Display posts from previous
Sort by

13 by Gunhilde
I have no doubt Oswald was a nasty, unpleasant piece of work; I often wonder whether some of the most horrid, arrogant, and nasty jerks out there have had a similar skewed upbringing; I would be willing to bet most of them have. Power is something very few people learn to master, and sadly it usually takes a lifetime to figure out (if ever). Twenty-four is very young.
He was scorned by his fellow Marines, his co-workers and even those that tried to befriend him. In short he brought it upon himself.

But this *is* a cycle that perpetuates itself: a cycle of rejection. His insecurities were directly linked to this, and to his upbringing. Of course he brought it upon himself; and he clearly lacked the tools or insight to break that cycle. That's all I meant.

Still, I shall be poring over this chart for a long time to come... :)

14 by Papretis
Tom wrote:
While I undestand the connection of Saturn with goverment and I can easily understand its conection with communism, I have a difficult time with Saturn and democracy, unless I'm misunderstanding your point. Democracy implies a freedom that Saturn exists to restrict.
The basic idea here is that Saturn rules the signs opposing the signs ruled by the royal planets, the Sun and the Moon, the king and queen of the planets. Both are detriment in Saturn's signs, so Saturn represent the opposite of royalty = democracy.

In general, Saturn is traditionally about poor people, workers, slaves etc. And it rules Aquarius! The idea of democracy is that there's no privileged class, but everyone regardless of their financial state, education, social class, etc. can vote and take part in the affairs of the state. In the same way the idea behind the Reformation and the birth of the protestantic church was that man should have a direct relationship with God without a priviledged class, the priests, working as mediators. One can see it as a good thing or as a bad thing, depending on their own stance.

I don't usually think much about such concepts as "Age of Aquarius", but recently something made me thinking that the Age of Enlightenment and the scientific revolution could be seen as a kind of start to the Age of Aquarius, ruled by Saturn. I still stress the role of Saturn as a scientist, a rational, logical, cold figure, who believes that everything can be reduced to mathematical formulas (like Marx did, he had Aquarius rising). The Moon, who represents an animistic world view where animals and plants have souls ? seen nowadays mostly as a primitive and undeveloped way of thinking (because it?s not rational or scientific!) ? is detriment in Saturn?s sign, but so is the Sun, the monarch and dictator, but also God, soul and spirit.

I?m not saying that we should not have democracy, because it?s ruled by the Greater Malefic ? I wouldn?t change Nordic social democracy for anything - but that everything has many sides with it. After the rise of democracy our societes have changed to more materialistic and less spiritual, and astrology has not been the least sufferer. If we bring too much science and statistics (Saturn) into astrology, we lose the spirit, because according to the astrological symbolism, science is detrimental to spirit (and spirit is detrimental to science).

Because I seldom use outer planets, I really think that many things given nowadays under the rulership of Uranus, belong actually to the forgotten, diurnal, Aquarian side of Saturn. Maybe astrology can also make us understand better, why people in the muslim countries fight so fiercely against Americans trying to bring democracy to them. They really see Western democracy as detrimental to their societies based on religion/God.

15 by Mark
The basic idea here is that Saturn rules the signs opposing the signs ruled by the royal planets, the Sun and the Moon, the king and queen of the planets. Both are detriment in Saturn's signs, so Saturn represent the opposite of royalty = democracy
.

Excellent point. A good reminder that traditional associations often challenge our modern pre-conceptions.

I tend to think of the Moon as the symbol for the will of the common people and therefore democracy. The 'fickleness' of the voting public seems well matched to changing phases of the Moon.

At the same time living in the European Union like yourself we see an institution that works to noble liberal democratic ideals but also seeks to regulate the smallest details of people's lives. In that sense the Saturnian association seems appropriate too.

16 by Gem
Thank you Papretis, your post illuminated the 'forgotten, diurnal Aquarius side of Saturn'. Yet as MarkC poiinted out, Moon is associated with common people and the idea of democracy opposing them doesn't sit quite well. On the other side, considering diverse facets and actual manifestations of democracy, democaracy could be signified by more than one planet...

18 by Tom
The basic idea here is that Saturn rules the signs opposing the signs ruled by the royal planets, the Sun and the Moon, the king and queen of the planets. Both are detriment in Saturn's signs, so Saturn represent the opposite of royalty = democracy.
I understand your point a little better, but I'm still not ready to accept it. The opposite of roalty or monarchy would be anarchy, not democracy. The one extreme is absolute rule by an individual, whether by blood or by coup, and the opposite would be no government at all. Democracy is more of a halfway point that permits individual freedom at the expense of royal whim.

All government restricts. In the US there is a constant furor over whether or not the US Constitution grants a legal right for individuals to possess firewarms. Yet all but the most extreme accept certain limitations on gun ownership. Convicted felons, for example, may not own firearms, and most would accept that limitation regardless of how they view the second ammendment to the US Consititution. So Saturn is present in all forms of government to a greater or lesser degree.

I think the concept of essence is missing here. The Sun and Moon represent royalty in the sense of nobility not the sense of authority. Saturn is authority. Authority restricts freedom. Democracy increases it. Therefore democracy is more akin to Jupiter, a noble planet that encourages expansion and therefore liberty.

Your point about increasing materialism since the Englightenment is well taken, but who is the more materialistic, the great democracies or the totalitarian states? They are, as Marx was, all about materialism. The great democracies may have amassed the greatest amount of material wealth, but they are the first ones to give it away when people are in need. After the tsunami Americans, individually, donated enormous sums of money to a Muslim country to help these peope recover. The authoritarian nations were best represented by UN delegates holding press conferecnes in five star hotels, sipping cocktails while the American and Australian military built field hospitals. Israel's offer to build field hospitals was rejected by Muslim government officials. It seems that the materialistic democracies were behaving in a far more spiritual fashion than the so-called "religious" goverments.

While the material wealth of the great democracies is undeniable, I don't see them as necessarily any less spiritual, in fact they are by any definition, more generous, more compassionate, and more forgiving (more Jupiterian) than any of the Saturnine nations.

Tom

19 by Mark
Thank you Papretis, your post illuminated the 'forgotten, diurnal Aquarius side of Saturn'.
I'm not sure its forgotten but it is totally neglected by modern astrology. Its also not something a lot of moderns like hearing. I recently got involved into an online discussion on this point with a couple of other Aquarians coming from a modern perspective. The attachment to Uranus as sign ruler is very strong. The point I kept getting was the quirky, unconventional side of Aquarius finds no explanation under Saturn rulership.

Some traditionalists like Bernadette Brady suggest an 'association' between the sign and Uranus without suggesting rulership while others feel the traditional link with Saturn is fully sufficient.
Last edited by Mark on Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

20 by Mark
Hi Tom,

Code: Select all

I understand your point a little better, but I'm still not ready to accept it. The opposite of roalty or monarchy would be anarchy, not democracy. The one extreme is absolute rule by an individual, whether by blood or by coup, and the opposite would be no government at all. Democracy is more of a halfway point that permits individual freedom at the expense of royal whim.
Lets take this to the diurnal signs these planets rule: Leo and Aquarius
By implication aren't you suggesting Aquarius is about anarchism/radical individualism?

That might partly help to explain life after Uranus! Still, the Aquarian association with collective action & social change surely doesn't fit too comfortably with your position. An equally valid view is surely that the opposite of rule by monarchy, which is singular, is rule by the group and collective? You end up in an odd position surely with Saturn symbolising social chaos. The opposite of your original point about Saturn and social control?

21 by Tom
By implication aren't you suggesting Aquarius is about anarchism/radical individualism in political terms?
1) I'm not a planet = sign = house person.

2) Aquarius is a fixed air sign. I don't know what you mean by "radical individualism." Most radicals I know of, are all about freedom for themselves, and only tolerate people who agree with them and dismiss those who disagree with them as authoritarian or racist, sexist, homophobes. In other words there is a great inconsistency between what they profess and what they believe. Anarchy is anything but fixed.
Still, the Aquarian association with collective action/social change surely doesn't fit your theory?
The old USSR was considered "Aquarian," and I think that says it all. It isn't my theory. The concept of essence has been around a long time.

This is the traditional forum, the association of Aquarius and "collective action/social change" belongs elsewhere*. Aquarius is a diurnal, masculine, fixed air sign. It is warm and moist and ruled by Saturn the greater malefic. The association with any collective belongs in modern astrology. If there is such a thing as "the age of Aquarius," I would think it is something to be feared not welcomed. The word "collective" alone is anathema to people who cherish individual freedom.

Tom

*Aquarius is of the air signs, male, of the dirurnal signs, occidental, of the cold [season] signs[and] fixed. ... It's elemental nature is warm and moist, and destructive, and it indicates all air that is harmful to life and all winds that bring loss and destruction." Abraham Ibn Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom, 1148 AD

22 by Mark

Code: Select all

I'm not a planet = sign = house person.
Neither am I but it seemed appropriate to link the planets in this instance to the signs that they have diurnal domicile rulership in. The connection was already made in this thread by Papretis in the reference to Aquarius.

Code: Select all

The old USSR was considered "Aquarian," and I think that says it all. It isn't my theory. The concept of essence has been around a long time.
You seem to have misunderstood me. The 'theory' I referred to was your rejection of the suggestion made by Papretis. In short your idea that Saturn better symbolised anarchy than democracy. Whatever, else it was the former USSR was not anarchy.
This is the traditional forum, the association of Aquarius and "collective action/social change" belongs elsewhere*. Aquarius is a diurnal, masculine, fixed air sign. It is warm and moist and ruled by Saturn the greater malefic.


Thanks Tom but I knew all that. I actually think there is a traditional case for linking Aquarius to collectivist social ideas.
The association with any collective belongs in modern astrology.
Does it? So what is the full implication of a diurnal sign? Surely, that it represents a more outward expansive dimension to the symbolism of its planetary ruler? Couldn't it be argued Capricorn as a nocturnal sign is partly about an inner, personal attempt to progress socially whereas Aquarius being a diurnal sign takes a more outward looking humanitarian orientation in its approach? And how else can it do that but by joining together with others collectively? However, as a sanguine rather than a melancholic sign the Aquarian outlook is often more intellectual and theoretical rather than practical.

We see a similar principle with Jupiter. The noctural sign (Pisces) more directed on inner exploration of spiritual or creative matters and the outward diurnal dimension of the planet (Sagittarius) more focused on exploration of the physical world. I accept this is an over simplification but it does raise an issue you seem to want to banish from this forum.

Moreover, there is another traditional explanation of why Aquarius has a humanitarian/social focus based on the traditional weakness of the Sun/self in the sign. That is explored further in the quote below from Deb.
The word "collective" alone is anathema to people who cherish individual freedom.
The negative association you seem to have with the word 'collective' perhaps reflects a North American perspective. It doesn't have to mean authoritarianism as you imply with the USSR. It could equally, be applied to the the social democratic model in Europe which combines individual freedom with 'collective' social intervention on issues such as welfare, health, housing etc. Indeed don't both Sweden and Finland have associations with Aquarius? One of the things your quote from Ibn Ezra misses out is that Aquarius is one of the humane signs.

I am not blind to the faults of this sign but to balance the rather one sided quote from you I leave you with one from Deb's article on Aquarius here on this website.
Saturn's traditional rulership of Aquarius further colours this sign with the qualities of detachment, objectivity and restraint. In astrological philosophy, the Sun and Saturn are conceived as enemies, neither able to express itself fully within the other's sign of dignity. The Sun craves attention and when the planetary energies are drawn though the Sun it centres them firmly upon the self. Hence the Sun is said to be 'in detriment' in Aquarius, where the personal ego is subjugated in favour of egalitarian concepts and far-ranging humanitarian concerns. The Aquarian perspective is drawn from a broad angle, and places the vision of the wider perspective above that which it sees from a position of self interest. The spirit of Aquarius is to look beyond the immediate and self-centred, to nurture the interests of progress for collective society and humanity as a whole.

Aquarians are often recognised as social idealists, locked into a quest to pursue their guiding principles of truth, justice, democracy, universal harmony and brotherhood of man. Calm objectivity combined with idealistic vision results in a genuine interest for scientific ingenuity and a natural instinct for fair-mindedness. Known for being one of the most rational and humane signs of the zodiac, Aquarius, in its positive expression, is the archetype for civility, tact, reasoned logic, moderate behaviour and all-round good manners.
'

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aquarius.html

23 by Tom
You seem to have misunderstood me. The 'theory' I referred to was your your rejection of the suggestion made by Papretis. In short your idea that Saturn better symbolised anarchy than democracy. Whatever, else it was the former USSR was not anarchy.
Hello,

Yes I misunderstood you and I think you misuderstood me. So I'll try to clarify what I meant. I did not mean to imply that Saturn better symbolized anarchy. Quite the reverse. Anarchy is the absence of Saturn. I'm really not accepting the whole idea that Sun/Moon = Royalty therefore the opposite equals democracy = Saturn. The world doesn't seem to work that idea. I don't see Mercury and Jupiter meaning opposite things either. If Jupiter signifies expansion it does not follow that Mercury signifes restriction. The opposite of monarchy is not democracy, it is anarchy, and Saturn does not rule democracy or anarchy.
So what is the full implication of a diurnal sign? Surely, that it represents a more outward expansive dimension to the symbolism of its planetary ruler? Couldn't it be argued Capricorn as a nocturnal sign is about individual attempts to create structure whereas Aquarius being a diurnal sign takes a more outward social orientation in its approach? And how else can we do that but by joining together with others collectively?
Diurnal signs are more assertive than receptive. That's all. Imposing contemporary ideas (collectivism) on this ancient concept is precisely the opposite of what we should we doing, and it is thoroughly modern. I read something a couple of weeks ago and should have noted the source. It was pointed out that in the past, people looked to intellecutal giants in history (e.g Aristotle, Socrates, Confucious) to understand their place in the world. Today we look at the intellectual giants as we see things and impose our views on them. The Greek word for this is hubris.

My views on collectivism are political, and I think collectivism is something to avoided at all costs. I don't want my government thinking for me, and deciding what is best for me, and threatening me with confiscation of property and/or imprisonment if I disagree and act accordingly. What good is disagreeing if you can't try to change things? This history of such endeavors is replete with failure and all too often it ends up authoritarian. The idea of "joining together" is fine if others are left to act as they see fit, but in the collectivist scanario, when the two clash, it is the individual who gets trampled.

A good example is the current crop of American leftists. They see government (collectivism) as the answer to all problems. Government, a collective endeavor, creates far more problems than it solves. It is a necessary evil, and therefore needs to be held in check. This is the main principle of the US Constitution. It limits government. There is disagreement over how much limitation, and that is unavoidable, and perhaps even healthy. Government is not and never should be viewed as a panacea, which is precisely the belief of the collectivists no matter how much they deny it.

American leftists bemoan the government's response in helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina as inadequate, and then demand that their health care be managed by the same people who couldn't manage the rescue efforts. This is, in the favorite phrase of my new favorite astrologer, Morin, contrary to reason. Incidentally the first responders to Hurricane Katrina were members of church groups, i.e. non government sponsored individuals. They beat the government to rescue efforts by days. The msot effective responders were the US Military the one collective leftists hate.
The negative association you seem to have with the word 'collective' perhaps reflect a North American perspective. It doesn't have to imply authoritarianism as you imply with the USSR. It could equally, be applied to the the social democratic model in Europe which combines individual freedom with 'collective' social intervention on issues such as welfare, health, housing etc.
You say "intervention" like it's a good thing. I don't want government intervention. Under Hillary Clinton's health care proposal of 1993, it would be a crime for an individual to pay for his own doctor's visits or procedures (there was an exception for members of the administration and legislature). Government does almost everything wrong. Come to Detroit and look at the Canadian license plates in the parking lots of Michigan doctors offices. Canada has nationalized (aka "free" ) health care and it is becoming an increasing burden with no improvement over the old system - a fact that government tries to hide thereby making it more and more difficult to change the system. Try to tell an American what a good deal it is to have to wait months and months for heart surgery. But there are Americans that believe in nationalized health care because they wrongly believe they will be getting something for nothing, or even more absurdly, believe that the same organization that cannot deleiver the mail efficiently or cheaply will be able to deliver first class health care efficiently and inexpensively.

Nothing is free. My Canadian counterparts will tell me, with a straight face, that a) Their taxes are too high, and b) they have "free" national health care. Nothing but nothing is free.

Once there is a collective, individual freedom suffers and I predict, eventually dies. It is the collectivists that are pushing this man-made global warming nonsense, and they do it for the same reason they want us to believe that nationalized everything is "good." A desire for power.

Our public schools (collectives) are becomng an increasing embarassment. They provide a trough for teacher's unions (another collective) and our kids fall further and further behind. The USA spends more money, per pupil, on education than the next five nations combined. Our kids finish in the middle of the pack in international competition and the teacher's demand more and more money so they can afford to sent their kids to private schools. This is a sick joke.

There is a reason America developed into a self sufficient economy in one-tenth the time it took Europe and that reason had nothing to do with collectivism, and everything to do with individual liberty. And we have an Aquarius Moon. Cuba boasts of its "Free" nationalized health care, but they have to ration toothpaste. Fidel, meanwhile sent for doctors to save himself, from countries that do not have nationalized health care.
One of the things your quote from Ibn Ezra misses out is that Aquarius is one of the humane signs.




"It is of human form only." Ibn Ezra. Same place as above

Humane is not a synonym for collectivism or socialism or even compassion. It is recognition of qualities that are unique to humans and therfore deserving of respect. Collectivism denies humanity. The twin evils of socialism and collectivism generally accomplish the opposite of humane. Slavery to the state is not humane. The churches mentioned above behaved humanely while the bureaucrats filled out forms. Individuals can be humane and form humane governments that stay out of the way. Ronald Reagan famously pointed out the the humane "safety net" America was providing for its poor was becoming a hammock. For the record one-third of Americans defined as "poor" own their own homes. While there are always examples of inhumanity in the US, it is a humane country by any standard. Contrast that with the socialist utopias of the USSR, Cuba, Viet Nam, Red China, et al. I don't have to wait for health care that most people in these nations cannot even obtain.

Here are a few of my favorite "humane" statements from a collectivists who want government to limit, well, virtually everything for humane reasons.

Charles Wursta, chief scientist for the Environmental Defnse Fund in response to likely millions to die if DDT were banned: "This is a good way to get rid of them as any." (Quoted in Toxic Terror, and the prediction has proved corect. Millions have starved as a result of eliminating DDT. AHh such humanity)

Or this:

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." - Lamont Cole

And my favorite

"I get the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds." - Paul Watson Greenpeace co-founder. Quoted in Acccess to Energy VOl 10, No. 4 December 1982

Good collectivists all, ask them and they'll tell you they're humane; they only want to save the planet. This is not my idea of humane and neither is socialism. Collectivism turned the "Breadbasket of Europe" into a wasteland. That a couple of countries manage to survive with collectivist ideals does not offset the 100 million who died, within the span of a single human life as a result of collectivism under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. They are the rule, not the exception.

Back to the point. Collectivism is not humane. Aquarius is not, in traditional astrology, the place for groups, group thinking (that is a frightening concept) or any kind of collectives and neither is the 11th house. Saturn only groups people together as slaves - the ultimate collective.

I now retreat from my soapbox.

Tom

24 by yuzuru
According to Andre Barbault, the main cycles from Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are correlated to "democracy" and "totalitary" mundane efects.

In very few words, his theory is that:

Uranus cycles
Jupiter - uranus - the cycles of growth and schrink of economy and scientific discovery (good side)
Saturn - uranus - cycles of totalitarism and nationalist imperialism (bad side)

Neptune Cycles
Jupiter - Neptune - cycles of civil rights, international agreements, social welfare, etc.
Saturn - Neptune - revolutional movements, often violent ones, popular uprising, etc.

So, there wouldn?t be a planet for "democracy" (as is an empty concept, as someone has said). What there is are the cycles of action and reaction of the mundane forces. If you are in the extreme right wing, you will say that the cycles of Uranus, even the Saturn, are the "democratic ones"
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”