Quote:
I wonder how much of this is predictable and how much is projection?
Isn't this the problem of any kind of astrology?

Agreed, but it is the excessive use of projection of the outer planets on to individuals that rankles, a use that is dictated by the fact that modern astrologers see virtually everything in the three outers to the point where they can, in the words of Maya del Mar, "be anything we want it to be."

I gave one example of Pluto being used for revolution, then another was given about Einstein revolutionizing thought with not Pluto but Uranus and there is no doubt in my mind that thee is a modern astrologer than can relate Einstein's thinking to Neptune, their idea of his Sun sign ruler. Try that with Venus, Mars and Jupiter.

Notice too that they are not concentrating on the man, but rather on what he is known for. There is nothing in Einstein's chart that says, "personification of genius." His Mercury is conjunct a severely debilitated Saturn for one thing. Mars in Capricorn, arguably his strongest planet, is in the 8th house.

The one modern idea that fits Einstein to a "T" is rarely if ever mentioned - his 8th house Mars. Better to talk about "revolution" perhaps the early 21st century's most overused word, or expanding boundaries of thought with Neptune and so on. Then after using the outer three to describe the man, the modern will tell us that the outer three are "generational planets." Which is it?

Dave said

Events do not just happen to us. We go out to meet them, or draw them to us. That is why, even though the event is external and independent of us, it does not happen to us unless we "call it." The underlying cause of any event that "happens to us" is deeply rooted in our own psyche, and in that sense we create the event.

I've been meaning to start a separate thread on this exact topic for some time now. I have heard this theory many times from psychological astrologers over the last 20 years.

At first I thought it made sense. And on a granular personal level like the taxi example Dave gave it seems to. But then I went through a phase in life where the events that happened to me personally all had global sources. And, much as I would like to think I am some sort of god - determining the futures of 10,000s if not millions of others by my arrival at a given time and space, some little part of me says 'probably not!' That isn't to say I don't think my destiny/birthplan/psyche, (whatever you'd like to call it) doesn't include elements that put me in those times and spaces, and thus detemine the direction of my life, but I just can't buy the theory that I was responsible for creating the events themselves.

Indeed when it comes to the idea that we create the whole world in our mind, I think how I admire Beethoven's music, El Greco's art and Einstein's theories but , sadly for my hopeful ego, I really don't think I created them myself. Anymore than I created the contributors and the contributions to this thread, the software and hardware I am using and the home I am sitting in etc etc. But as I said, I think the subject deserves considersation and discussion by all and a thread of its own - rather than usurping that of poor maligned little Pluto.

As far as the Pluto ( and indeed other outers are concerned), I think the following:

All and every astrological body has a meaning and is part of the information integral to and communicated by the universe. Indeed, as i've said before on another thread, I think one can, if one wishes, 'divine' from pretty much everything in existence if one learns how. Astrology is just a useful option due to its relative externality from an observer perspective.

The question is then not whether Pluto correlates with events ( I won't use cause and effect as I don't quite see it that way), but whether we chose to study it, test it and use it in our own astrological divination model.

I think the answer to part 2 can depend on the astrologer and their model. I don't have a problem with those who practice purely traditional astrology deciding to exclude Pluto ( or Neptune or Uranus) if they already have the tools they need without it. I don't have a problem with someone saying that Pluto doesn't add anything to their model. But I do have a problem with them stating it cannot tell us anything per se.

Personally, the universe introduced me to astrology the modern way - I discovered (i.e the universe opened my door to) traditional astrology only about 10 years later. By then I had well and truly integrated the meaning of the outer planets. I think for natal work ( I don't do much of it anyway) I have enough eveidence that Pluto does work although often the inner planets do cover the same ground at the same time.

For mundane work I was already using the Outers a lot by the time I studied traditional techniques therefore I don't generally tend to use things like the grand conjunctions etc-but this is not because I think they don't work - just because I already have the tools without them. At least, so far anyway, I think they tell me pretty much the same information. Nevertheless I am open to incuding more traditional technques if I see others divine something more with them than I can. But I wouldn't ad them while I can do without them as astology is multilayered enough without adding duplicate data to ones analysis. On the other hand I liked the symmetry in traditional rulerships and now use them rather than modern ones.

At the moment, I actually think my own model is flawed as it is based on the planets' (including Pluto's) mathematical distance/gravitation ratios , but I don't use Ceres or some other representation of the asteroid belt which is an element in that model. I haven't done enough testing yet. I think I need to do so, (though would never use lots of indvidual asteroids as I don't have a Virgo Mercury )!


Also one more remark re mundane astrology.

One of the things that I see the discovery of the outer planets and other new bodies doing is representing the ability of man to harness certain energies and thus technologies etc. Note I am not saying that those things were not there before - merely that they were not within the bounds of human ability until the planet became 'visible' ( mathermatically/technologically whatever).

I do agree that a lot of junk has been attributed to them by some of the weaker modern astrologers but I think it is possible to tie down the key attributes very well. What, I believe, it must be possible to do is deliniate the same developments with the traditional grand conjunctions/fixed star movements etc, but I've never seen anyone publish anything that does this.

Tom wrote: There is nothing in Einstein's chart that says, "personification of genius." His Mercury is conjunct a severely debilitated Saturn for one thing.
[/color]

Einstein's Mercury is not so awful.
It's going to do its vespertine heliacal rising (on 16th March) and Saturn agrees a lot of with Mercury, gives depth to Mercurial thinking.

Olympiodorus, On activities:"If the star of Mercury rules the most important places, make the scholars, the erudite..."

Firmicus,III,9 "Mercury posited with Saturn in the 10th house will make those who are the heirs of unrelated persons or discoverers of the greatest things."

About Uranus I completely agree with you, I don't see what a retrograde cadent Uranus in opposition to Jupiter could grant...

margherita

Yes, you can delete them. Astrologers did wonderful things without them.

Look at Martin Luther's chart (the original Martin Luther) and you can see his obsession with "Purification", which was driving force in his accomplishments.

But when you add the modern planets to the chart, they add new dimensions and make clear in a way the chart without the moderns does not his motivations and purposes. Use of the modern planets in his chart (which can certainly be read without them) clarifies, sharpens, broadens our understanding of Luther.

I just looked at (not studied, took a first look at) Harry S. Truman's death chart last night. No modern planets needed to see the death. Add the modern planets (both Pluto and Uranus are active) and you get confirming evidence, which at the least adds a degree of certainty to the prediction.

And in some charts, whether radical or dynamic, the modern planets are Primary indicators of things that are otherwise, at the best, obscure.

Einstein's radical chart is an illustration of this. Despite some astrologers allegations that Uranus is made to mean This, That and Th' Other.

The Moon, as we all know, symbolizes Change, pearls, mik, mushrooms, barmaids, memory, instinct, processes of fermentation, all things tidal in nature -- including tides. Then there are frogs and turtles, mothers and baskets, common household chores, mirrors, opals, emotional states and even lunacy....

Now that is just ridiculous, for one planet to represent so many things. I vote to remove the Moon from astrology....It's just too confusing, what with all those meanings. Why, you could practically make it mean anything you want to....After all it is images and imagery, relflection and mirrors, hallucinations...and states of confusion.

Have you ever noticed how many astrologers throw off intercepted signs? They say "no one can say what they mean." Elman Bacher, in a rather long article on intercepted signs describes them in terms of horoscope-structure, and then in one sentence says that as far as meaning, well by golly, that is up to you the student to figure out. And because the books don't tell what a given intercepted sign means, the student never figures it out, and then ignores intercepted signs for the rest of his career. Mental laziness hath no remedy.

I think the same problem has infected our understanding of the modern planets. To all appearances, some astrologers have simply made up their minds and no amount of evidence will sway them. Oh well.

In fact, people who don't use the outer planets are in the minority these days. By a wide margin. Yet somehow noone seems to get a good read on them. They signify everything what other planets 'failed' to produce in the native's life.

I'm not against using them, I'm against using them as an excuse for everything.

Eddy wrote:Probably it's rather the 'esoteric' stuff that turned astrology in a mess. This esoteric astrology started with Alan Leo, who mixed astrology with Blavatsky's ideas of karma, reincarnation, soul-evolution. This development increased after Rudhyar mixed astrology with Jung's ideas. Perhaps the English-speaking world was earlier and more affected by Alan Leo. Before the World Wars Germany was a major cultural factor on the European continent. I think that after WWII, on the European continent still most astrologers were more rational, before Rudhyar's works were translated.

Even now, in tarot there seems to be an immense gap between the Anglophone and Francophone traditions. The Anglophone tradition is founded almost entirely on Waite (the duffer) and Pamela Colman Smith (the genius); and through them, the Golden Dawn. The French have Etteilla and much else to draw on.

I can't read Blavatsky or Alice Bailey profitably. When I tried, all I remember from them are the casual racism and historical absurdities. Esoteric styles took a major shift in the second half of the twentieth century, it seems; it's hard today to mention the Great White Brotherhood without snickering or mild embarrassment. Contemporary esotericism too is often founded on bad scholarship; feminist spirituality is the last redoubt of the Aryan conquest myth.

With the change in esoteric styles, not even Pluto was enough; now we must have Lilith too. The desire for extra malefics makes my Saturn nature smile within, for some reason.

About Uranus I completely agree with you, I don't see what a retrograde cadent Uranus in opposition to Jupiter could grant...

And this is a wonderful summary of the different mindsets. You look at Uranus the way a traditional astrologer looks at planets. It would never occur to most moderns that Uranus in this chart is debilitated. Uranus is "revolutionary" and that is the only thing that matters. I suppose we are all revolutionaries then since we all have Uranus somewhere.

Someone above did mention the use of the outer planets in mundane astrology. Of all the places I've seen them used, this, to me anyway, makes the most sense. The fate of nations unfolds slowly and these bodies more slowly. History is defined by wars, famines and natural disasters mostly, which suits the malefic nature most often ascribed to the three outers.

Mark Twain once opined that man didn't suffer enough and a way to torment him beyond the grave had to be found, so Christians came along and invented Hell. This is pretty much the same rationale for Lilith I think. Uranus Neptune and Pluto are not enough. More torment was needed.

If we're having the whole family over, let's add Eris. There's a colorful mythological character that's up to no good. And a goddess, too! And besides, a horoscope that includes Eris is going to be a lot bigger than the ones you're used to:

Tom wrote:Agreed, but it is the excessive use of projection of the outer planets on to individuals that rankles, a use that is dictated by the fact that modern astrologers see virtually everything in the three outers to the point where they can, in the words of Maya del Mar, "be anything we want it to be."

Unfortunately this often is the case. It can even be worse. I've seen pages of a description of a famous person just based upon just one KBO (Kuiper belt object, a class of asteroids beyond Neptune's orbit).

Notice too that they are not concentrating on the man, but rather on what he is known for. There is nothing in Einstein's chart that says, "personification of genius."

That's the problem with delineating charts of the famous. The main thing we see of famous people are the outside affairs. Isaac Newton was a genius but he seemed to have been a very unpleasant man.

amelia wrote:I just can't buy the theory that I was responsible for creating the events themselves.

Neither can I. There is some danger in this thought. Sometimes events like conflicts are from more sides included the person yourself. However sometimes an event occurs wher you are the victim. For example it would be intolerable to say that you created it, as in telling the rape victim that she had it coming.

Seiko wrote:In fact, people who don't use the outer planets are in the minority these days. By a wide margin. Yet somehow noone seems to get a good read on them. They signify everything what other planets 'failed' to produce in the native's life.

I think this illustrates the problem that many people try to explain anything in life with astrology. Although astrology is useful I consider it as a relatively small factor in life, among social/cultural/economical/physical/free-will factors.

SteveGus wrote:I can't read Blavatsky or Alice Bailey profitably. When I tried, all I remember from them are the casual racism and historical absurdities.

I'm totally with you there. Everytime when a would be enlightened person speaks about 'rotten materialists', I think of Blavatsky's words:

Blavatsky wrote:This is the great difference between the Semitic and the Aryan Cosmogony ; one materializing, humanizes the mysteries of nature; the other spiritualizes matter, and its physiology is always made subservient to metaphysics.
nature ; the other spiritualizes matter

or Alice Bailey's

Bailey wrote:The Jewish race, who loved the possessions of the world more than they loved the service of Light, joined ranks with the rebels against God [and against the Aryan race, whom Bailey admires] Thus the history of the wandering Jew began and the Jew since has known no lasting peace."

http://upstel.net/~rooster/bailey.html
It's not that I want to accuse new-age astrologers of being racist but by reading such lecture which is still around and being reprinted today, they adopt a mindset that makes them prone to these ideologies. In that case I prefer to remain an unevolved rotten materialist.

Tom wrote:Someone above did mention the use of the outer planets in mundane astrology. Of all the places I've seen them used, this, to me anyway, makes the most sense. The fate of nations unfolds slowly and these bodies more slowly. History is defined by wars, famines and natural disasters mostly, which suits the malefic nature most often ascribed to the three outers.

Even in the days when I made extensive use of the outers, I didn't use them in the natal chart, but only with transits. It was the very frequent occurrence (see my intro in the Probability and Prognostication thread) which made me doubt the use of them in transits either.

Moreover I felt I could do with less torment. Although I have some points of agreement with the modern astrologers that traditional malefics aren't always bad (and traditional benefics not always good), they usually are related with the difficulties in life which 'benefits' appear to be spiritual growth.

(Black Moon) Lilith is the perigeon of the Moon's orbit, but I think it has only meaning when the Moon actually is in it's perigeon. Same thing I think about the Moon's nodes.

Hello

I wrote a much longer post but I've decided to post this brief one instead......

Am I the only one who finds it saddening the way the words 'moderns' as constrasted with 'traditionalists/traditional astrologers' are sometimes used on this forum?

Regards

H.

handn wrote:Am I the only one who finds it saddening the way the words 'moderns' as constrasted with 'traditionalists/traditional astrologers' are sometimes used on this forum?

I try to avoid this contrasting. Maybe not always in a succesful way. There are many serious and good modern astrologers around. Moreover I classify myself neither under the traditional nor under the modern astrologers. And when I refer to the 'bad' modern astrologers, I rather mention it with terms of new-age astrology etc.

I think that the Renaissance astrologers too had their terminology for 'bad' astrologers. They just referred to them with terms of 'Arabic sorcery' etc.

Every era has their outwashes. Unfortunately it are the outwashes that expose themselves the most.

Tom wrote:In the reading of the static natal chart they so often provide the key to the interpretation. Albert Einstein's chart is an example of this. Uranus stands alone against the other 9 planets; he is what is known as the handle of a bucket pattern and is the single focus of the life. Guess what Albert did? He "overthrew convention." If you read the textbook description of Uranus, you read a thumbnail of Albert Einstein...eccentric, self-willed, intolerant of pompous asses, rebellious....

I wonder how much of this is predictable and how much is projection? "Overthrew convention" is pretty broad and in fact applies to a lot of people who have no such arrangement in their chart and given Uranus' slow movement a lot of people who never upset the applecart have similar patterns. Perhaps there is something in Einstein's chart that indicates he will trigger this Uranus activity that is missing from the charts of the others. If so that is where modern astrologers should be looking. The chart is unique. Given the slow movement of the outers, they are anything but.

I actually have that " handle of a bucket" pattern in my chart with "handle" is Neptune in Scorpio in 1st house. And not much an outlet for that energy, only trine to Chiron in 5th. Definitely I'm creative and also dreamer...
Luckily my AC in Libra with Venus in Taurus and Saturn in Aquarius, both angular. Having down to earth nature with 3 planets in Taurus and similar type profession.
I know some my astro-twin, woman born a day before me, with similar cosmogramm but Scorpio AC and Neptune in 1st, that "handle of a bucket". She claims to be magician, astro-magician and so on...she told me really strange things.