25 by robin 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. Quote Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:21 am
26 by epurdue 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 ... c&start=30 Quote Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:40 am
27 by robin 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. Quote Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:05 am
28 by ### I wrote: Neptune and Pluto are seen as sole or co-rulers by those who haven?t 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, doesn?t it? They can be well informed on the history of astrology and the thought behind the traditional sign rulerships, but I?ll 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 won?t finish reading. I won?t buy their books. That one fatal flaw in their reasoning kills any chance they may have had in my estimation. In contrast, if they?re using the outers in a delineation in a way that I feel is giving them too much importance ? but they don?t mention modern rulerships ? I?ll get annoyed, but will keep reading. I?m 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 don?t see how a thinking person can allow the rulership structure to collapse and accept such a mishmash as a replacement. I'm gaining the impression you've got some strong views here Kirk. I?m really just a meek little thing who trips over his feet. where did the rulerships come from? Here?s a start: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html 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. Quote Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:29 am
Aquarius 29 by Julie K [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 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. 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 Quote Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:28 pm
30 by Arihant 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 Quote Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:26 pm
Re: Aquarius 31 by epurdue Julie K wrote: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. 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 According to Bonatti, the reason why Saturn rules Aquarius and Capricorn is because Saturn is cold and dry and is the darkest of planets. Capricorn and Aquarius are opposite Leo and Cancer, and thus seems to be the logical places for Saturn to rule. In addition winter is generally cold and dry as well, so it seems that Saturn would be most comfortable. Also keep in mind, while signs and planets each had significations, one of the roles of a sign was to give a planet dignity. Modern astrology tends to think a sign means the same thing as its ruling planet. The bottom line is that Uranus was given its significations due to a combination of myths attached to a random name from an astronomer and whatever accidents happened to be going on when it was discovered. Not a very good system in my opinion. Why Aquarius is the sign for Uranus I have no idea. Quote Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:30 pm
32 by robin where did the rulerships come from? Here?s a start: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html thanks kirk yes, i've encountered the system idea of rulerships before. But i suppose it's relevant here to say if we agree this has a clear and defendable basis then it makes sense if the outers are included to replace saturn with uranus in capricorn and mercury with chiron in gemini. which of course wouldn't make any sense in terms of what's understood about uranus and chiron. so in the same way systems in other disciplies are replaced is it time to say goodbye to Ptolomy and shift this paradigm. ________ Gm foods Last edited by robin on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total. Quote Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:41 am
Aquarius 33 by Julie K Robin, I dont think we as individuals can make up our own rules to suit ourselves. The American Civil War wasnt an 'accident'- it was a time of breaking away and breaking out of repression from the old and replacing it with the new - fighting for a cause - a whole new order. How many years did this war take to win?It would be Astrologers who sought to give Uranus Rulership over Aquarius not Astronomers as they in general have no respect whatsoever for Astrologers. A few do. I would look at Aquarius in a Natal Chart with respect as to the strength of Saturn and Uranus to give clues to the true nature of the individual. Angularity would be important, especially rising. As for Chiron he came into our Solar system in 1977 and at this time Chiropractors began to spring up. Alternative ways of healing the sick were introduced and taken on board by many. Chiron is an Asteroid - not a planet. One of my teachers of long standing suggests Chiron is 'associated' with the Mutable Cross - Gemini/Sagittarius - the student and teacher, Virgo and Pisces, Healer and victim. Rulership cannot be given to an Asteroid. Julie K Quote Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:05 am
Gender in a chart 34 by Julie K I noted this at the beginning of J. Lee Lehmans book Classical Astrology chapter on Essential Dignities. I particularly want to warn all astrological students against accepting the pernicious ideas which are being put forward in a certain quarter regarding the rulership of signs, and of the various parts of the human body, and inventing new and imaginary planets to assume rulership over the signs etc. While admitting that there maybe some grounds for giving Uranus the rule over Aquarius, and Neptune over Pisces, the acceptance of such rank heresies as Jupiter ruling over Aquarius, Jason over Sagittarius, Neptune over Libra, the Asteroids over Pisces, and other possible and improbable theories, is to deny one of the fundamental cannons of Astrology. E. H Bailey. Julie K Quote Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:27 am
35 by Tom Uranus was 'discovered' at the time of the American Civil war and French rebellion in 1781 by William Herschel. Uranus was discovered in 1781. The American Civil War began in 1861. I think you mean The American Revolution (1775 - 1781 - last battle. Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783). To look at the rulership scheme the way it was intended see Lee Lehman's book Essential Dignities. In order to understand how that system related to world view, I suggest C.S. Lewis last book The Discarded Image. Tom Quote Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:19 pm
36 by Slayer of Cliffracers Uranus is a sign that rules individual freedom. Uranus ruling the dreamy, detatched Aquarius makes a great deal of sense. However planetery 'rulerships' I do not accept as valid unless you are talking about the actual location of the planets in the various signs at the time. One must understand that accepted social norms are dominated by particular signs, possibly due to the influence of perhaps Eris or some other 'new' planet. Ancient Greeks hated Aquarians because they didn't like the way they acted, thus they got the most negative press possible. It just wasn't compatable with the society at the time, probably dominated by an opposing sign say Leo, thus their judgements of signs are biased by the societal influence of that sign at the time the judgement was made. Quote Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:26 pm