If I believe that Pluto has a great deal of influence in an astrological chart, does it lose influence if it's description changes from planet to dwarf planet? If so, why? If not then it makes no difference what it is called before or after. I'm done now. This topic, which was intended as a bit of a joke has more than made my point.

Now Tom, you certainly must know by now that jokes are always iffy around here. Such a grimly serious bunch. It didn't used to be that way so much.

As a baron is not a duke, so a dwarf planet ? or asteroid, or whatever other little things they have flying around up there ? is not a planet. It's all in the title. And with titles come perceptions of power and importance. This fidgety demoting and promoting makes it hard for the poor astrologers to know who gets a full bow and who gets a mere tip of the hat.

This fidgety demoting and promoting makes it hard for the poor astrologers to know who gets a full bow and who gets a mere tip of the hat.

Exactly! Its quite clear the IAU has been taken over by a covert grouping of astronomers signed up to CSICOP. Their hidden purpose? To confuse astrologers.

Mark

Their hidden purpose? To confuse astrologers.

It appears they didn't take on much of a challenge.

If they wanted to have some real fun they could publish false studies concerning the effects of combustion as an optical phenomenon. Then, after the astrologers had taken their positions, they could publish false studies contradicting the first ones, sit back, and watch the astrologers at each others throats. It does sound kind of fun.

Kirk

It appears they didn't take on much of a challenge.

Yes the thought does occur. It wouldn't require the most cunning plan known to man.

Mark

Tom wrote:

Are there reports in which modern astrologers were bothered by new (de)classification?

Just look at this thread.

But I never had the impression that astrologers in general were largely bothered by what astronomers do (apart from providing ephemerical data).

Having read the article I see more bad news for modernista's. Eris is now smaller than she was. I gather that Pluto's demotion was a bit of a stunt pulled by a small coterie of astrolomers to get in the newspapers so do we now expect more of the same?

For those that believe the proximate cause hypothesis the good news is that she is more dense than he was before. A significator for modern astronomers then.

Matt

Tom wrote:

Why shouldn't they care?

For the reasons sited above. If Pluto has influence it will not change one way or the other regardless of the name by which it is called. Call it a planet, a dwarf planet, an asteroid or an automobile, it either has influence or it does not. It's description is irrelevant. It's just a description by a group of people who would rather sit beside the Devil than an astrologer.

Well, the devil sounds a lot more interesting as a conversationalist than a lot of astrologers! Present company accepted.

OK, here's the rub. I can see traditional astrologers not caring about Pluto's classification one way or the other. Beyond Saturn, it doesn't matter.

Among modern astrologers, Pluto is really important; and I doubt that anyone dropped it simply because of its reclassification; nor, from what I gather, welcomed Ceres into the planetary fold due to its reclassification as a dwarf planet like the new Pluto.

It does matter to modern astrologers whether a heavenly body is a planet or something else for the following reasons:

1. Planet-sign affinities. Pluto is the modern ruler of Scorpio.
2. If you work with "accidental house cusp rulers", then it matters to a modern astrologer whether you look at Pluto's position or stick to Mars alone.
3. Modern astrologers are divided on the relevance of asteroids and other Kuiper belt bodies. Some think they're so much space-junk, others work with them extensively.
4. Astrology is a discipline. As such, it is rife with classification systems, facts, evidence, and definitions. We might argue for a post-modernist disavowal of such artificial constructs, but few of us work that way.
So on another level, I could agree that the classification system doesn't matter so long as astrologers are clear on what they work with in the horoscope and why. But then it is hard to make an exceptionalist argument for Pluto in light of how we handle most other points in the horoscope.