Deb,

Thanks for the link. I read all of it and thoroughly enjoyed it. The quality of discussion in 2003-04 was very good. I have to admit that you and Kim have patience and flair for research

I just read other thread on Uranus, also. A gold mine of information on the history of Uranus in astrology.

We want to be careful, though, of a kind of fallacious reasoning that cropped up initially on that thread (and this one) called "guilt by association," or perhaps "genetic fallacy." (For a great site on logical fallacies, see: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ .)

We cannot conclude that merely because the origins of modern planet assignments to signs were dubious, that these planet-sign associations are therefore invalid today, or that bad origins discredit the proposition itself. The proposition has to stand or fall on its own merits.

A historical example of this problem were assumptions made in Shakespeare's England that a child born out of wedlock (i. e., sin) would not become a virtuous person.

The Uranus-Aquarius rulership may have a totally bizarre history, but we have to look at the connection on its own merits and demerits today.

Let's not forget that the traditional planets gained their sign associations in ancient times, back when people worshipped them as gods and sacrified animals to them.

Is this genesis a legitimate reason to discard traditional rulerships? No, but it is a parallel case.

We also want to be careful of deciding, as I read on that other thread, that because Uranus is associated with sudden change, it doesn't belong with a fixed sign. Mars might well be involved in sudden violent change, for example, yet it rules the fixed sign of Scorpio. We find a real mix-and-match of planets and signs when we look at terms or dwads.

Uranus today has many associations other than "sudden" change: innovation is probably a better key word for its association with science, aviation, and space travel. And these take a lot of persistence.

On a different tack that leads back to Mark's OP, I just reviewed Steven Forrest's (The Inner Sky) take on Uranus. While he mentions its potential for dysfunction, its positive meanings are "the development of the capacity to question authority. The transcendence of cultural and social programming."

I don?t know where Cayce fits in to Western Astrology?s lineage. . He seems to be one of the more embarrassing characters with his alleged mumbo jumbo about Atlantis, Polygenism, a solar crystal ball, Aliens, etc.
But it might be interesting to know where he got his ideas about Uranus from.

The Skyscript 2003 thread explored ideas about Uranus in the 19th century; it would have been very useful as a prequel to this thread, to plot notions about Uranus in the 20th century from the more noteworthy thinkers.

Here at Skyscript, Philip Graves seems to have consulted 5 sources which span the period 1898-1977 or thereabouts from books which might be labelled popular astrology. He lists a number of significations. I would perceive 60-70% of these as naive, fuzzy or incorrect.

?
http://skyscript.co.uk/uranus3.html

Still, I do feel I need to do the modern approach to this subject some justice by at least reading more widely on it. Hence, I have ordered the Richard Tarnas and Liz Greene books on Uranus cited above.

Waybread, I disagree with much of your post of Feb 25, 2014 12:25 am but it would be hypocritical of me to respond to those points whilst asking you and others to stay on topic. A little bit of meandering is fine, but there comes a point where, as in this thread, one point of confusion spawns two more, and the value of the thread gets lost with an overload of side issues. Even if you think any of those points have some relevance to the question of whether Uranus is associated with Aries, it is better to start new threads for indirectly related points that need elaboration and clarification, pursue them there, and then place a link or summary to that new thread here. Several posters have remarked that they are unable to follow this thread anymore, and I also believe that its quantity of posts (or at least the extensive wordage of many posts) is deterring from its quality and generating a time sink.

It is also a pity when discussion on, for example, the understanding of the Sun in ancient astrology, is not given its own thread, so that other astrologers or researchers who are specifically interested in that point are unaware of that discussion or unable to find a dedicated thread on it in the future.

waybread wrote: 1. A view expressed above seemingly found a negative correlation between the sun-as-intellect with the sun's detriment in Aquarius as, in part, justifying Uranus as a poor match with Aquarius.
...
3. I appreciate Mark's effort to see whether there are some ways in which Uranus might fit into a traditional astrology methodology. Following from his effort, however, I wanted to show that, depending upon which type of traditional astrology one uses, the sun (a) is not strongly associated with intellect, and (b) is not in its fall in Aquarius. If I can demonstrate these two points, then the solar argument seems less forceful as a means of arguing against a strong Uranus-Aquarian affiliation or modern rulership.

4. If we look at Hellenistic astrology, my recent focus, I am hard pressed to find the Hellenistic astrologers except Valens mentioning a (a) sun-intellect thematic rulership or (b) using the concept of detriment (and their concept of exaltation and fall commonly went by degree, not by an entire sign.)

Hi Waybread,

I have no desire to get into lengthy debates here, I posted only to say that like Mark I see some correlation between Uranus and the Sun and Mars, and also affinity to Aries.

I should add here that you mention my views here and juxtaposed them alongside Mark's but in doing so seemed to have missed a key caveat that I have made here a couple of times.

As I was the one, and not Mark, to introduce the Sun as intellect idea, let me clarify what I mean by this as it seems to have become something other than what I meant. Nixx mentioned Uranus' association with Intellect. My point was to suggest that the Solar principle has a connection to Intellect within the tradition. And it does not make sense to me that we might connect Uranus' affinity to a place where the Sun (or indeed Mars) would be 'corrupted'.

What has any of that got to do with Hellenistic astrology however? I asked this before but it seems you either missed the relevance of it, or did not care. Nobody here has argued for what Hellenistic astrologers would do with Uranus. Certainly I have not. I have in fact stated the exact opposite - that my idea is just that, my idea. Now we can examine the sun with regards the intellect and spirit some more and examine the tradition if we want, but keep in mind that the tradition includes but is not limited to the hellenistic era.

I am not arguing for the Hellenistic era (alone) so I have no idea why you are counter arguing by (only) examining it? It is worth stressing the point again.

You say that if you can find that hellenistic astrologers do not associate the sun with intellect or incorporate detriments and fall that it will weaken my argument regarding Uranus and Aquarius - but you give absolutely no reason why it might, keeping in mind my underscoring that I have never pretended that the idea is sourced in Hellenistic astrology to begin with - that is something you have chosen to focus on for entirely your own purposes.

For me, whether others accept or understand it, I see Uranus as something akin to an alloy in symbolism between the Sun and Mars - not all of the qualities of both of course. Just some of them. In a way that I see Neptune like Venus and the Moon. For me, within my symbolic landscape, I recognise that I might associate keywords and connections between the kind of descriptors we might associate with Aries (the exaltation of the sun, and diurnal domicile of Mars) and Uranus. Not everybody else has to. Note that I am not arguing anything whatsoever about Hellenistic astrology. Therefore stating what Hellenistic astrologers might say on the matter does not diminish my point, as it is clearly not relevant to that point at all.

The Sun has within its symbolism an association with Intellect and with the creative impulse and spirit. This is what I mean by intellect. I was happy for you to simply ignore that part of my argument (as I mentioned in my previous posts) but you have chosen to run with it instead and post multiple times on it. But I notice that you have ignored or not understood my point with regards Mercury's application of intellect and cleverness as distinct from a higher intellect I associate with the Sun. I appreciate that I do not have time to get into a lengthy discussion of this. Mark associates this with 'nous' and that's close enough, I deliberately did not want to use that terminology as it can incorporate different things to different people and I wanted to be clear on separating this from anything else and keeping it just as "my idea/theory".

I have no problem with the idea being dismissed, or that others will not agree with it and that they way we all use our astrology and our philosophical frameworks will dictate, to some degree, exactly what way we use astrology and what we hope to get from it, and what astrology is for all of us, as well as our symbolic associations with it. But I am somewhat less impressed and more confused by the continuation of stating what Hellenistic astrologers say or don't say, despite my being clear that the argument I have made is not dependent upon what hellenistic astrologers say. Ultimately all we can say for the matter is "okay, but I don't agree" - keep in mind my post where I say that I expected that to be the case from the moment I first chose to post here.



EDIT:
Just saw Deb's latest post, feel free to remove this if you feel that it is further meandering from the main topic. I posted only to try to put an end to continuously bringing the discussion back to what Hellenistic astrologers say about the Sun or its symbolism.

ADDITION BY DEB: Thank you for understanding Paul; I have left most of your post as you were unaware of mine, but have cut the last three paragraphs, since your points were sufficiently made and those remarks were not essential to your argument.

Paul, I see you posted at the same time as I was making a request for topics like this to be placed in their own thread, because it clearly spawned a host of new points for discussion that has bogged down this thread, and buried that - in itself- interesting point in the wrong place.

As I feel it compromises me, to contribute and moderate, I'll be standing back from this discussion myself. I would like this Sun-theme to continue, if interest in the point remains - but not here. After 10 pages, this thread is in danger of becoming the place of activity where anything and everything gets discussed.

I am going to ask all those who have contributed thousands of words already, to not repeat points that have already been made several times, and to be sure that any new points are succinctly made, with the relevance to the association of Uranus to Aries (or not) being the focus of their post. If anyone feels the need to summarize their view on unrelated (or indirectly related) issues now, you should be able to do that in a paragraph or two. If that is not possible, then start a new thread.

Re: "I don?t know where Cayce fits in to Western Astrology?s lineage."

When they realized they had a (good) source for information, they started to move away from only questions about existent health issues, on to topics such as Astrology, Jesus, Souls, Atlantis, etc. When they started discussing Astrology [remember, with Cayce in trance], he gave a very large amount of information, including in many cases, the exact birthtime of the person in question including astrological placements (without casting the chart!!!).

Re: "He seems to be one of the more embarrassing characters..."

Only embarrassing to those that misunderstand. Having given over 14,000 detailed readings and (the documented) helping of hundreds of people given up by medicine is enough to keep him from being "embarrassing." Would that you could help so many...

Re: "But it might be interesting to know where he got his ideas about Uranus from."

Akashic records. He states as much. Remember that ALL of this information came about while Cayce was in trance. They even pried one of his fingernails off with a knife while he was in trance, only to see no reaction at all until they brought him out of trance. [Additionally, don't forget that he gave meanings for (what would later be discovered as) Pluto, long before astronomers spotted it and before astrologers attached meaning to it.]

As for how this all fits in in this thread... it is good to have "delineations" from several sources that attempt to get to the core of meaning. Many of the "regular" sources will be repeats of things stated by other authorities. When you have a source that comes out of left field, from another informational source, it should carry at least as much weight as parroted opinions...

As for Uranus' fit with Aries, there are several strong connections... equally, there are several divergent points. Some themes for Uranus are freedom, democracy, brotherhood. [These exist and are observable in horoscopes, so they do not FOLLOW from the Aquarius connection alone.] Freedom, democracy, and brotherhood are not normally themes associated with Aries. Aries wants to be first... Uranus is progressive...in this area, appearing a good fit. Aries will argue from his opinion. Uranus might argue from his opinion for the first half, only to switch to Devil's Advocate mode for the remainder and argue from the opposite perspective. Getting to the correct answer first is an Aries-type motive. Getting to one's own answer, whether right or wrong... ie. individually correct ...is more Uranus' style.

In summary, I can see some connections between Uranus and Aries that make a lot of sense and show some similar principles. On the other hand, Aquarius seems to hold a much more complete connection across the board... (imo)

Peace

James

James,

Cayce's paranormal abilities or lack of might be a bit of a tangent here.

But I agree with this and see it as directly relevant to the thread.

When you have a source that comes out of left field, from another informational source, it should carry at least as much weight as parroted opinions...

If someone using Cayce's Uranian and House semantics took the view Uranus in the 4th meant they likely preferred Raspberries to Strawberries then this is a valid hypothesis until such a time 5,000 people with this placement are asked to state their preference, or more ideally given both to eat and their brains wired up and 'pleasure' assessed more objectively.

Deb wrote:

It is also a pity when discussion on, for example, the understanding of the Sun in ancient astrology, is not given its own thread, so that other astrologers or researchers who are specifically interested in that point are unaware of that discussion or unable to find a dedicated thread on it in the future.

Can I just remind everyone I previously opened a thread on the topic of the Sun in traditional astrology a few years ago. There have been some very interesting contributions on that topic here so I would invite anyone interested in the topic to contribute their ideas there.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 0949#60949

Thanks

Mark

Deb, a thread on the astrological (and astronomical, personal, environmental, and metaphysical) sun sounds like a good idea. I'll start one if nobody else does, or if Mark's earlier sun thread seems like a different venue.

Just to clarify (with a strict two-paragraph summary) why a discussion of the sun pertains to this particular thread:

So far as I understand the arguments made by those who oppose an affiliation (let alone rulership) of Uranus and Aquarius, a lot depends upon: (1) whether or not one sees Uranus as (a) an amalgam of planetary pairs or (b) as highly similar to another planet; (2) what inferences one draws from planet-sign rulerships; and (3) what inferences one consequently draws from the sun domiciled in the sign opposite Aquarius, and in detriment in Aquarius. (If A=C and B=A, then B=C.... or does it?)

To unpack point (3) we need to clarify more about the sun, be it astronomical, astrological, climatic, personal, or metaphysical, just as some earlier posts elaborated on the nature of Mars. These have some overlap yet each sheds light differently (pun?) upon the the problem.

Hopefully we can clarify this multi-natured sun in another thread, and then import any relevant information from there to here.

Nixx/James-- if some ideas on this thread didn't seemingly come out of left-field, it wouldn't be a thread on Uranus. This doesn't mean that left-field ideas are more valid than conventional ideas: each has to stand or fall on its merits.

Just to clarify-- I am hardly suggesting that the Hellenists dealt with Uranus! Rather, I have indicated above that some of their writings provide a context for incorporating a new planet that becomes more difficult once the detriments, exaltations, and falls become more codified by sign subsequently in astrology's history. They also combined planets and signs through terms and decans, apart from domiciles and exaltations, suggesting that their views on planet-sign affiliations were rather inclusive.

Hellenistic astrology is just so foundational to the rest of astrology's edifice that it is worth consideration. It seems to be having its own renaissance within traditional astrology today.

The planet-pairing, use of the fixed star analogy, concept of "nous" and other points initiated by others derive from the astrologers and philosophers of ancient times.

It would be interesting to see whether other historical forms of astrology offer a comparable opening for modern planets.

It occured to me I made some attempt to explain where Psychological Astrologers might stand on this issue of Uranus's linkage with Aquarius but could have been a bit more explicit, or simplistic, or Virgoan perhaps.


Aries
Direct, Initiating. Quick, Impatient, Simple, Active, Impulsive, Reckless, Brave, Driven.

Uranus
Reform, Innovation, Unpredictable, Disruptive, Liberation, Dissident, Eccentric, Progress, Genius, Perfection.

Aquarius
Collaboration, Unconventional, Ideas, Friendly, Indifferent, Awkward, Clarity, Equality, Impersonal, Mechanism.


maybe not the definitive 10 keywords/concepts but after a bit of digging and thinking I'm confident they would not get red lines through them and be thereabouts in a group of 15 or so, if one could find some more precise enough that is.