That surely sounds interesting. What exactly are those sources?
I want to reiterate that I claimed to
derive this concept of Saturn representing mimicry from Hellenistic era astrological sources, I never said it was explicitly written out in case you're trying to pull a "gotcha" on me. Below are my sources and reasoning though:
1.In Valens Anthology he associates Saturn with feigned appearances. I'm specifically drawing upon the translation within the book: "Hellenistic Astrology, The Study of Fate and Fortune" by Chris Brennan, which describes this attribute of Saturn on page 171 and has a small paragraph detailing it in the footnotes.
2.In one of Robert Schmidt's astrology courses he mentions that Saturn rules theater, although I don't know the specific source of this attribution. Theater of course is a form of mimicry/simulation. It's quite possible that Schmidt is also drawing from the original Valens significations. The Schmidt courses themselves dive pretty deeply into the myriad platonic considerations of Hellenistic astrology and have heavily influenced my thinking in a systematic way, which is what I'm applying to this particular topic as well. I won't make an appeal to authority but FWIW I hold Schmidt's findings in very high esteem.
3.Leo/Sun represents form and Aquarius/Saturn represents its counterpart matter. Matter is inherently an imperfect simulacrum of the perfect forms. Therefore given this philosophical backdrop Saturn would naturally rule over simulation. Obviously I'm drawing upon the deep connections between Hellenistic astrology and platonism here.
Taking all of the points above (especially #3), it's extremely reasonable to attribute mimicry/simulation to Saturn. Mimicry inherently involves falsity, which is one of the major attributes of Saturn. If the Sun represents truth and realness then by definition Saturn must represent falsity and illusion, from which one can derive many valid meanings from. All of the phenomena I listed in that previous post are jointly occurring to an intense degree during the present age of Aquarius. So not only am I standing on firm ground philosophically but also chronologically too.
If we consider the mythology associated with the planetary gods, it would be most of all Zeus/Jupiter who excels at disguising his true identity!
To my knowledge the mythological attributes associated with the planetary gods don't correlate 1:1 with the astrological symbolism of the planets. I'm relaying what I've heard and my own impressions. Regarding your example, Jupiter is not typically associated with intentional subterfuge (Valens doesn't associate Jupiter with deceit, he does however attribute this to Saturn).
Even though I have the highest respect for the amazing framework of classical astrology (it absolutely provides the timeless foundation for all astrology ever to follow), in my view, the seven traditional planets don't sufficiently cover all areas of life relevant to us today. It's no coincidence that astrology's thematical scope was extended with the discovery of further bodies, starting with the 1781 discovery of Uranus - falling right into the era of Industrial Revolution!
There's a few points here:
1.I deliberately posted this in the traditional and ancient astrology section of the forum so that I could avoid discussing Uranus. Why should I have to talk about Uranus in a thread I dedicated to not talking about Uranus?
2.I 100% disagree with your view about classical astrology being insufficient in a modern context. I've studied astrology for over a decade now and I felt like my astrological skills improved by leaps and bounds when I completely abandoned modern astrology and embraced ancient astrology instead. I have a very dim view of modern astrology. We'll have to agree to disagree here.
3.The Industrial Revolution also correlates with the gradual ingress into the age of Aquarius. I think the ingress into the age of Aquarius is a better explanation for the Industrial Revolution and modernity than Uranus is.
As for this:
I got you. Earth as the material world; the transient sublunar sphere of the four elements as opposed to the eternal etheric realm of the celestial bodies, and ultimately the "intellectual world" of ideas and archetypes.
And yet, despite our physical bodies, we have an intangible soul - and so do the plants and the animals, and even our planet itself.
The ecological movement may fall short, not acknowledging Nature's immaterial side (as other and earlier cultures did, with their recognition of Ley lines etc.). However, underlying it is a very viable perception of the living Earth as a spiritual entity.
We're talking at cross-purposes here. The fact that matter is imbued with spirit doesn't change the fact that green-activism is hyper-focused on the material realm of existence which is Earth (which is not inherently a good or a bad thing, it just is). As a useful contrasting example, some occultists might claim that all is mind and that the material world is ultimately just a shadow in the mind. My point being, just because green-activists are focused on material representations of spirit doesn't mean that they're not spiritual, which is what you seem to be implying I think. There are different modes of acknowledging spirituality and this isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with a heavier focus on the tangible, material world like the kind of green-activists which you describe.
For the record when I was originally talking about green activism I was generally referencing government/corporate level green activism (a la iron fist in a velvet glove) as opposed to more grassroots level green activism which I didn't have in mind when writing that since it's not as relevant these days unlike its more institutional variant.
The modern, Aquarian age mindset insists on tangible, rational engagement with physical phenomena instead of focusing on intangible, invisible concepts.
Actually, the Aquarian age mindset sets out to transcend the very bounderies of physical existence, either by purely technological means (Transhumanism) or by the rediscovery of esoteric science and ageless wisdom. And the latter will gain importance in the mind of many in the years and decades to come.
Transhumanism via technological means is still based in matter (electricity, computer chips etc) which is physical existence. You're incorrect about this. Judging from this and other things you've written, we have extremely divergent interpretations of what constitutes matter and spirit.
If you read through my previous posts ITT then you'll understand the nuanced view I have of the age of Aquarius. I mentioned the resurgence of esoteric science and ageless wisdom in an earlier post in this thread. What I said about the modern Aquarian age mindset was a loose, general statement meant to be interpreted in a specific context which is self-evident in the original passage which you removed in your quote. It was never intended to be interpreted as a standalone statement.
I get the strong impression that you basically want to argue in favor of Uranus explaining many of the phenomena that I've attributed to Saturn. This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. Behind all of our lengthy comments this really comes down to a traditional astrology vs modern astrology argument. I feel as if I'm on strong ground (philosophically speaking) with all the attributions that I've made to Saturn. To my knowledge the same cannot be done for Uranus (most of what's available is highly subjective, anecdotal, relatively recent new age type materials etc etc). This isn't to say that I'm definitely right, but I find it strange that you cast doubt on my philosophically consistent and principled arguments while having such a poorly supported position yourself.
)