Ouranos: I appreciate your perspective and agree that expanding our knowledge—whether through astronomy, mythology, or philosophy—adds depth to our understanding of the cosmos. However, while it’s interesting to study Saturn’s moons, the real question is whether they meaningfully alter Saturn’s established astrological role.

The analogy of Mr. Saturn and his eight children is appealing, but Saturn doesn’t have just eight moons—he has over 140. If we start assigning meaning to Janus, why not Titan, Iapetus, or Enceladus? And if we include Saturn’s moons, why not Jupiter’s Galilean moons, which have been known for centuries and are far more prominent? The sheer number of moons orbiting various planets makes this approach unwieldy for astrology, which relies on observable, consistent patterns rather than an ever-expanding list of celestial bodies.

Fractal theory is fascinating and certainly applicable in many ways, but applying it to astrology requires more than just conceptual alignment. While life is dynamic, and our experiences evolve, astrology already accounts for this through directions, progressions, transits, and other predictive techniques. Simply adding more celestial objects doesn’t necessarily enhance our understanding—it may just create noise.

Walter Pullen’s descriptions of Janus and Epimetheus are intriguing, but they largely repurpose existing Saturnian themes. Janus as a symbol of division and classification? That’s already inherent in Saturn’s nature. Epimetheus as hindsight and regret? Saturn’s role in karma and delayed consequences already encapsulates this. If these moons are just reiterating facets of Saturn, what new insights do they truly offer?

It’s not about dismissing exploration but about asking what is actually useful in astrological practice. So far, the moons of Saturn, despite their mythological names, don’t seem to offer anything that Saturn itself doesn’t already provide. If someone can demonstrate meaningful patterns and correlations over time, I’d be open to reconsidering. But until then, it remains an interesting intellectual exercise rather than a necessary addition to astrology

There really is no need to introduce planetary satellites, asteroids, or artificial planets into astrology to explain any aspect of a horoscope. The fundamental principles of astrology have been built upon the movements of the visible, naked-eye planets, which have been observed and studied for thousands of years. The core significations of the traditional planets—Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and the Moon's Nodes—have proven to be more than sufficient for accurate and meaningful interpretations and prediction.

Does incorporating the moons of Saturn, or any other planetary satellite, truly enhance one’s astrological practice?

Does it provide insights that cannot already be found within the well-established framework of traditional astrology?
The answer remains unconvincing. While the exploration of new celestial bodies can be intellectually stimulating, it does not necessarily translate into a deeper or more precise understanding of an individual's horoscope.

Consider the great astrologers of the past—Vettius Valens, Thrysallus, and Bilballus, the Roman court astrologers to Tiberius, Abu Ma’shar, Guido Bonatti, William Lilly, and Jean-Baptiste Morin, just to name a few—none of whom required planetary satellites or even the trans-Saturnian planets to make profound, life-changing predictions. Their mastery was based on disciplined observation and a deep understanding of symbolism—not an ever-expanding list of celestial objects.

Even modern astrologers who incorporate Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto into their practice must ask themselves: Have they surpassed the ability of Thrysallus, Lilly, Bonatti, or Morin, who worked with only the visible planets? Ultimately, astrology is not about cataloging every moon or rock in the sky—it is about identifying meaningful patterns that reliably correlate with human experience. The more one complicates the system without clear, demonstrable value, the more one risks diluting astrology’s power rather than enhancing it.

Regards.
~AJ

Ouranos wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 10:49 am AJ,
I am reading the post of Zosma in a different way. He raises the question that planets have orbital Moons.
We know so little about the Deep Sky and to me it is similar to let's say you are interested by the life of Mr. Saturn and you learn that he has 8 children, wouldn't you be interested to know their names and the what and why.
Without lessening or changing the nature of Saturn, it adds to our understanding.

There is a recent dimension of science and astrology interested by the fractals, described by Julija Simas as "a never ending infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales.". Our chart is a living fractal that keeps changing and growing. Saturn can be fixed in time but our life is not.

https://cosmicintelligenceagency.com/th ... enus-star/

Walter D. Pullen, creator of Astrolog said of the planetary Moons.
https://www.astrolog.org/astrolog/astmoon.htm

"To understand the whole it is necessary to understand the parts. To understand the parts, it is necessary to understand the whole. Such is the circle of understanding." - Ken Wilber

Janus: Janus is named after the well known two faced god, who has a face on both sides of his head. In Roman culture, Janus was associated with division (such as defined by doorways or fences), duality (between two different concepts), and beginnings/endings. Astrologically, Janus can represent the Saturnian concepts of classification, labeling, and definition. Janus can also represent the classic vice of being "two-faced", with a focus upon being able to maintain a fixed mask obstructing one's true nature.

Epimetheus: Epimetheus is named after a Titan whose name means "hindsight" or "after-thinker". He was often considered foolish compared to his twin brother Prometheus, since hindsight is always perfect or "20/20", but by then it's too late. Astrologically, Epimetheus can represent looking back upon past experiences (often with Saturnian regret) and hopefully learning from them. Those who fail to understand and learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Nothing more than to get a better understanding of the world we live in.

Ouranos

AJ,

the real question is whether they meaningfully alter Saturn’s established astrological role.

Nothing alters a body, it is the synergy of the whole that alters the cosmos.

There really is no need to introduce planetary satellites, asteroids, or artificial planets into astrology to explain any aspect of a horoscope. The fundamental principles of astrology have been built upon the movements of the visible, naked-eye planets.

You are missing something here AJ.
Did you know that the first Uranian astrologers were writing down in a booklet every little incidents happening in their life and then finding out the correlations in the sky? That is empirical research. And even better, to this day, they haven't found these bodies in the sky. But I have seen enough evidence that It does work.

Your arguments almost resemble those of someone who doesn't believe in astrology. I would say, study first before you make up your opinion.

Regards,
Ouranos

this is a thread i haven't commented on very much.. not anymore, lol...

the mythology of janus as i understand it is the ability to look backwards and forwards
.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus

if you read the opening description of what janus is said to associated with symbolically they include "beginnings, gates, transitions, time, duality, doorways,[2] passages, frames, and endings." if that isn't a quick overview on many of the symbols associated with the planet saturn, then try this...

the winter solstice is the beginning of a new cycle of life as symbolized by the sun - happens approx dec 20/21st and is the start of the increase in light associated with the suns presence over the course of the next 6 months.. this is why the birth of christ was put right in this same approx time frame - built on top of the pagan festival 'saturnalia' which celebrated this same passage of time in a similar and symbolic manner, although much of the symbolism appears to have been lost..

the idea that one would look back and take stock of the past, in order to cultivate a new beginning is a sign of wisdom and another very obvious meaning for the planet saturn when it is operating on a strong level.. this idea of looking back into the past and taking the insights of the past and building a new future is very much a part of the symbolism associated with saturn... the idea that janus has a direct association with saturn and does the same is obvious...

this has little to nothing to do with the naming of one of saturns moons after this same mythological figure.. i agree with aj - this red herring thrown into the conversation very early, is just a distraction... some keen astronomer got the opportunity to name one of saturns moon janus.. whoopee! to focus on this small satellite and think that this is where the fountain of astrological wisdom resides is bonkers, lol... the connection is between saturn and janus, not some moon named recently after janus...

Ouranos wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 2:13 pm Nothing alters a body, it is the synergy of the whole that alters the cosmos.

You mention that "nothing alters a body, it is the synergy of the whole that alters the cosmos." That’s a philosophical perspective, but in astrological practice, the introduction of a new factor should demonstrate a clear and consistent influence to justify its inclusion. Otherwise, we risk muddying the system rather than refining it.

Ouranos wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 2:13 pm You are missing something here AJ.
Did you know that the first Uranian astrologers were writing down in a booklet every little incidents happening in their life and then finding out the correlations in the sky? That is empirical research. And even better, to this day, they haven't found these bodies in the sky. But I have seen enough evidence that It does work.

This is starting to radically drift from the topic of Saturnian moon Janus and this is all I will say regarding the Uranian astrologers’ empirical research: I acknowledge that they attempted to track events and correlate them with celestial patterns. But even within astrology, not all empirical approaches yield equally valid results. If they haven't found these hypothetical bodies in the sky, then the question becomes: Are they truly planetary influences, or are they conceptual frameworks that serve as symbolic devices? The latter can be useful for interpretation, but it's a different approach than traditional astrology, east or west.

Ouranos wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 2:13 pm Your arguments almost resemble those of someone who doesn't believe in astrology. I would say, study first before you make up your opinion.

I think it’s important to clarify something—you suggested that my arguments resemble those of someone who doesn’t believe in astrology, but that is not the point of this discussion. My stance isn’t about whether astrology is real or valid; it’s about how we determine what belongs within the astrological framework and what doesn’t. Skepticism within astrology is not the same as skepticism of astrology. A critical approach doesn’t mean disbelief—it means taking astrology seriously enough to ask whether a new technique, celestial body, or methodology actually enhances interpretation—it's about understanding its foundational structure and what actually enhances its predictive and interpretative power.[/b] The great astrologers of the past built their systems based on centuries of observation, and those who added new bodies (such as Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto) did so after clear astronomical discoveries and decades of astrological validation. Saturn’s moons—or any planetary satellites—have yet to demonstrate such necessity.

I welcome serious exploration, but the burden of proof should be on those advocating for the inclusion of new bodies, rather than on skeptics to disprove them. Otherwise, astrology risks becoming an endlessly expanding system with no clear methodology.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for astrological research, and I certainly respect the idea that astrology evolves through observation and practice. However, I think we need to differentiate between expanding astrology through meaningful discoveries and simply adding more celestial bodies without a strong rationale.

The discussion has been a good one, with all the differing perspectives shared. I’ve laid out my argument in detail, and I believe I’ve made my position clear. At this point, I feel there’s nothing more I can add that hasn’t already been said. Wishing you all the best in your continued exploration of astrology.

I am not trying to convince you of anything regarding astrology. So many points of view out there and I respect everyone's approach.
But when you say that "a new factor should demonstrate a clear and consistent influence to justify its inclusion. Otherwise, we risk muddying the system rather than refining it.", you clearly show that you haven't studied it. Reality and a belief system differ.

"Are they truly planetary influences, or are they conceptual frameworks that serve as symbolic devices?"

Fields of energy as demonstrated by Einstein who showed that mass and energy are different forms of the same thing.

My stance isn’t about whether astrology is real or valid; it’s about how we determine what belongs within the astrological framework and what doesn’t.

 

Once the Earth was flat and today some people still believe it.

ouranos

are you suggesting this tiny moon circling saturn that happens to have the catchy name 'janus' has anything to do with saturns much larger and antiquated symbolism?? i am curious...

Not at all James!
AJ jumped on it as if it was an Invader from an estranged galaxy.
All I am saying is that it should be of interest to study since it is part of Saturn.

And then it derailed to asteroids and Trans-neptunians, - my baby-.
Once I got hit by an idea, but there is no actual body in the sky to support that, so I may be wrong altogether.

thanks ouranos

the topic of asteroids and transneptune planets is something i can't really comment on, as i haven't really studied it... i have superficially studied the school of astrology focused on the transneptune - read a few books by some of the adherents, and have the planetary pictures that i believe it was alfred witte presented.. that is out of my field of study and interest at the moment... cheers james

Ouranos wrote: Mon Feb 17, 2025 6:05 pm I am not trying to convince you of anything regarding astrology. So many points of view out there and I respect everyone's approach.
But when you say that "a new factor should demonstrate a clear and consistent influence to justify its inclusion. Otherwise, we risk muddying the system rather than refining it.", you clearly show that you haven't studied it. Reality and a belief system differ.

I appreciate your openness to different perspectives and respect that you’re not trying to convince me of anything. Likewise, I’m not trying to convince you—I’m simply presenting my argument that Janus, a minor moon of Saturn, does not have independent astrological significance beyond Saturn itself. That said, I find it interesting that you continue to equate my stance with a lack of study.

There’s an old story about Isaac Newton defending astrology by saying, "I, sir, have studied it, and you have not." You’re attempting to apply the same logic here, but ironically, the roles are reversed—I’ve studied astrology in depth, evaluated different systems, and am critically examining what truly enhances it. Dismissing my argument as unfamiliarity misses the point entirely.

You have no knowledge of my past astrological research or my evaluations of other systems. By taking this approach, you’re engaging in a subtle personal attack rather than honest debate. I’d appreciate it if you refrained from this tactic in future responses. Critical evaluation is not the same as unfamiliarity—if anything, serious study requires questioning what truly strengthens astrology rather than adding complexity without clear value.

Reality and belief systems do differ, but if astrology is to remain a meaningful tool, it needs more than belief alone to justify including new celestial bodies. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If we introduce every planetary moon based solely on conceptual symbolism, does that improve astrology, or does it dilute its effectiveness?

This isn’t about rejecting innovation—it’s about ensuring that what we add strengthens astrology rather than overcomplicating it without justification. Respecting different approaches is one thing; maintaining a coherent astrological framework is another.

AJ said:

"Are they truly planetary influences, or are they conceptual frameworks that serve as symbolic devices?"

You're acknowledging that Einstein’s principle—that mass and energy are interchangeable—is true in a broad sense, but you're applying it specifically to a single minor moon of Saturn in an astrological context.

Your claim that Janus has an independent energetic influence is completely overshadowed by Saturn itself, due to Saturn's immense relative mass and gravitational dominance. In other words, even if Janus emits or interacts with energy, its effect would be negligible compared to Saturn’s overwhelming influence, making its astrological significance highly questionable.

Essentially, just because all matter and energy are connected doesn’t mean every small object has a meaningful, distinguishable astrological impact—especially when Janus is only one of 140 moons and not even one of the largest and dwarfed by a much larger planetary body that is Saturn.

AJ said:

My stance isn’t about whether astrology is real or valid; it’s about how we determine what belongs within the astrological framework and what doesn’t.

The idea that "once the Earth was flat" is actually a modern distortion of history. Since antiquity, educated societies—from the ancient Greeks to Indian and Islamic astronomers—almost universally knew the Earth was a sphere. Eratosthenes even measured its circumference with remarkable accuracy in the 3rd century BCE. The flat Earth myth largely comes from 20th-century anti-intellectualism, not genuine historical belief.

Bringing this back to astrology, the comparison is misplaced and creates a false analogy. The question isn’t about rejecting new ideas out of stubbornness but about ensuring that what we incorporate into astrology actually improves it. If we abandon critical standards, astrology risks becoming an anything-goes system.

AJ, to be honest, I always enjoyed reading your posts. Very informative but I realize that something started in the wrong direction here and we have nothing to gain in keeping this thread going. Everything has gone way far past the original topic discussion.
And I don't feel like nourishing this thread anymore.
Let me apologize if I pressed a wrong button in you and let's move on.

Be well,
Ouranos

Ouranos, I appreciate your message, and I want to say that I’ve always enjoyed your posts as well. The discussion has been engaging. I agree there’s little to gain by continuing, but no hard feelings on my end—I respect the exchange we’ve had, and I appreciate the spirit of your message.

Wishing you well,
AJ

I realize this has been a tough nut to crack with all the back-and-forth intellectual philosophical arguments, what else when discussing Saturn themes but to map out boundaries. Of interest to this theme (I somehow tend to think of Janus as a function of Saturn ) Let's take the April 2024 eclipse at 19 degrees of Aries this is the Sun's exaltation degree & its connection to Gold /every time Jupiter hit 19 degrees of Gemini the price of Gold increased, now Saturn hit 19 degrees of Pisces semi-sextile the eclipse degree, & the theme is ... Is there any Gold in Fort Knox?
We need to do an audit who has access? through the steel doors (Janus), should it be revalued from the 43 dollars of the past to a new future value & so resetting our debt, and giving us a jubilee year. Debt forgiveness Saturn in Pisces.