Michael Sternbach wrote:

Hi Mark,

Great!

I like Robert Hand's classification of a planet potentially expressing itself on multiple levels. It's the foundation for what I would call Transformational Astrology. That such energies can be transformed from one level to another is part of the ancient Hermetic lore as exemplified in Magic and Alchemy. Moreover, it's a clear step away from fatalism.

Yes it is clear from his other statements from the webinar that Hand is not suggesting these three levels are mechanistically related to the dignity of planets. They are about how each individual works out the dynamics of their chart. Although, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that some charts and planetary configurations are more difficult to work through than others. So its potentially harder to realise the higher expression of a planet in some charts than others. I think Hand?s outlook is a useful corrective to an over rigid approach to delineating natal promise in the horoscope.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Talking about Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius... I agree, Uranus doesn't look like such a good match if you highlight that this is a fixed sign. But there is a strong revolutionary spirit to be observed in many an Aquarius personality. I guess that the Air element is setting the fixed quality off, to some degree.

I think the Aquarian desire to bring about social change relates more to its role as the diurnal or external expression of Saturn?s two domiciles. In Aquarius the emphasis is more social and collective, whilst in Capricorn there is more concern for individual social progress working within existing systems.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

On a more fundamental level, there is the question: How much of a sign's traits are due to its ruling planet? What's the difference between a planet's and a sign's character?

Good question! From a traditional outlook the planets are the key to chart delineation. In modern astrology the focus seems to have shifted more to a kind of characterology based on signs which I call ?signism?. There is much less emphasis on the signs in general in traditional astrology. Clearly there is a commonality between signs of the same mode but this mitigated due to their respective planetary rulers.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

As far as the classical scheme, i.e. Mars ruling the fixed Water sign Scorpio could be considered quite counter-intuitive, as well...

Good point. I actually agree with you! I think a few people struggle with the combination of elements to some signs if you consider their planetary ruler. Especially Scorpio although certainly not exclusively. For example in ancient astrology Cancer doesn't seem cold but rather quite warm and sociable. Its interesting that astrologers like Ptolemy never assigned elements to the triplicities. He therefore never used the notion of triplicities found in medieval astrology such as water signs =cold and wet.

More fundamentally, he never assigned the elements to the triplicities. Like the Bablylonians he only tied the triplicities into directional astrology. For Ptolemy both Aries and Scorpio were dry signs due to their association with Mars. The difference being that Aries was a diurnal sign representing the heat of the day while Scorpio symbolised the cool and moisture of the night. Because Mars was in sect at night I suspect that is why ancient astrologers called Scorpio the sign where Mars had its sign of joy.

Looking at the symbol for Scorpio it is interesting that Scorpions are not water creatures but rather live on land , often in deserts. Scorpions are generally nocturnal animals meaning that they spend the day under rocks and in crevices and then come out to hunt in the safety of darkness.

Similarly, Saturn was seen to have its joy in Aquarius. As a planet of the diurnal sect Saturn was seen as cold in nature. This malefic nature was mitigated to a certain extent in Aquarius as a diurnal or day sign due to the warmth of the Sun.

I think Ptolemy?s attribution of qualities to the signs derived from the planets is a lot more logical than the system adopted by the Perso-Arabs. The main argument against his approach might be that it ignores things like exaltation rulers in signs.

I have actually been toying with abandoning the elements altogether and replacing them with Ptolemy's approach to the signs but I haven?t yet taken the final step. They are so fundamental to the way most astrologers see charts it?s a bit like going ?cold Turkey? especially as most of the astrological community (traditional and modern) use them so extensively.

Mark

Mark wrote: Hand has an interesting approach where all the planets are seen to operate at three potential levels i.e. positive, middle level and lower level.

i don't think this is just robert hands approach. i remember this kernel idea being shared a long time ago.. it is all dependent on a number of factors like the level of consciousness of the person whose chart it relates back to and etc. etc. maybe you are not implying hand originated this idea.. i think it is coming from somewhere much further back - maybe even traditional astrology, or some philosophical school, or consciousness more generally..

Mark wrote:From a traditional outlook the planets are the key to chart delineation. In modern astrology the focus seems to have shifted more to a kind of characterology based on signs which I call ?signism?. There is much less emphasis on the signs in general in traditional astrology.

not to sound like a broken record, but just remember the approach taken by 'cosmobiology' which would likely be classified as 'modern' LOLOL!

Mark wrote:

Yes it is clear from his other statements from the webinar that Hand is not suggesting these three levels are mechanistically related to the dignity of planets. They are about how each individual works out the dynamics of their chart. Although, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that some charts and planetary configurations are more difficult to work through than others. So its potentially harder to realise the higher expression of a planet in some charts than others. I think Hand?s outlook is a useful corrective to an over rigid approach to delineating natal promise in the horoscope.

Agreed!

I think the Aquarian desire to bring about social change relates more to its role as the diurnal or external expression of Saturn?s two domiciles. In Aquarius the emphasis is more social and collective, whilst in Capricorn there is more concern for individual social progress working within existing systems.

I did some thinking about this, too, meanwhile. I would say, Aquarius as one of Saturn's domiciles is in accordance with it being a fixed sign. My acceptance of both traditional and modern rulerships necessitates to look at the signs as expressions of both. I extend this scheme to include Uranus as the co-ruler of Capricorn, and for the other trans-Saturnians likewise, as I have demonstrated above.

Its interesting that astrologers like Ptolemy never assigned elements to the triplicities. He therefore never used the notion of triplicities found in medieval astrology such as water signs =cold and wet.

More fundamentally, he never assigned the elements to the triplicities.

That's certainly true, however, Ptolemy assigned the triplicities to the mediating directions in Book 1 and (more clearly) in Book 2 of the Tetrabiblos. The Fire trigon belonged to NW, the Earh trigon to SE, the Air trigon to NE, the Water trigon to SW. As North was "above", and South "below", this agrees with Valens' attribution of the signs with the elements since, in Aristotelian physics, Fire and Air are the elements that tend to move upwards, Water and Earth the ones that tend to move downwards. My source here is Wolfgang H?bner: Die Eigenschaften der Tierkreiszeichen in der Antike, p. 448.

Whether Valens elaborated on Ptolemy, or rather Ptolemy omitted an older tradition (as he often did) remains to be seen.

Michael

Mark wrote:A friend of mine attended Robert Hand's webinar a few months ago.

Hand has an interesting approach where all the planets are seen to operate at three potential levels i.e. positive, middle level and lower level. The following is taken from a summary of Hand's webinar note on Uranus:

Uranus

Positive level: Sudden breakthroughs in individual and social consciousness that brings about innovation and reform. The recognition of the need to change a reality system.

Middle level: Anything sudden which is discontinuous with ordinary notions of reality, revolutionary change, revolution in general, the unusual and extraordinary, non-conformity the extremes.

Low level: Extremely dysfunctional eccentricity, rebels, negative suggestibility (when teenagers only do the opposite of what you tell them to do.)

Aquarius is about new order. Uranus destroys order, so Uranus is NOT the ruler of Aquarius, there is nothing fixed about Uranus.

With all due respect to Hand as the greatest living anglophone astrologer (to me,) this passage really needs to be unpacked. First off all we've got 3 (count 'em) categories. Where did these come from? They sound like the old Sears catalogue's labeling of merchandise as "good, better, best." These categories are imaginatively created.

Fixed heirarchical categories are very un-Uranian.

Then who decides what belongs in a rigidly rank-ordered category? In a repressive dictatorship, rebels can play a positive role. Some reforms are regressive, and so on. In a highly conformist repressive society, yes, "eccentricity" can't be tolerated.

Aquarius is about a New Order? (She hums a few bars from the 1960s musical Hair.) Sometimes we have to clear out the old to make way for the new. Moreover, maybe rapid change will become the new normal. It certainly seems that way today, where each new technology report shows new innovations in IT and personal electronic devices.

It is too simplistic to describe Uranus as destroying order. Uranus has multiple functions, any one of which might be uppermost at a given time.

Hand's Saturnian logic needs some good Uranian disruption.

I just spotted this link to a Facebook article by Robert Hand where he challenges the notion that Uranus rules Aquarius. Interestingly, this piece came out just about a week before I started this thread!

https://www.facebook.com/robert.hand.98 ... 5386919610

He was promising a follow up piece but I am not clear if he did so.

Mark

Michael Sternbach wrote:

I extend this scheme to include Uranus as the co-ruler of Capricorn, and for the other trans-Saturnians likewise, as I have demonstrated above.

From a completely different angle I can see where one could argue an association between Uranus and Capricorn. While I went with the notion of a Mars-Sun association here and a corresponding hot/dry nature taking me to Aries one could take a contrary view. In particular, if you view Uranus as of a cold/dry nature we come back to Saturn. Capricorn is a cardinal sign and as I have suggested earlier Uranus seems to resonate with that quality of sign.

Mark

Well noted, Mark. Thanks.

The topic of the elemental attributions of the outers is as elusive as it is important.

Charles Carter says that Uranus, to him, has special affinities with evem Scorpio and Sagittarius and Capricorn.
He doesn't specify why it should be with Capricorn (but it seems like it is a very popular point of view: just as Mark said, probably is because the cardinal mode is nearest to Uranus).
About Scorpio, he tells about a tendency to resentment and generally to the intensity of feeling.
About Sagittarius, he speaks of something quite nervous in the sign that it is quite un-Jovian.
Personally I think, that to try to classify the transsaturnians with precise theoretical structure is a waste of time. We can speak about the special affinity between those planets and the zodiac signs, but not with the domicile-exile thing: why should Uranus be antisolar, if the Sun has great similarities with it? Just because someone said that Uranus is ruler of Aquarius?

As others have said on this long thread, Uranus basically works as the modern ruler of (or watered-down, as having a special affinity with) Aquarius within a modern astrology framework. If one could shoehorn it into a more traditional framework of essential dignities or the four humours, it wouldn't be Uranus.

Too often, astrologers focus merely on the disruptive or sudden change nature of Uranus, without considering pragmatically how it functions in horoscopes, or its modern rulerships of science, aviation, and electricity.

francescomanfredi wrote:Charles Carter says that Uranus, to him, has special affinities with evem Scorpio and Sagittarius and Capricorn.

Uranus having a special affinity with Scorpio is in line with its exaltation in that sign, a thesis widely accepted in modern astrology.

He doesn't specify why it should be with Capricorn (but it seems like it is a very popular point of view: just as Mark said, probably is because the cardinal mode is nearest to Uranus).

I am not aware that this is a "very popular point of view", in fact Carter is the first astrologer (other than myself) that I hear proposing the Uranus/Capricorn connection.

I have summarized a number of reasons why Uranus could qualify as the co-ruler of Aquarius here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... &start=240

See my post of Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:59 pm

About Scorpio, he tells about a tendency to resentment and generally to the intensity of feeling.
About Sagittarius, he speaks of something quite nervous in the sign that it is quite un-Jovian.

Let's however not forget that Sagittarius is one of the mutable signs. In human expression, they all tend to make for a sensitive nerve system.

More prominently, Uranus and Jupiter (and their corresponding signs, respectively), share things like higher aspirations and idealism, each in their particular ways.

Personally I think, that to try to classify the transsaturnians with precise theoretical structure is a waste of time. We can speak about the special affinity between those planets and the zodiac signs, but not with the domicile-exile thing: why should Uranus be antisolar, if the Sun has great similarities with it? Just because someone said that Uranus is ruler of Aquarius?

According to the traditional "domicile-exile thing", Saturn in Aquarius is placed opposite to the Sun in Leo, but he is not really "antisolar" because of that; in fact he was seen as "another Sun" or "a Sun in disguise" (Franz Boll: Sternglaube und Sterndeutung).

There is indeed great symmetry underlying both the ancient and the modern domicile scheme. What hinders its recognition is the two still missing sign rulers they apparently haven't been discovered yet by the astronomers.

I am not aware that this is a "very popular point of view", in fact Carter is the first astrologer (other than myself) that I hear proposing the Uranus/Capricorn connection.
According to the traditional "domicile-exile thing", Saturn in Aquarius is placed opposite to the Sun in Leo, but he is not really "antisolar" because of that; in fact he was seen as "another Sun" or "a Sun in disguise" (Franz Boll: Sternglaube und Sterndeutung).

There is indeed great symmetry underlying both the ancient and the modern domicile scheme. What hinders its recognition is the two still missing sign rulers they apparently haven't been discovered yet by the astronomers.[/quote]



The guy who popularized Uranus as affinity with Capricorn, if I remember correct, is called Semetovsky. Andr? Barbault as well. And here in Italy, the idea of Uranus affinity with Capricorn is widely accepted today.