The second method is too slow to be meaningful for primaries, as you point out. No problem - communication is a two way street, so I have to bear some responsibility.

Too slow? This confuses me, or I didn't understand explanation 2. If the second is fixed to the celestial frame, wouldn't it be like the ascendant moving through the ecliptic? (which is very fast) and can be slowed down to primary speeds, 1?eq=1y)

edit, think I understand, you meant planetary motion to other planets, and you don't use the movement of the horizon here.

Have to go now. I'll understand it later.

Eddy wrote:Too slow? This confuses me, or I didn't understand explanation 2. If the second is fixed to the celestial frame, wouldn't it be like the ascendant moving through the ecliptic? (which is very fast) and can be slowed down to primary speeds, 1?eq=1y)

edit, think I understand, you meant planetary motion to other planets, and you don't use the movement of the horizon here.

Have to go now. I'll understand it later.

Right. The radix angles are a fixed frame of reference, and the dynamic points of the second chart are translated into it.

I have a lot to say about Pluto's transit, just don't want to abuse this forum's hospitality with personal issues anymore...

Eddy wrote: I used the transits mainly to check a change in mood, but I think there's a danger in doing that too often.

Eddy, maybe this was part of the problem. I wouldn't expect most transits to relate to moods. Moods are lunar, as modified by Mars (anger), Venus (affection), Jupiter (optimistic) and Saturn (pessimistic).

A lot of what takes place in transits isn't so much about your feelings.

waybread wrote:

Eddy wrote: I used the transits mainly to check a change in mood, but I think there's a danger in doing that too often.

Eddy, maybe this was part of the problem. I wouldn't expect most transits to relate to moods. Moods are lunar, as modified by Mars (anger), Venus (affection), Jupiter (optimistic) and Saturn (pessimistic).

A lot of what takes place in transits isn't so much about your feelings.

Since I look at astrology only from the 'natural' perspective, I don't focus on 'events'. However, I think that sometimes even events often can be derived from moods. I don't think that moods are only lunar, but that they have a wider perspective. Perhaps I chose the wrong English word. The mood issue can be derived from more abstract meanings from all planets. I don't think that this isn't much different from the classical concept of 'humours', only seen in a somewhat altered way. If Saturn is related to passiveness, and if it is active on our humours then it could affect our mood like in depression or, more positively, the desire to study secludedly in a quiet attic. Mars, classically seen as hot and fiery, can give an energy boost which can be expressed in either sporting or, more destructively, anger. These are all steps downwards from abstract to concrete, hence the differences and difficulties to explain and predict similar configurations.

Kepler used a similar approach

Kepler wrote:'The soul of the newly born baby is marked for life by the pattern of the stars at the moment it comes into the world, unconsciously remembers it, and remains sensitive to the return of configurations of a similar kind.'
Kepler, Harmonics Mundi, chapter 7

from: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/kepler2.html

In short, I mean that during transits and especially of those of slow planets, you have to feel or notice it more or less. It's probable that directions and progressions divert these in different directions, but at least some 'ripple' must be noticed. In here lies also the danger of turning a ripple in a tsunami where there is none. That's where most modern astrologers get derailed.

Eddy, you might give transits another shot, by looking at more tangible events. Probably you have a good grasp of rulerships, but even so, I recommend Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book, published by the American Federation of Astrologers. I frequently use it as a desk reference. Although most of the rulerships were developed for use in horary or medical astrology, I think they have a lot of utility in understanding transits as well.

Just for example, my brother lives a long way away from me and normally I don't hear from him all that often. Just this morning, however, I recieved an e-mail from him, asking how I was getting on, given that I had some major knee surgery a month ago. It was nice to get a supportive message from him.

If we break this down astrologically, siblings and communication are third house matters. Messages are ruled by Mercury. Surgery is ruled by Mars.

Transiting Mercury (messages) and Venus (pleasant events) are now in my 3rd house (siblings) making close sextiles to my natal Mars (surgery.)

If I do a turned house method, communications from my brother would be the 3rd house from the 3rd, or the 5th house, where my natal Mars shows up in most house systems.

If we get back to Pluto for a moment, Pluto is now in Capricorn, which rules the knees. I had a total joint replacement, and Pluto carries the energy of something old and dysfunctional being (metaphorically) killed off converted into something new. It can be pretty brutal. Pluto is now in my 4th house, and I have been extremely housebound since the operation.

Obviously these transits will play out differently for different people. For someone without siblings, for example, the 3rd house might suggest neighbours or short-distance travel.

The point of this example is to look at even the small unpredictable things that happen to you, and then look and see how you can unpack them astrologically. You might just find some interesting correspondences.

Well I didn't mean to give the impression that I want to kick out the transits. It's only about Pluto (and probably Uranus and Neptune). I still accept the Jupiter and Saturn transits.

Not that I want to impose 'Keplerianism', but like Kepler, I hardly use houses and signs, mainly the aspects. Even if I would use the concept of houses/signs I would do it very differently from the usual methods. However I do look at them (as if I speak a language when abroad) when I occasionally join the discussions in the traditional section.

I can accept that events can be related to the progressed and transiting planets but not always. As in my previous post I see them as possible concretisations of the usual abstractness of the planetary 'effects'. For example, if there's a hard period in life (possibly indicated by other techniques than transits), then during a transit one might get an outburst of anger and a strong argument with a friend. The person leaves with the car and gets an accident because of being hevily upset and becasue of that less careful. So in some way one could say that the accident is to be found with prediction techniques. But rather than a direct link, I would prefer this view as more natural.

I would be careful to pay too much attention to Pluto in Capricorn as the knees sign. Pluto is in the sign during ca. 14 years and much too slow. To speak in more classical terms, I would think of VIth house matters or Saturn (bones) and its placement or a cusp in Capricorn is. Or perhaps the primary directed angles.

Since there are so many possibilities with many planets (see the probability & prognostication thread), I felt that it would be better to limit the number of planets. Leaving Pluto would seem like a good choice. And Uranus and Neptune? Perhaps... Most Uranus transits and some Neptune transits have passed unnoticed.

At least a very good criterion for limiting the use of planets would be visibility as requirement and therefore retaining the Seven. Moreover the 'sport' of trying to find the main life issues with only the traditional planets makes it an interesting study.

Tom wrote:Pluto transits and their lack of effect are what sent me to traditional astrology once and for all. I don't have a spectacular life, but rather it is typical with the usual ups and downs. Only one thing of importance in my life occurred during a Pluto transit and that was at age 8.

Still I think Pluto has more influence in mundane astrology than in natal. Just my opinion.

Tom

Why on one hand do you highlight that transits are not the only thing of importance, and how traditionaly they signify certain things etc. so we get the impression that you feel transits are only of relatively small astrological importance, but then break your own logic by saying that the lack of effect of pluto's tranits sent you to traditional astrology. Why not appyl the same reasoning for Pluto?

To go back to the same point I made when this topic arose at the beginning of the year, say I tell you that I do not notice my Mercury transits, or my Moon transits and conclude based on this that traditional astrology is ineffectual or that the moon or mercury are not really planets. Would you accept my logic for this?
If not why do you accept your own logic for abandoning modern astrology because of the lack of feeling the effects of pluto's transits?

waybread wrote: The point of this example is to look at even the small unpredictable things that happen to you, and then look and see how you can unpack them astrologically. You might just find some interesting correspondences.

Waybread

You're probably used to seeing me defend traditional astrology on the astro.com forum. See how I also defend modern astrology too!?

Why on one hand do you highlight that transits are not the only thing of importance, and how traditionally they signify certain things etc. so we get the impression that you feel transits are only of relatively small astrological importance, but then break your own logic by saying that the lack of effect of Pluto's transits sent you to traditional astrology. Why not apply the same reasoning for Pluto?

You're confusing motivation with philosophy and taking an anecdote I related way too far. I discovered traditional astrology when I was studying with Noel Tyl. There were more than a few things Tyl taught that I couldn't get to work with any regularity, e.g. his ideas about Saturn retrograde in the natal chart. I hit the lesson that was supposed to teach us about the importance of Pluto transits particularly when they went over an angle. Well I had nothing to show for that. The first one occurred when I was pretty young and I even enlisted family help to see if I had forgotten something. Nope. I was also having problems with the whole idea that psychological astrology was anything more than superficial pop psychology of the "I'm OK; You're OK" variety.

But there was enough in astrology or I thought there was that kept me from giving up entirely on the subject. It was about that time that a friend of mine attended a traditional astrology conference in DC. She told me about it and thought this was right up my alley and she was right. The Pluto transit thing was the straw that broke the camel's back. I became a Noel Tyl dropout. Please don't read too much into this. I don't think Tyl is wrong about everything or that he is a charlatan. I was attracted to him because he had a system that was attempting to bring order out of chaos and I still respect that.

As for their importance I think transits to natal planets, all of them not just the outer three, rarely produce anything of significance unless they are accompanied by something of similar significance in directions, progressions or solar returns. When the testimonies pile up, things happen. I see transits as triggers for important events, which is why they appear to work at times. In short I think there is a hierarchy and we do best when we follow it.

The same could be argued for directions, progressions and returns. That by themselves, with nothing else going on, they may not always work out. The problem I have the modern astrology and transits is that is just about the only predictive techniques moderns use. And the uses sometimes border on the absurd. I'm old enough that Uranus Neptune and Pluto have hit everything in my chart at least once plus gone over at least two angles and I can tell you that an important event is the exception, not the rule.

"Transits are not enough," I was taught by my first astrology teacher - a modern. I think she was right.

Generally it is difficult to answer this question as over the last 20+ years when I have been studying astrology, I've almost never have one planet alone active by transit or progression. I usually get overloaded. For example, I had Pluto cross my stellium/Tsquare in the early 90s but at the same time I had a Saturn return. So it was impossible to separate one from the other.

However, though it is not a transit, a progressed Moon conjoining natal Pluto was the only active anything when my ex-boyfriend died in 1998 and I certainly felt that at a very deep level. Interestingly the previous such conjunction had coincided with my first experience of death when my grandmother died. So I can certainly say I have experienced Pluto but not necessarily by transit.

Having said that I am wondering if transiting Pluto approaching a 6 year conjunction with my progressed Sun it might be the cause of the complete an utter dissolution of every aspect of my life over the last month or two. It seems like it ought to be a relatively a minor contact but, as far as I can see, there are no other significant transits/progressions etc in place. I have a solar return next week and it also looks really uneventful.
So maybe Pluto saves its transit effects up for when it has the territory to itself.