The old model based on only the traditional 5 planets and the 2 luminaries.

-- & fixed stars.

I was talking about the planets only.

... are you also considering things like when initially transcribing Arabic numerals they failed to invert the numerals to accord with the Roman direction (contrary directions);
that the Arabic orientation to the celestial sphere was that of if one was lying on the ground looking up at the heavens, then East was to the right, West to the left, the South Pole was the direction one's head pointed to while one's feet pointed to the North Pole (Ibn Sina, Al-biruni etc) ... which is also reflected by the direction of Arabic writing, and corresponding compass points on chart examples etc;
an orientation shared by the Egyptians who's life giving waters (the Nile) flowed from south to north;
which is counter-intuitive to those above the Tropic of Cancer with an orientation of Sun ascending on the left which gives rise to nonsensical commentary in translating from Arabic (eg. in the translation of Al-biruni's Book of Instruction) such as "the copyist makes the summer sun rise in the West and set in the East".

interesting, thanks. I was not considering this.

And the subsequent reduction & shift from the zodiacal co-ordinate system, of which the tropical attachment is just one part.

can you explain this concept better, please?

Sex has a long history of being connected with the other person's wealth, possessions, assets, values/valuables (8th). The traditional (as well as modern) concept of marriage is equally applicable to the 10th - social standing.

This confirms my point: that "sex" (or anything, actually) has a different meaning depending on to what element in the chart you associate it.

Uranus did not bring an entirely "new" concept into the pre-existing system. It simply brought forward concepts into western consciousness that had already long been associated with fixed star Polaris, to which earth's axis has been aligning.

The key is your expression "brought forward". A fixed star, particularly one that is so far away from the ecliptic, has very different symbolical connotations. The fixed star does not move, and in this sense it is the opposite of a planet, so the meaning of both can never be the same. "Meaning" in Astrology is not just the list of "items" that are associated with a particular factor (i.e., Uranus or Polaris rule this and that), but the place these factors occupy in the world-view of the astrologer (and the astrologer's client).

Consider this statement by the Reanaissance scholar Wayne Shumaker: "the imperative in the Renaissance to deny originality was as strong as the desire now to be credited with it". Originality was there, its meaning has changed. The fact that there was a place for originality (for example) in the old world is not the point, the point is the meaning it has now acquired, the place it now has in human society. That one can model reality with only 7 planets instead of 10 is irrelevant, what matters is what these new 3 categories bring that was not there before, and this is question of cultural evolution.

It is pointless to keep mentioning that this or that item that is now associated with Uranus was in the past associated with something else in traditional Astrology. The key to Uranus is what those items mean now to us, not what they meant to the people of the Renaissance or the Middle Ages. It makes a big difference whether Ugly Ducling is seen as an ugly duck or as a swan, even though he is the same "old duck" in both cases.

"pre-Uranus Astrology became an enncroachment."
-- Not really clear on what it is you mean by this?

I already explained that this was meant socially, after Uranus had been discovered.

If drawing an analogy between children and planets then to use your example the inclusion of Uranus is like becoming a parent for the 6th time, not the first.

I already explained that this analogy is not about children but about consciousness. You are missing the point completely, because there was never something like the discovery of Uranus in the case of the other known planets.

Quote: In 1984, in his Classical Scientific Astrology, George Noonan writes: [...] -- All this is nonsense.
I don't find it nonsense.

Noonan is only showing his enormous ignorance, and I explained why in detail in 3 subsequent posts.

Juan