Michael, thanks for sharing your story.

Too often forum members simply exchange posts, without interacting as two actual people with life histories.

In some ways, I seem to be your mirror image.

I was born in 1949 in the United States, but moved to Canada in 1992. I am a dual citizen. I grew up in a world where I was expected to become a housewife and mother, but the feminist revolution of ca 1970 intersected with those plans. I eventually became a university faculty member, a career I held for 31 years.

My parents called themselves "free thinkers." They did not go to church. I was never baptized. For children of my era, this was highly unusual. I attended a Protestant church Sunday school with some neighborhood children, however (probably so my mother got the kids out of the house,) and was presented with a Bible, at some point. At the age of 13, I decided to read it, cover to cover. It took me 2.5 years, but I finished it.

From a young age, I was fascinated both by fairy tales and children's literature as well as botany. Clearly they were different, but I didn't see them as enemies.

The Great Outdoors has been my abiding passion. (I am fortunate to live in the Canadian Rockies.) I realized as a graduate student, however, that I did not have the math and hard science skills to make it as a "hard" biologist. My love is more akin to the extinct field of natural history. My Ph. D. and academic career are in a field usually classified as a social science.

At age 24 I converted to Judaism in order to marry my ex-husband who is Jewish. I was active in Judaism for 20 years, until our separation and divorce. Since then I have been inactive in this faith. At one point I probed deeply into Germanic paganism, but the group who are involved with this lore today in the US have a pretty bad reputation.

I've pursued any number of other interests over the years, such as western mythology. Because of my academic background, I think the study of mythology should pay attention to original sources (translations OK) plus relevant scholarship.

I remarried, and my (atheist) husband and I have been married for 25 years. I have two adult children from my first marriage, and one adorable grandson.

I first got into astrology around 1990. (Transiting Pluto square sun, square Mars, &c, &c.) This was a dark night of the soul, when I realized that I had no idea why I was on the planet. Not me as a generic human being, but me as an individual. Astrology tries to address this question. Careerism doesn't. I never did find out why I was on the planet, but I learned a lot of astrology in the process.

I keep what I regard as a healthy skepticism about astrology, but when I first joined some on-line astrology forums, I discovered that I had learned a fair bit about astrology, and could use it to be helpful to people.

[Anna, asteroid Skepticus is not a meaningful horoscope point for me, though.]

I took a very early retirement. These days, with some mobility impairments, I can indulge my astrology hobby without feeling I should be doing something else.

My horoscope: Aquarian sun trine Uranus, Leo moon, Virgo rising. I have a wide Pluto opposition to my sun.

And that's probably more than you wanted to know.

Hi Waybread

Thanks for those insights into your background. And no, it's not more than I wanted to know!

I agree that, as forum participants, we may sometimes come across as two-dimensional as the surface of the screen in front of us. Providing that kind of information about ourselves might help us avoid projecting our preconceived notions on the person we are having a discussion with.

Talking about our topic of Pluto and Aries, I am currently exploring a possible link to the myth of the Golden Fleece. Will be back with more on this when ready.

I have always felt the power of Pluto deeply, being a Leo with Scorpio rising and Pluto and Regulus on the M.C.

He is angry, he has been demoted to a dwarf planet and some astrologers don't now use him and think of him as a large asteroid, yet he is very powerful and will hit back hard!

I often get the cane from him LOL.

He didn't like his judgement day!

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=pl ... &FORM=VIRE

Hmmm..

The astronomers demoted him, but not the modern astrologers. The mods always knew his influence was powerful.

I think it makes sense to discriminate between astronomical planets and astrological planets.

I've really tried to make sense of (now dwarf planet) Ceres but don't (yet) see her functioning as a planet, in the sense of working as a house cusp lord.

I think dwarf-planet Eris has real interpretive value, probably as co-ruler of Aries. (Sorry, Michael.)

waybread wrote:The astronomers demoted him, but not the modern astrologers. The mods always knew his influence was powerful. I think it makes sense to discriminate between astronomical planets and astrological planets.

Pluto may be called a "Dwarf planet" (at least for now) by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) but some astronomers think Pluto (and Eris) is a full planet and therefore shouldn't be called a Dwarf planet in the first place. For example, this article says the proper definition of a "planet" is anything more than 1000 km in radius: https://www.space.com/29571-why-pluto-i ... s-too.html

waybread wrote:I think dwarf-planet Eris has real interpretive value, probably as co-ruler of Aries.

If Pluto is a planet, then Eris is too. Eris is 98% of Pluto’s diameter, but also 27% denser, and unlike Pluto Eris is fully outside of Neptune's orbit, so there are reasons to consider Eris at least as if not more astrologically significant then Pluto. Pluto just has more popularity and established meaning in astrology since we've known about it for nearly 100 years, while we've only known about Eris for less than 20.

waybread wrote:I've really tried to make sense of (now dwarf planet) Ceres but don't (yet) see her functioning as a planet, in the sense of working as a house cusp lord.

Even if one doesn't have it rule a sign or house, Ceres is still very significant. Ceres is the only asteroid in the main belt that's large enough to be spherical under its own gravity. For example, it's 3.5 times the diameter of Chiron, and many astrologers use Chiron. (Chiron is irregularly shaped and therefore definitely not a Dwarf planet.)

However, note there are various other Dwarf planets or Dwarf planet candidates that are larger than Ceres: Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, and Orcus (i.e. what I call the "Seven Dwarfs") are all larger than Ceres (or about equal to the size of Ceres in the case of Orcus). Size isn't the only thing that matters in astrology of course, however if Ceres were a bit larger we'd definitely consider it a planet, especially since it nicely fits in with "Bode's Law" of planetary distributions.

In my system I don't have Pluto as ruler of anything, but exalted in Scorpio. He/she is Kali, messenger of Death, not some responsible ruler (I have Lilith as an alternative manifestation of Pluto). The highly erratic orbit of Pluto (in latitude) also suggests it's not a normal planet. (I'm between traditional and modern as I don't use any other asteroids or dwarf planets, I have come to believe there may have been a regular planet between Mars and Jupiter and that's why Pluto should now be considered.) However certainly change is necessary in personal lives and world affairs, and sometimes could even be regarded as something positive or at least with a positive end result.

I'm refreshed that we have soo many mods here, Pluto can be a "Hot subject" on some astrology forums.

I'm a mixture, i'm a specialist in the oldest of all astrology being Mundane parans, but also are with the mods with asteroids!

I don't think of myself as the Prince of Darkness though, being a Leo, with Scorpio rising with a Pluto M.C. LOL!

Even if i have an up-side down pentagram, oops!


https://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/ ... c73a81.png

Just a matter of information, i saw that James Eshelman was mentioned on the early pages of this thread.

I am not trying blacken his name, but i'm just giving information for you to form an opinion.

He is a high up member of Crowley's A.A.:-

https://xaxyqewejujy.savilerowandco.com ... -166si.php

thanks Cruiser1

you made a good case for the incorporation of eris here which i am sure will make waybread happy! thanks for your post...

I tend to take a pragmatic view. A planet has real work to do in horoscope interpretation, of the "roll up your sleeves and have at it" variety. People have real issues and questions in real time. Does Pluto have interpretive value in their situations or not?

I have no doubt that Pluto functions very powerfully as an astrological planet.

A good book on Eris is Henry Seltzer, The Tenth Planet.

I've not done the research yet on my own but probably should.

waybread wrote:Hmmm..

The astronomers demoted him, but not the modern astrologers. The mods always knew his influence was powerful.

Funnily enough, it was claimed that Pluto, along with the other dwarfs, was excluded from the league of planets "for astrological reasons".

https://www.jpost.com/science/article-690279

I think it makes sense to discriminate between astronomical planets and astrological planets.

I've really tried to make sense of (now dwarf planet) Ceres but don't (yet) see her functioning as a planet, in the sense of working as a house cusp lord.

Neither do I. However, The Force is strong in her!

I think dwarf-planet Eris has real interpretive value, probably as co-ruler of Aries. (Sorry, Michael.)

No need to be sorry, Waybread, I just don't agree with you.

Sorry about that!

Edit: Why Eris but not the other so-called dwarf planets, though? What would be the astro-logic behind that?

They ALL have "real interpretive value" in my book. Even though not necessarily as sign rulers; but that doesn't necessarily keep them from being associated with particular signs.

Trust me, transiting Pholus can really kick your butt! And yet he isn't even considered a dwarf planet by anyone's standard.

That being said, his centaur buddy Chiron became incredibly popular in modern astrology, all the way to having a sign of his own attributed to him. Not that I would fully agree to this, even though I did enjoy Barbara Chow's book about Chiron back in the day. To me, the centaurs are making the transition between the inner and the outer solar system.

And I suggest to consider ALL of the bodies in the solar system along those lines: Where they fit in alone tells you plenty about what their function is both in the macrocosm and in the microcosm.

Cruiser1 wrote:If Pluto is a planet, then Eris is too. Eris is 98% of Pluto’s diameter, but also 27% denser, and unlike Pluto Eris is fully outside of Neptune's orbit, so there are reasons to consider Eris at least as if not more astrologically significant then Pluto. Pluto just has more popularity and established meaning in astrology since we've known about it for nearly 100 years, while we've only known about Eris for less than 20.

See, it all depends on what your astrological model would be.

Even if one doesn't have it rule a sign or house, Ceres is still very significant. Ceres is the only asteroid in the main belt that's large enough to be spherical under its own gravity. For example, it's 3.5 times the diameter of Chiron, and many astrologers use Chiron. (Chiron is irregularly shaped and therefore definitely not a Dwarf planet.)

I agree, Ceres is very significant. But I don't see her as more or less significant than, say, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta.

And just for the record, Chiron is pretty significant too!

However, note there are various other Dwarf planets or Dwarf planet candidates that are larger than Ceres: Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, and Orcus (i.e. what I call the "Seven Dwarfs") are all larger than Ceres (or about equal to the size of Ceres in the case of Orcus).

That's what I mean... So you model those TNOs as the "Seven Dwarfs" and even relate them to a labyrinthine geometric structure (for those who are interested in Walter's scheme: check out my Transpluto thread). How could Eris be in the same league like Pluto then, though? As your scheme expressly excludes him from the "Seven Dwarfs", you automatically assign him a special status which seems in line with his traditional planetary nature.

Can we at least agree that Pluto might be analogous to Snow White (or "Snow Black" alright) then, as I first suggested in my Transpluto topic?

Size isn't the only thing that matters in astrology of course, however if Ceres were a bit larger we'd definitely consider it a planet,

But fact is, she is as big as she is. And she hasn't "cleared her neighbourhood" either.

especially since it nicely fits in with "Bode's Law" of planetary distributions.

So is Bode's Law now deciding on a body's astrological significance? With all respect, Walter: If you don't work from definable first principles, you aren't getting anywhere with these questions.