Mark wrote:But there is plenty of room for debate, discussion and yes confusion here. Unlike modern astrology which often takes a hard wired view of these planets, traditional astrologers need some space to look at these issues for themselves an to ask fundamental questions without the intellectual baggage of modern astrology. Some will conclude like Konrad it is not even worth the effort as we risk ?diluting? a system that appears to work perfectly well already.

Mark,

this was not what I was saying at all, in fact, I even said I have not made any conclusion other than "I need more information". At risk of misrepresenting myself again, I said that if we are to alter a perfectly viable system, we better have good reasons to do so.

To quote myself:

if I am going to disrupt a harmonious and fluent system, I am going to need some pretty good reasons to do it and I should probably understand the system I am attempting to break up before I do that.

I was merely asking what those reasons are. My very first post outlined, honestly, my current views. That does not mean they can't be changed by someone else's.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up again.

James_M wrote:

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.

Hi James,

To clarify James the reference to emotion was about a brief comment of yours I removed. Overall, unless we are autistic I think we all invest emotion into our opinions here!

Still, I do think its good to put forth our views as logically and as coherently as we can. Its both a process of rigorous logical thinking and producing the best case we can which is part of what philosophy is about surely?

As you hadn?t participated much in this thread to date I didn?t feel your passing comment provided much justification for your view. I thank you for setting out your view in more detail. Afraid you still haven't convinced me though. I agree with Paul and Amelia that Uranus seems more associated to the cardinal signs.

James_M wrote:

sometimes uranus doesn't seem to do anything at all. it seems to need more then itself to make anything happen.

An interesting point! We certainly need to consider the outers cycles and aspects. So you obviously don?t think by changing signs ( say from Pisces to Aries) Uranus manifested in a different way?

Its true sometimes a first ?hit? of Uranus produces nothing that noticeable. I recall when my Mother died very suddenly and unexpectedly Uranus had gone retrograde and was making a partile square to my natal Moon. I dont recall anything much happening on the first 'hit' by transit.

What I was actually referring to was when it does seem to work it produces very rapid change.

James_M wrote:

also, some astrologers appear to believe it has no relevance whatsoever!

Of course. I have covered that already. It?s a respectable position and I understand why people take that kind of position.

James_M wrote:

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.

Ok. I don?t want to seem trite and smug as if I have all the answers either.

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?

James_M wrote:

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.

Yes but cardinal vs fixed is more than the start or middle of something. In traditional terms it tells us about about the time and stability issues too. t. For example, in horary we are taught when looking for recovery of an item it will occur rapidly in a cardinal sign but much longer (if at all ) in a fixed sign.

Medieval natal astrology teaches a cusp in a cardinal sign indicates an area of life subject to frequent change while a fixed sign indicates stability.
Does Uranus bring a stable influence to bear in our lives?

Uranus transits often feel like a bolt out of the blue while Pluto transits seem slow, intense and often interminable. For example I have seen charts of people suffering from an illness like cancer with Pluto transiting back and forwards over the ascendant or one of the luminaries. Having said all that Pluto throws up a lot of issues and questions. It often seems like a slow painful ordeal of ice and fire.

If I wanted to argue against my own position (yes I do that!) traditionally, I might point out Mars is hot and dry and therefore fast acting yet it has dignity in both a hot and dry cardinal sign ( Aries) and and a wet + cold fixed one (Scorpio). On the other hand one of the signs Mars rules as domicile ruler (Aries) and the sign it has exaltation in (Capricorn) are cardinal signs. Its also worth pointing out that Ptolemy doesn't describe Scorpio as a water sign! Instead he focuses on the dryness of the sign. This gives it an affinity by quality to Mars.

I think its interesting so many astrologers at the turn of the last century tied Uranus in with Scorpio. Yes its a fixed sign but it is also a sign associated with Mars which I think partly describes the nature of how Uranus manifests.


James_M wrote:

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.

Hopefully, I have said enough here and on this entire thread to satisfy you!

Mark

Konrad wrote:

My very first post outlined, honestly, my current views. That does not mean they can't be changed by someone else's.

Ok. Sorry if I misrepresented your position. I have replaced your name above for that of John Frawley to represent the position of those traditionalists who consciously exclude the outers from their work on philosophical principle.

Mark

Mark and Paul, thanks for your detailed replies. My eyes start to roll back in their sockets if I have to interact with too many "you said-I said" non-essential micro-arguments, however, so forgive me for not responding to all of your comments in kind. I take some but not all of your points, but will not bother to itemize them. I am ready to move on, unless you wish me to respond to any in particular.

I suddenly got the humour in this thread! If Uranus rules sudden change or ideas that discomfort someone based on their very novelty-- then how Uranian to have a traditional-leaning astrologer introduce new ideas about Uranus!

A side-joke is that with Uranus now in Aries, of course it makes perfect sense for people to focus on their relationship. It is in the drinking water.

Mark, let's just be careful of promoting an argument on the grounds that somebody else agrees with you. (Fallacy ad populum.)

I think the crux of the matter is that the gulf between modern and traditional astrology is simply too wide .

For example, I don't think many modern astrologers work with the qualities of hot, dry, cold, or moist. You could get a lot of traditional astrologers to agree that Uranus is hot and dry, but it wouldn't affect much of anything in modern practice.

Mark, this is the first time you've actually asked me to produce any concrete examples of Uranus-Aquarius or Uranus-revolutions in mundane astrology. Do you still want them, or was this merely by way of dismissing my take on Uranus and Aquarius? Or dismissing American history? This isn't just American triumphalism, as this revolution was a pattern that many other nations followed.

Obviously any horoscope will have multiple influences, not merely a single outer planet, and it is not possible to design a statistically legitimate study. No astrological signature works 100%.

I think the best approach to these charts is to see how Uranus and the other planets function, vs. setting up some `a priori criterion.

But take a look at the followng charts of revolutionaries, writ large or small, available in the Astro-DataBank at www.astro.com . My criterion is whether these people tried to better the lot of their constituents; and in so doing, to liberate society overall.

USA You are probably familiar with the debate over the Sibly chart. Other astrologers have tried to come up with a good chart for the Declaration of Independence, one of which (#3 on the Astro-DataBank) puts Uranus conjunct MC, but I suspect some footwork here involving chart rectification.

Robespierre, nicknamed the father of the French Revolution: Aquarius rising, house ruler of Pisces Uranus in the 1st house square 10th house Pluto-Jupiter, trine Mars-Neptune. (Rodden AA rating.)

Cesar Chavez. Sun conjunct Uranus in Aries. Activist for Hispanic farm-labourers. Uranus rules his 6th house of people who work in servile conditions. (Rodden AA rating)

Mohandas Ghandi. Uranus in Cancer most elevated planet. Conjunct MC from the 9th. (Rodden A)

Che Guevara. Latin American revolutionary. Aries Uranus conjunct Ascendant to the degree, from the 12th house. (Rodden B)

Eugene McCarthy. Ultra-conservative communist-baiter, for whom the expression McCarthyism was named. Capricorn Uranus in the 10th house conjunct MC. (No, they are not all leftists!) (Rodden AA)

Karl Marx. Aquarius rising, Uranus-Neptune in Sagittarius onjunct MC in the 10th. (Rodden AA)

Emmeline Pankhurst British feminist. Aquarius rising. Uranus in Sagittarius conjunct Jupiter, 3rd house. (Rodden A)

Abraham Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation 1st house sun in Aquarius conjunct Aquarius rising, Uranus in Scorpio conjunct NN (Rodden B)

Friedan, Betty. American feminist, wrote The Feminine Mystique. sun, Mercury, in Aquarius, Mercury conjunct Pisces Uranus. (Rodden AA)

Greer, Germaine, Australian-American feminist author, Aquarius rising, sun in Aquarius conjunct AC from the 12th, moon conjunct Uranus in Taurus in the 4th. square ascendant. (Rodden AA)

Rosa Parks, "mother" of the American civil rights movement. Sun conjunct Mercury and Uranus in Aquarius. Probably all in the first house, but this is a Rodden C rating.

Do you need more?

I note that anyone born within roughlyu the same 7 year period will have Uranus in the same sign, but a more dedicated researcher than I am could look for trends across a couple of centuries.

I discarded DD and X Rodden ratings, but across the spectrum of political activists, it was interesting to see a lot of Jupiter and Neptune involvement. A real agent for change is not merely an activist, but a visionary.

waybread wrote:Aquarius doesn't work for me at all as a water sign. At least in modern astrology, water symbolizes emotions and feelings. (Some would say, spirituality.) Aquarius is not a touchy-feely sign.

The attribution of water to Aquarius has to do with the seasons where the 3 month span starting with the entrance of the Sun into Capricorn, then Aquarius and Pisces is the "phlegmatic" season. Spring is sanguine (air), summer is choleric (fire) and fall is melancholic (earth).

I didn't have much luck locating the initial source/s of Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius, but I did glean these kernels:

1. Nicholas Campion, History of Western Astrology, vol. 2. pp211-12. London astrologer John Varley (1788-1842) used Uranus in his predictive work. He successfully predicted a date and time in 1825 when he thought he would be in imminent danger due to the position of Uranus in his own chart. Right on schedule, his house caught fire.

2. Alan Leo, How to Judge a Nativity, 1903, p. 37. uses Uranus in his cookbook delineations, but says, "No definite or precise rules can be laid down with regard to Uranus...the most elaborate plans and calculations may be upset in an instant of time by the vibrations of his planet." He describes it in more theosophical terms, as the planet of the "coming race" engaged in a higher level of human evolution.

I don't suppose he meant our generation.

Interestingly, Leo uses traditional sign rulers only.

However, Uranus certainly isn't the only planet involved in sudden upsets. A transiting Mercury-Mars square seem to generate kerfuffles in my life. I

Nor is "sudden change" the only meaning of Uranus. If "sudden change" is one's sole view of Uranus, then I think we are missing out on its more social dimension. Possibly someone who has never been engaged in any type of social change, at a large or small level, prefering to focus on oneself as an individual, would miss out on Uranus as a planet involved in social movements.

In terms of ultra-conservative politicians like Eugene McCarthy, cited above, once we understand how they construe threats to liberty (in his case, as a totalitarian communism taking over the freedom-loving USA) then their motives become much more understandable as Uranian. Sarah Palin, the Tea Party darling, would be another conservative example.

Another point that I don't buy is that using two domcile rulers is somehow too confusing. Good heavens. If traditional astrologers can happily juggle all of the micro-bytes of essential and accidental dignities, Arabian parts, Aristotelian "science", and their various predictive methods, they should have zero trouble adding in a second sign ruler.

Just don't ask Uranus to perform in all of the other categories of traditional analysis. Hey, it is Uranus. It resents being neatly slotted into pigeon-holes, and is liable to bust out of them.

zoidsoft wrote:

waybread wrote:Aquarius doesn't work for me at all as a water sign. At least in modern astrology, water symbolizes emotions and feelings. (Some would say, spirituality.) Aquarius is not a touchy-feely sign.

The attribution of water to Aquarius has to do with the seasons where the 3 month span starting with the entrance of the Sun into Capricorn, then Aquarius and Pisces is the "phlegmatic" season. Spring is sanguine (air), summer is choleric (fire) and fall is melancholic (earth).

Oh, sure. And the sun truly was in Aquarius during part of the winter rainy season of the Mediterranean climatic zone.

But in terms of reading nativities, I don't see Uranus as watery.

waybread wrote:

zoidsoft wrote:

waybread wrote:Aquarius doesn't work for me at all as a water sign. At least in modern astrology, water symbolizes emotions and feelings. (Some would say, spirituality.) Aquarius is not a touchy-feely sign.

The attribution of water to Aquarius has to do with the seasons where the 3 month span starting with the entrance of the Sun into Capricorn, then Aquarius and Pisces is the "phlegmatic" season. Spring is sanguine (air), summer is choleric (fire) and fall is melancholic (earth).

Oh, sure. And the sun truly was in Aquarius during part of the winter rainy season of the Mediterranean climatic zone.

But in terms of reading nativities, I don't see Uranus as watery.

I think you meant Aquarius as watery... The accidents / events of the earth derive from hule to some degree, but the schema that I was referring to was used in medicine, obviously the weather in the southern hemisphere doesn't match. The elements assigned to signs from Valens with Aquarius = air comes from another schema.

I've written some on this subject:

(Cancer / Capricorn axis about half way down the page):
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... astro.html

The Aquarian Paradox (what I wrote in 1998):
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... radox.html

Small section on Uranus:
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/planets.html

When asking if Uranus "rules" such and such, what exactly do we mean? It seems to me that the modern definition is "affinity" as Lee Lehman suggests. The traditional meaning of the word is actually a conflation of concepts which Robert Schmidt said comes from the term "axiomaticos".

From Robert Schmidt:

Axiomaticos means to deem or find worthy, but also means to seek, petition or to beg. The third construction is to claim or maintain something. Sometimes translated somewhat misleadingly as "self evident" which is the source of the word "axim".

Because this word "axiomaticos" can refer to planets of the domicile, exaltation or confine, it was associated with those 3 in different senses; when it begs or petitions, this is the domicile relation, when it is providing evidence for itself "axiomatic" it is acting of the confines, when it finds worthy, it is of the exaltation. When this word was translated from Arabic to Latin, it was translated as "dignified" which is the selection of one 1 of the 3 potential meanings.

Now as for rulership, the domicile lord in the "oikodektor" role does not rule over those in it's domicile but acts as a host, but the confine lord (called termini in Latin) is fairly close to this distinction because it sets the standards and limits the planet.

As we can see, what was meant by "rulership" has shifted over the centuries. In order to tighten this up we should ask exactly what we mean when we say that Uranus rules Aries or Aquarius. In my own work with clients (I've been doing this off/on for almost 40 years now) I've used Uranus and my use of it has changed over the decades. Originally I was from the Rudhyar / psychological school and thought of it in a typically modern sense. Currently I don't use the term rulership with Uranus at all because that device is more closely aligned with the concrete particular, but I do think that Uranus has a special connection to Aquarius and it's role there represents a special choice in the cycle (thinking of the Myth of Er here) where one can choose to escape the circle of incarnation (Uranus) or re-enter (Saturn) and rejoin in the symmetry.

The invisible seems to have more to do with consciousness as Therese has stated and spiritual matters. Now of all the points, these different properties exist: such as is the planet visible? Does that point move or make what Schmidt would call a "phasis" (appearance which speaks). The fixed stars don't make a phasis in the same way (they don't move, but they can be near an angle or another planet) because they can be visible. The invisible planets that move have a distinction from fixed stars in this sense and the visible that move are most closely associated with the concrete particular.

I think Uranus is a fairly good fit to Aries in the sense Lehman would say (affinity). I note the scientific symbol for Uranus is a sort of composite of the Sun and Mars merged together with an upward pointing arrow. This would be the exaltation (Sun) and domicile (Mars) lord of Aries, but I also think Uranus is hot and dry by nature.

I think there is plenty of room for Uranus in connection to Aquarius to study its position from the point of view as to why someone has some issue to the place where Aquarius is in the chart if there is a saturnian issue that is stifling in that house it can show what is needed to break away. Obviously there is some overlap since we do sometimes have Uranian concrete events (such as #Occupy and the current cardinal crisis Uranus / Pluto square that started with the Arab spring). I think one needs to think in terms of using the right tool for the job. Traditional methods seem more suited to questions about the concrete particular, but the why question has proven very elusive with traditional techniques because what happens to us really is not equivalent to who we are. For instance is the statement "I am a software engineer" really accurate? Software is what I do; it is not who I am!

Hi Curtis:

Of course there is a big debate about how well seasonally-based delineations based upon northern temperate zones work in the southern hemisphere, but I definitely meant the northern hemisphere with respect to the sun in Aquarius occuring in the Mediterranean region's winter rainy season.

I read your links with much interest. On the first one, you wrote:

I began to wonder if my life was being run by some outside force and whether I had any freedom of choice. The inner dialog in my head seemed disconnected from material reality and I knew that I was missing a significant portion of the larger picture. I set up an appointment to see Steven Forrest and it was a 10 month wait, but it turned out to be the most important reading of my life. As I found out later, the answer to the question of free will depends in part upon who you think you are and where you think the boundary to you versus "out there" is. The zodiacal releasing technique was spooky on an impersonal level, but it said nothing about who I was inside of all of these events and what it is that motivates me. From this perspective, the world appears to be a training ground in which some of the necessities of existence are managed for us until we can reach a level of consciousness to be able to manage for ourselves.

When I first started studying astrology ca. 1990 there was hardly anything available on traditional astrology that made sense as a means of answering one's own big existential questions. I was fortunate that one of the first books I found was Forrest's The Inner Sky. He wrote about planets as 'teachers" or "tricksters" with the assumption that we get to choose which it will be.

If Uranus seems merely like an unwanted upset, that's the trickster at play. If Uranus shows up as liberation, that's the teacher. Bright pupil that I was, I thought learning from the "teacher" was the better idea. I only learned much later after my initial foray into astrology, that some people thought of astral-determinism as inevitable and real.

I note that astrology grew up with fatalism via the Babylonian religion and Greek stoicism, yet fatalism is totally unnecessary in horoscope interpretation. The chart will out itself, but any given horoscopic placement offers alternatives.

Re: your second link, the oft-invoked term "political correctness" is one used by political conservatives to disempower disadvantaged people. It is neither Uranian nor Aquarian.

I don't have a problem with planets as seemingly unlike as Saturn and Uranus both ruling Aquarius. Perhaps an easier way to visualize this has to do with commonalities of neighbouring signs Capricorn and Aquarius.

1. Both signs (taken here as archetypal identities) have a coolness about them, and a sense of aloofness. Capricorn is more pragmatic; Aquarius is more mental. Again, Uranus often has a very ideological and social expression.

2. Both signs have a sense of righteousness about correctness, political or otherwise. Capricorn can love its traditions-- and Aquarius can resuscitate old ideas for a new era. A good example is democracy. Democracy is Uranian, but portions of this political system go back to ancient Greece. Aquarius can be a bit like the old trade unionist: perhaps the radical in his youth, but as his ideas persist amidst changing times, they can appear inflexible and outmoded.

3. The house of a sun Aquarian will often have Capricorn on the cusp in a quadrant house or equal house system. This automatically gives the Aquarian sun (or could be some other planet) a more Saturnine reinforcement. This person is apt to work for change within the system.

I don't know what you make of the affiliation of Aquarius and Uranus with scientists, inventors, and electricity in modern astrology; but having worked around scientists and engineers for 30+ years during my career, their work isn't anything like Aries, so far as I can tell. It takes a lot of mental capacity and a lot of persistence: think fixed air.

Aquarian Thomas Edison wrote that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. This isn't a cardinal energy, but a fixed one. And that 1% isn't fire, but air.

We've talked a lot about political revolutions and Uranus, but not so much about this planet symbolizing breakthroughs in science and engineering. In modern astrology Uranus rules electricity.

I support your idea that the definition of a domicile/ruler has varied over the past 2000 years. Just as the term "ruler" has different and distinct meanings today.

I work extensively with accidental house cusp rulers (lords.) Maybe someone can produce some evidence that Uranus works better in this capacity ruling Aries than Aquarius.

paul and mark,

thanks for your response to me on the topic of uranus.

this hot and dry concept doesn't really hold any water for me.. you can take that a few ways, lol. mark - the argument you made caught my thought on this as well.. unfortunately with this neat trad system of planets ruling signs - every planet out to saturn gets to rule two signs of different nature.. the way this gets rationalized on some level is with the concept of sect.. mars rules aries and scorpio.. okay, no problem.. we will say that mars is a nocturnal planet as being a diurnal planet would be too much dryness and heat.. but we still get to have mars rule aries as that is what these astrologers of the past did. if one is unable to see the disconnect in some or all of this, then i can't help them - but thank you for pointing that out mark. frankly i don't think uranus is all that hot myself.. i think it is more cold and detached which i would associate with mercury or saturn myself.. sun and mars as planetary reps for uranus doesn't make much sense to me at all. of course if everyone is saying the same thing - read hand, leeham and whoever - well then they must all be right of course, or the one side of the titanic is really tilted..

what horary astrology does with the modes might be fine for horary - cardinal is fast and fixed is slow - but i don't know that you can take that and apply it across the board for any attempt at understanding or making parallel to the nature of a planet. i suppose one can try..

my thought process is more stream of consciousness in the moment. it is always fun to share the personal astro, but since astrologers have so many different ways to viewing astrology and they don't all agree of what is or isn't relevant, another part of me realizes how useless it can be doing this too. the stuff i look at, other astrologers aren't necessarily even looking at! thus the chasm between these different schools of astrology become walls dividing, or opportunities for mavericks to find holes in them..

i think saturn is an important planet for a number of reasons. whether a person uses the energy and symbolism implied by saturn and chooses to look to the past only, or has something in them to consider looking to the future as well - it is hard if not impossible to get a clear read of that off an astrology chart. but, i think it matters. in the one - uranus probably acts like a dumb note - unpredictable and potentially unsettling when it does show up astrologically thru whatever predictive system one is relying on. in this sense - uranus also has the potential to be the awaken-er, or planet connected to new found freedom.. for someone who does keep an open mind to the future or the idea that they can't know everything and that their is room for the unknown to enter, uranus might be an easier energy to work with. i do think that uranus has something to do with breaking down barriers, but maybe it is going beyond barriers - man made - that keep people in their nice little prison cell that is oh so comfy and miserable at the same time.

uranus seems to be more air then water, the way i think of the elements and what they mean in astrology... if it is fire, it is some type of very cool fire, as opposed to something hot. all the associations with computers, technology, science, astrology and all these connections imply 'order' which i don't get from mars or aries.. it has more affinity with saturn then it does with mars, if that is the choice i am given.. frankly - it is it's own energy and might capture some of both - caught in the middle in some symbolic way. does one make an association with astrology and uranus? i do.. what does astrology have to do with mars? every time i try to force myself or my ideas on others i am typically shunned, lol.. i suppose that is a reflection of my chart and air is definitely missing or largely absent in my chart.

i think it is the nature of uranus to go beyond the structures and systems that also serve a purpose. at some point they no longer serve the purpose they were intended for and have outlived their usefulness. this is where the symbolism of uranus can take over in a positive sense if their is receptivity to it. it is also unsettling energy too in that it represents a departure from the past.

i did go back to examine some skyscript threads on this topic and happened to notice a thread from a few years ago where paul, mark and curtis had some similar things to say that they have repeated here.. i thought that was cool and i liked all that.

this thought of rulership in astrology has always annoyed me.. perhaps it is my aries energy, or the uranus energy in my chart, or something else - but the concept of rulership is something that has never appealed to me - quite the opposite. sure, if a planet has an affinity for a sign - i can appreciate that. what i don't like is the rigidity around the concept of rulership. i suppose i go back to my approach to astrology as not putting much value in that.. this is something that might not have served me well over the years too.. i don't do horary and of course horary relies heavily on rulership concepts, not to mention what appears as a pretty stagnant attitude to house systems and etc.. okay - not to pick on horary. what appeals to others in the way they interface with astrology might not appeal to me and vice versa..

for me uranus does have an important place in my involvement in astrology. i can't imagine not including it in a chart, but i don't lean on it's position all that much. i have just had, or am having uranus over my sun for the past 1-2 years.. it is now moving away from what is still a 1 degree orb to my sun. if anything i would say it has helped in the individuation process. i realize it doesn't matter what others think on some level. the main thing is what i think and what i want to do and to get to it. astrology is a part of it too. i love seeing patterns and connections and i feel it offers me a certain type of freedom i wouldn't have otherwise.. is that uranus? i think it is, but for those that don't use astrology - it is not for me to convince them of the importance of this planet and it's role in astrology.

uranus and aries? - if it was a choice between giving it to aries or aquarius or even scorpio - it would go to aquarius as that is the sign that i think it has the most affinity with. i don't care about the hot/cold arguments as they just don't hold much water for me personally. yes - i think uranus has some affinity for aries, but not as much as aquarius. as for those systems of astrology that rely heavily on rulership concepts - i think a time will come when many of the branches of astrology (excluding horary which i am viewing more and more as a type of astromancy) will discover other ways of doing astrology that are not so caught up in the past, or only in so far as they take what is useful while at the same time being more receptive to the many other ways of doing astrology that can capture so much insight too.

Waybread wrote:

I suddenly got the humour in this thread! If Uranus rules sudden change or ideas that discomfort someone based on their very novelty-- then how Uranian to have a traditional-leaning astrologer introduce new ideas about Uranus!

Well natally I have the mid 1960?s Uranus/Pluto conj in a grand trine in earth involving my ASC/MC/ Jupiter, Mercury and my ASC ruler Venus!

Waybread wrote:

A side-joke is that with Uranus now in Aries, of course it makes perfect sense for people to focus on their relationship. It is in the drinking water.

Yes it has raised our awareness of Uranus in that sign.

Waybread wrote:

Mark, let's just be careful of promoting an argument on the grounds that somebody else agrees with you. (Fallacy ad populum.)

Early on in the thread I gave Konrad a list of famous traditional astrologers working with the outers. However, as I stated there it doesn?t prove any argument philosophically.

Waybread wrote:

I think the crux of the matter is that the gulf between modern and traditional astrology is simply too wide.

I agree. I have been principally raising the issue for those that work with traditional rulerships. As this is Skyscript I assume a disproportionate number of people reading this thread are broadly traditional in focus.

Waybread wrote:

For example, I don't think many modern astrologers work with the qualities of hot, dry, cold, or moist. You could get a lot of traditional astrologers to agree that Uranus is hot and dry, but it wouldn't affect much of anything in modern practice.

Probably true. Although I have given numerous arguments to support my position. That was only one. Still, I suppose it depends what you mean by ?modern astrology?. I think its time so called traditionalists reclaimed that label. I always recall Deborah Houlding mentioning to me she regards herself as a modern astrologer not a traditional one! This will probably surprise a lot of people. I don?t think astrology can exist in a hermetically sealed bubble. Yes we may be able to recover ancient techniques and seek to steep ourselves in ancient philosophies . However, regardless of how hard we try our perception of the universe is fundamentally modern and different from someone living in the middle ages. We cannot ignore scientific developments introduced by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein , Heisenberg, ,Bohr, Watson and Crick. They infuse our world view whether we consciously acknowledge them or not. We have also been strongly influenced by political ideas like liberal democracy and gender equality and psychology has largely superseded a religious and/or magical world view. Patrick Curry has described this process as an 'enchanted world' or magical view being replaced by a culture that is essentially disenchanted and increasingly secular. Try as we might we cannot mentally inhabit the ancient and medieval hierarchal mind set. We also cannot reconstitute the type of society around us where such ideas are the dominant paradigm.

I regard myself as modern astrologer living in the 21st century. However, I think many of the attempts to update astrology in the late 19th and 20th century were premature, ill conceived and philosophically incoherent. Clearly, the medieval tradition was in need of some reformation but not at the cost of some of its founding principles.


Waybread wrote:

Mark, this is the first time you've actually asked me to produce any concrete examples of Uranus-Aquarius or Uranus-revolutions in mundane astrology. Do you still want them, or was this merely by way of dismissing my take on Uranus and Aquarius?

Waybread I wasn?t dismissing your approach. I was though questioning if you had any chart data to confirm that the movements such as the American Revolution were as fundamentally liked to Uranus as you claimed. I know Uranus was discovered not long after the American revolution in 1781. Lots of astrologers have made similar claims as you. Its seldom backed up with any evidence though. I just wondered what data you had to support your position.

Your natal data is interesting. Thank you. However, I was looking for more mundane charts than natal. Incidentally, on that subject of natal examples you missed out George Washington with a Sun Uranus Sq. I don?t think the data for Lincoln , Mahatma Gandhi , Che Guevara or Rosa Parks is really that reliable. Robespierre was probably the key figure in instituting the infamous Terror in revolutionary France so I don?t think he is a very positive example of Uranus in a nativity. BTW Trotsky had a Mercury Uranus Sq. Of course revolutionaries can be scientific too. For example Sigmund Freud had a Sun-Uranus conj in the 7th house. Einstein had Jupiter opp Uranus. Jupiter was his MC, Sun, and Moon domicile ruler.

Waybread wrote:

Or dismissing American history?

How little you know me Waybread! Did you know I have an MA in American history? You clearly haven?t read many of my mundane posts on Skyscript either! I have a particular interest in American mundane astrology. I am actually quite fascinated by the subject. So you really couldn?t be more wrong.

Waybread wrote:

This isn't just American triumphalism, as this revolution was a pattern that many other nations followed.

I am not denying the historical influence of the American revolution. To explain my rather cryptic comment when I said the American revolution was ?idiosyncratic? I meant that it was achieved at comparatively little loss of life compared to many other more bloody revolutions e.g. The Mexican, Russian, Chinese revolutions.

The American revolution has also been a lot more benign in terms of its historical legacy than many other revolutions. If I have a problem with any revolution it is more about my spiritual and philosophical beliefs on taking human life and my rejection of ethical utilitarianism. As I see it the words revolution and war are often synonymous. Still, you have a point that before representative democracy became widespread many societies lacked the opportunity to institute radical political change in any other way.

Waybread wrote:

Obviously any horoscope will have multiple influences, not merely a single outer planet, and it is not possible to design a statistically legitimate study. No astrological signature works 100%.

Yes James made this point earlier in the thread. I agree.

Waybread wrote:

I think the best approach to these charts is to see how Uranus and the other planets function, vs. setting up some `a priori criterion.

Could you expand a little what you are driving at there?

Waybread wrote:

You are probably familiar with the debate over the Sibly chart. Other astrologers have tried to come up with a good chart for the Declaration of Independence, one of which (#3 on the Astro-DataBank) puts Uranus conjunct MC, but I suspect some footwork here involving chart rectification.

Yes. Your discussing the so called Boehrer/Dobyns Virgo rising chart

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Nation:_USA_No.3

Having Uranus angular like this does look a bit contrived. Virgo rising has never been as popular as the Sagittarius, Gemini or Scorpio rising charts for the Declaration of independence chart (4th of July 1776)

Nevertheless, I do think there is a strong empirical case that Uranus is connected to the US history whatever chart we select. From the late early 20th century American astrologers like Ernest S. Green, John Hazelrigg and later Evangeline Adams all observed that American historical involvement in major wars was linked to Uranus being placed in the sign of Gemini.

Philip Graves opened a fascinating thread on these figures some time ago:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... de58a2099d

As I work with whole signs this lends support as I see it to the Sibly chart since Gemini is the 7th house in that chart ( open enemies). I know you have philosophical problems with predictive astrology both natally and in mundane terms. However, this is an interesting issue of Uranus regarding US history.

Waybread wrote:

I didn't have much luck locating the initial source/s of Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius, but I did glean these kernels:

It looks like you missed the link I gave in my first post on this article by Kim Farnell's on how Uranus became associated with Aquarius. Here it is:

http://skyscript.co.uk/ur_aq.html

Mark