Uranus. Unfortunately, I cant find the piece where she wrote that now.
Confused

Another major influence on my thinking was reading the ideas of Robert Hand and his theories of how the traditional qualities could apply to the outer planets.

This is found from an article here on Skyscript where he is interviewed by Gary Phillipson.


Quote:
Q: Whilst we're talking about these traditional texts, there's an anomaly which I've been trying to figure out, and I wonder if I could ask for your perspective on it. In Ptolemy, Venus is described as hot and moist; by the time we get to Lilly, it's cold and moist. What's going on there?

I believe the answer is that it's moist. And these principles of hot/cold, wet/dry are easily demonstrated: Does love heat you up or cool you down?


Q: Heats you up.

And cools you down. If you're angry, love cools you down. Don't just think of sexual love, think of all love. On the other hand, if you're alienated and disconnected, love heats you up. This indicates that it's a perfect balance between hot and cold. You can do this with all the planets whose hot/cold, wet/dry status is not clear. For example, Neptune. Does Neptune increase or decrease energy levels, typically?


Q: Decrease.

So, it's cold. Does Neptune create clear, distinct, disconnected, discrete parts? Or does it sort of mush everything together?


Q: The latter.

Therefore, it's wet. Neptune is cold and wet. Now, Uranus. Does Uranus connect or make separate?


Q: It makes separate.

Does it increase or decrease the energy level?


Q: It increases energy.

It's hot and dry. Now, Pluto gets tricky. You can make an argument for Pluto all the way around, but here is my suggestion: Pluto is the reverse of Mercury. Mercury attains its quality from whatever it contacts; Pluto inverts the quality of whatever it contacts. So, it turns the cold and wet into the hot and dry, and the hot and dry into the cold and wet - because Pluto represents, actually, the turning of that cycle. Wherever Pluto comes into the picture, things tend to turn into their opposite. I wouldn't say this is the most essential quality of Pluto, but I think it's one aspect of it. And we have unconsciously chosen a glyph for Pluto that has approximately the same parts as Mercury's, but slightly differently arranged, which suggests that there might be a connection. (I'm talking about the "cocktail glass" glyph that we use in the States mostly, not the P + L combination.)

Pluto is hard to pin down, and Mercury is impossible. Mercury, by definition, has no quality of its own. Maybe slightly dry - warm or cold, I can't tell - but it's so nearly neutral on all fronts that it takes on the quality of whatever it contacts, because Mercury is conveying the essence of whatever it is in touch with. It's the messenger. The messenger should have no message of his own. That's solid, traditional astrology.


Q: It's beautifully lucid, I have to say.

Well, that's the thing about the traditional foundations of astrology. They are beautifully lucid: That's exactly it. So, here we are - able to sort out immediately the elemental qualities of the new planets. No ambiguity at all, except for Pluto. And I think that Pluto is irrevocably ambiguous.


As Paul suggested Waybread clearly misunderstood what I meant by my reference to outer planets being like 'fixed stars'. I can assure Waybread I am every bit as well informed on planetary cycles as she is. The reference to fixed stars was really shorthand for traditionalists since they both have no essential dignity but I guess it could be misread by others.

However, I was also making another point in the thread I think Paul missed. Like Ptolemy's description of fixed stars I believe the outer planets can be compared as composites of the 7 visible planets with a dominant and subsidiary planetary influence applying.

Hence as previously suggested:

Uranus: Mars + Sun. Hot and Dry. Cardinal Signs

Neptune: Moon + Venus, Cold and Moist. Mutable

Pluto: Saturn + Mars, Cold + Dry

Clearly, Waybread is highly resistant to the idea that Uranus has any Mars characteristics. However, if we accept the position of Hand that Uranus is Hot + Dry we only have three candidates in terms of the traditional planets: Mars, The Sun and Mercury.

The characteristic of a malefic according Ptolemy is not that it is evil but rather it is an excess of one quality. I would say Uranus is like Mars in terms of its excessively dry and hot nature. However, in its more positive manifestation it could be said to have solar characteristics.

I found this interesting piece by Curtis Manwaring on his website where he discusses the three astrological camps on what planets Uranus is connected to in its nature.

Quote:
Some astrologers have said that the outer planets are higher octaves of the inner planets, but there are a number of schemes relating to this issue. One sect says that Uranus is the higher octave of Mercury. This is probably because communication as represented by Mercury often takes electronic form these days. Also if the mind and thought patterns are represented by Mercury, then mental breakthroughs are represented by Uranus. However, another sect says that Uranus is like the higher octave of Mars. The reasoning here is that Uranus represents disruptions, violent lightening storms, and wars as represented by Mars. The scientific symbol for Uranus looks very much like Mars but with a dot in the center of the circle. Incidentally, the dot in the center of the circle is reminescient of the Sun which brings me to the third sect that says that Uranus is the "transcendental Sun" The idea here is that if Uranus represents enlightenment and breakthroughs in understanding, then it is somehow a transcendent form of the Sun, the realm of Nous which is the realm of the pure ideas (called eidetic forms) or the absolute idea.


http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/planet-signification.html

I think this is an interesting philosophical issue worth further discussion.

In discussing the nature or quality of the outer planets we are fundamentally getting into the concept of essentialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism

Overall, I fully concur with Waybread that the outer planets have characteristics that make them unique. They are different from the traditional planets and are also not synonymous with other points like fixed stars, nodes etc.

I have listed below what I see as the characteristics of the outer planets.

I believe these bodies share some characterics with traditional planets:

Like a Traditional Planet

-They Orbit the Sun

-Like a traditional planet (and lot, node but not a fixed star) they have planetary dispositors

-They have a 'quality' that can be defined by observation of their effects

-Planetary phase arguably alters the nature of these bodies somewhat

- Their effects can be intertwined with other planets by aspect


Unlike the Traditional Planets

-They are invisible to the naked eye

-Because they are invisible points they 'cast no rays' and therefore have no orbs of their own.

-They have no Essential Dignity (Including domicile rulership)

-Since there is no Essential Dignity there can be no Mutual Reception

-They have 'association' not rulership regarding certain signs

-Unlike the traditional planets the three outer planets each seem to be linked to a particular modality by sign.

-Arguably, they do not have a unique planetary nature but rather a composite nature of two of the 7 traditional planets combined like fixed stars (See Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos chapter 9)

- They do not fit into a traditional role in planetary sect
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:11 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2753
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i tend to see pluto and uranus as very different energies, but both having a fixed quality to them generally.. i am not so sure about any strong cardinal quality tie in with uranus myself.

as for the malefic nature of the outers - i think the idea is that the energy of the outers can come out of left field and as a consequence operate more in a fatalistic sense, as opposed to someone being able to harness the energy in a conscious manner.. but, perhaps the relationships they form with the inner 7 planetary bodies out to saturn has a big say over whether something is going to come as a shock, verses an energy that a person can incorporate in a positive way. i think waybread does point out the 2 possible scenarios that can happen as well as i read him...

more to say, but have to go now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4949
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

James-M wrote:
Quote:
i tend to see pluto and uranus as very different energies, but both having a fixed quality to them generally.. i am not so sure about any strong cardinal quality tie in with uranus myself.


Lets look at the basics. Is Uranus fast acting or slow?

Yes its cycle round the Sun is slow as an outer planet but when a Uranus transit materializes in someone's life how does it manifest?

What does astrology teach us regarding the differences between cardinal vs fixed signs?

In fairness though its worth pointing out Aleister Crowley and some other early 20th century astrologers seemed to think that Uranus was either the domicile or exaltation ruler of Scorpio. See this old thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5709&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I dont personally see the logic of linking Uranus to a fixed sign myself. However, it is interesting Crowley associated the planet to another Mars ruled sign.

In the days when astrologers still asked questions about the associations of outer planets rather than assuming the issue was cut and dried there were actually numerous theories floating around.

For example, The early 20th century Scottish astrologer Maurice Weymss came up with an interesting counter theory attributing dignities to the outer planets. He set his ideas out in a series of booklets entitled Wheel of Life over several decades. A summary of Weymss proposed dignity system along with some thoughts of Alan Leo are contained below:

'
Quote:
'The researches of Maurice Weymss indicate that there is little doubt that it (ie Pluto) is part ruler of Virgo and reflects the ''influence'' of that sign ( though some writers regard it as ruler of Scorpio and others as ruler of Aries). The view is also now gaining ground that Uranus is exalted in Aquarius, but ruler of Scorpio; and that Neptune is exalted in Pisces, but ruler of Libra in accordance with the sign rulership system of Maurice Weymss''. Editors note to Alan Leo’s Key to Your Own Nativity (6th edition 1947)


Interesting eh?

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly


Last edited by Mark on Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 901
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul and Mark, thanks for your detailed replies. Mark, having a much different opinion than yours is not being negative. It is simply having a different opinion.

I happen to like Uranus a lot. I've worked with it extensively, and wonder how deeply you guys really live and appreciate Uranus. I don't mean this disrespectfully, just experientially.

Natally my Uranus closely conjuncts my MC. Prior to my retirement, I was of a baby-boom generation of women who broke-- or at least cracked-- glass ceilings in my chosen field. This wasn't always a pleasant or easy process. But one of the most rewarding moments of my career was when I received a distinguished service award from my major national professional association-- in part for how I had tried to promote the status of women in what was formerly an extremely male-oriented discipline.

This wasn't Mars or Aries. Mars can provide some impetus, but it isn't a notably social planet, and Aries is not a notably social sign.

Aquarius is a human, social sign in its own arm's length fashion. It isn't a touchy-feely sign, but it has a keen sense of social justice. I wasn't out to butt heads with the male establishment in my field; but rather to promote the status of women within it. Very Uranian.

I work extensively with house cusp rulers in natal chart interpretation. As posted above, Uranus works just fine as the modern ruler of Aquarius, retaining Saturn as the traditional ruler. I can't imagine changing years of practice with this placement to suddenly move Uranus over to Aries as its house cusp ruler-- for what possible reason?

I also think aspects are highly important. I wonder how many astrologers who see Uranus in a mostly negative light as the Big Accident have challenging Uranus aspects to personal planets. It is a truism of modern astrology that if we cannot embody and exemplify a planet's positive traits, it will come back to bite us with its negative traits.

Mark, nobody denies that wars are horrible, horrible things. But Mars rules soldiers and aggression. We don't need to change that. The question with Uranus, rather, is what was the purpose of the war to begin with? However well or badly wrong a war might go, some wars have liberation ideologies, and some are purely instruments of oppression.

Uranus rules the ideology of freedom and independence for society. This is why Uranus rules an air sign, not a fire sign, in modern astrology. This is not to glamourize war: quite the contrary.

Uranus can show up in different ideologies, and if liberation means something to a reactionary right wing political movement, Uranus may be there as well. As I noted above, the Tea Party movement in the US (as well as Sarah Palin) have a strong Uranus in their mundane/natal charts.

Just possibly the traditional astrologers would like to get into exaltations, in which case Aries might be a decent candidate for Uranus. I am not convinced the modern outers have exaltations. But modern astrologers have been using Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius for decades now, to good effect.

If it's not broken, why fix it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 901
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul, I do not associate Uranus with cardinal signs. This isn't the way the traditional rulerships work out. We do get Mercury and Jupiter ruling the mutable signs, but the other two-sign rulers like Mars combine cardinal and fixed rulerships.

Nothing remains fixed in perpetuity. But true social change simmers for a long time. If only the cardinal types initiate it in a more visible way, but have no fixity or staying power, then true social change will fizzle out. Liberation movements have their heroes, but they depend upon the backing of masses of people.

You've heard the saying, moreover, that "there is no one so conservative as an old liberal"? Having adopted a radical perspective once, the old liberal finds it difficult to change even after changing circumstances and new ideologies supplant the old beliefs.

Paul, I equally made the point in a previous post (that you didn't catch?) that there are circumstances in traditional astrology when a traditional malefic can operate in a beneficial way.

The trouble with comparing modern outer planets to fixed stars is that the latter do not change sign during a typical lifetime-- they scarcely change degree. The modern outers are far more dynamic than fixed stars. In addition to the wallop they can pack when they contact a personal planet or angle, the modern outers seriously do have a generational effect; something you won't find in fixed stars. And they are truly out there in the sky, unlike Arabian parts, terms, faces, the nodes, or other calculated info-bytes.

I am happy with the words "modern outer planet," to distinguish them from Saturn and Jupiter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 901
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark, are you clear that we are actually on the same page so far as the evils of war are concerned? But that we can delineate the difference between an ideology and its implementation? And that reactionary political movements can be Uranian as well? And that soldiers and fighting are ruled by Mars? And that I think Mars and Uranus share some characteristics?

I do not recognize what I wrote in much of your long post to and about my arguments.

I am seeing a lot of confusion on this thread regarding Mars vs. Uranus. Yes, they share some similarities, but then the moon and Venus share some similarities, and we do not conflate them.

Frankly, we can identify many planet-sign affinities apart from the traditional rulerships or exaltations. This is especially true if you work with dwads or decans. This doesn't mean we fly in the face of the past half-century or more of pragmatic modern astrology. (I am not a fan of esoteric astrology or the looser types of psychological astrology, incidentally.)

In what way would you explain Uranus as hot and dry? Pardon me if you said so earlier and I missed that part.

Re: the political nature of Uranus:

I just hate it when the Nazis come up in discussion, because once this happens, rational discourse tends to fly out the window. But if you know your German history of the 1920s and 30s, you recall some very Uranian elements as well. For example, one of their ill-fated projects was to put society on a more "scientific" footing. Eugenics in the 1920s and 30s was not the dirty word that it became after the horrors of genocide became known, but was promoted (including in the US) as a social benefit to society.

Again, any planet can have a positive or negative face. Beneficent Venus can make men lazy and effeminate, according to traditional sources!

I cannot imagine why you call my views "positivist." They are anything but.

I admire Paul's brilliance, as well; but I part from him on some points. Like Uranus and Aries. I declare myself to be equally talented and gifted. Cool

It would be nice if you could find the Houlding piece, because I assert that a traditional astrologer who wishes to switch Uranus from Aquarius to Aries should make a better case than I have seen so far. And this case needs to rest on praxis.

I read a lot of charts for people, and I just cannot fathom what switching Uranus over to Aries would accomplish, other than confusion.

Mark, I truly admire what you are attempting to accomplish, but I don't think the modern outers can put into the Procrustean Bed, and then trimmed or stretched to fit. Since many traditionalists will not use the modern outers anyhow, why not just let them be, in their own category? They don't need to fit into Aristotelian "science".

One wonders what you would do with the asteroids and dwarf planets. These, too, are part of many modern astrologers' practice. Then further delights await with the recently discovered trans-Plutonians.

As you can imagine (or at least find out, by reviewing my previous posts) I do think the modern outers work just fine as domiciled rulers of their respective signs. Simple telescopes capable of viewing Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto have been around for a very long time. The "naked eye" argument really doesn't hold up well in this day and age.

Don't be angry with me, Mark. I thank you for a stimulating discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 901
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 5:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
i think waybread does point out the 2 possible scenarios that can happen as well as i read him...



Gosh, James. Does this mean you think I debate like a man?? Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2753
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread,

i was only pointing out that you seemed to have a more nuanced viewpoint that paul suggested.. something about marks association with brilliance and paul just isn't working for me.

paul - your comments on what constitutes a malefic imply no planet has to be a malefic.. is that what you are saying? you use the example of fire in a negative and positive sense. the same logic can be applied to any element.. obviously an over abundance of an element might be seen to imply a problem, as would an absence of an element for that matter.. what were you trying to say with that analogy as i missed it..


Mark wrote:
James-M wrote:
Quote:
i tend to see pluto and uranus as very different energies, but both having a fixed quality to them generally.. i am not so sure about any strong cardinal quality tie in with uranus myself.


Lets apply logic to this rather than emotion.Mark


hi mark, glad you felt motivated to address me directly for the first time on the thread.. are you suggesting i only apply emotion to arrive at my viewpoints on uranus? that is how i read your comment here in response to mine. perhaps you'd like to clarify.


Mark wrote:
Is Uranus fast acting or slow?


sometimes uranus doesn't seem to do anything at all. it seems to need more then itself to make anything happen. also, some astrologers appear to believe it has no relevance whatsoever! i don't know that i would say it is fast acting as a consequence.. maybe in combination with jupiter or an inner planet it is fast acting. tough question for me to answer objectively.

Mark wrote:
Yes its cycle round the Sun is slow as an outer planet but when a Uranus transit materializes in someone's life how does it manifest?


well the operative word here is 'when'.. i don't know that it always acts, so i wouldn't go so far as to say it always behaves in a certain predictable manner or that fast has to be an important descriptive word to define it's appearance.

Mark wrote:
What does astrology teach us regarding the differences between cardinal vs fixed signs?

Mark


cardinal is more spontaneous energy connected to the beginning of each season.. fixed is more focused energy found in the center of the season which i associate with values and ideals that a person or society works towards living. this is one of the reasons i see uranus as more fixed air then cardinal fire in nature. if you or anyone missed it earlier, i did say i thought uranus energy has something in common with aries, or seems to associate well with aries energy.

i am curious if you'd like to answer the questions you've posed to me. and, as i said at the beginning of the thread - i was happy you started the conversation as i think it's good to engage in these types of questions and thought exercises.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As usual, Lee Lehman has some interesting thoughts on the outer planets and their rulerships. Her latest blog may be of interest, considering the topic of this thread.

http://leephd.blogspot.co.uk/
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 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 3 of 20

 
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