Skyscript Astrology Forum

Well, I don't think the trine did me any good - I went haring off after myths instead of planets! So if my duffer self is front and centre blame it on the fact that transiting Jupiter is conjunct my Neptune and trine Sun & Mercury

However all was not lost as to the negative interpretations of Saturn:

As the most distant of the visible planets, Saturn signifies the boundaries of personal awareness and experience. Astrologically, it depicts the finite limit to our own perceptions, capabilities and life; the fixed extremes against which personal will-power and self determination prove futile. The archetypal figure of the stoic old-man in his deathly shroud portrays the unmoving end which awaits us all, regardless of whether or not we are prepared for it. Death, after all, is an extremely limiting experience.

Deb's article Saturn the Great Teacher
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/astrology_saturn.html
and also

In ancient Mesopotamia the planets were seen as gods in their own right. The Babylonian name for Saturn was Sagush and the associated god was Ninurta. When the Tablets of Fate, which held the laws of the universe, were stolen by a dragon, it was Ninutra who rescued them and was henceforth placed in charge of fate and law.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/saturnmyth.html
David McCann's article Saturn in Myth & Occult Philosophy, both well worth reading if you haven't already and available on your favourite local Skyscript website!

(Don't despair Deb if you read this, it's a lot of work you can be justly proud of to give us such a vast variety of resources, I got there in the end , I'll start remembering to look here first, promise, take heart from something else I saw on the way through - Ptolomy's method only caught on fifteen centuries after it was introduced )

And so TS, the references by Andrew and Kevin which highlighted both the Greek and modern references to Saturn in a kinder light may simply indicate in the 21st century, we still can't make up our minds! This does gell with your comment about positive-negative being a product of the prevailing times. Though I tend to think we all subscribe somewhat to the "malefic" connotations, is it because he has generated such a reputation as The Great Teacher and the "lessons" necessarily hard, we forget that some of the teaching is in fact benevolent, or at least eventually has a benevolent effect on our travels towards our destiny? One can even include death in this if indeed

1 (destination) = 2 (the convergence of two realms).
1 (destination) + 2 (convergence of two realms) = 3 (an expanded way of being/understanding).

It would seem the law of 3 is still very operative in wordly matters

You present very elegant argument on its behalf both here and in the "Application within 3 degrees" thread. Again with Solomon, we have the benefic theme presented in Saturnian terms.

I guess the negative/positive attributes accorded Fate largely depends on how one views their boundaries & responsibilities ?

I agree... that we are probably once again back to that question of individual experience, thus colouring our individual perspectives of the terms fate and destiny. While many of us are not quite sure just when our free will is exercised.

It also occurred to me that although I have seen "as above, so below" (fate) oft quoted through the threads, the other maxim that was drummed into me when I was learning was the one that runs "the stars impel, they do not compel" (free will).

... and what are words when they come from the collective wisdom and generosity of kind hearted souls and shared amongst friends ?

Indeed

best wishes
Sungem

'Free will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do.' (Carl Jung)

'Destiny sets limits for us physically, psychologically, and culturally, and equips us with certain talents. Those persons who often seem the most capable of accepting the inevitable are also the most productive and the most capable of pleasure and joy.' (Rollo May)

About Saturn, please see:

http://coa.hubcom.net/mhplan.htm

On a separate but related subject:

Do attempts to incorporate the outer planets into the traditional philosophy of astrology disregard its integrity? It seems to me that this depends upon which outer planets one might wish to incorporate, the underlying rationale for their selection and inclusion, one's understanding of what constitutes a traditional philosophy of astrology (not to mention one's selection of one's preferred astrological system and philosophical worldview), whether one's understanding of traditional philosophy is rigid and inflexible or pliant and adaptive, the latitude of interpretation one permits oneself in articulating an understanding of tradition, and whether one's practice is congruent with one's convictions (or if indeed this latter state of affairs is at all important).

For example, in ancient mythology Uranus ruled all the heavenly spheres, and was the father of Saturn. Its period of eighty-four years is the product of the number of the signs multiplied by the seven planets over which it 'rules,' i.e., 12 x 7 = 84. Some astrologers have believed that Uranus is a higher octave of Saturn, Lord of Form and Time (or, in the words of Edgar Cayce, "Lord of Change"), Lord of Intellect and Invention. Whether or not one accepts the idea that "Uranus is a higher octave of Saturn," there is at least an underlying rationale for incorporating this notion into a traditional astrological system (please note: *a* traditional astrological system, not *the* traditional astrological system). An "underlying rationale" may be congruent or incongruent, consistent or inconsistent with the rest of one's argument, and one is free to accept it or to reject it as such. No big deal.

'Act so that there is no use in a centre. A wide action is not a width. A preparation is given to the ones preparing. They do not eat who mention silver and sweet. There was an occupation.' (Gertrude Stein)

'Sugar any sugar, anger every anger, lover sermon lover, centre no distractor, all order is in a measure.' (Gertrude Stein)

Andrew!!! (Hi) great link ? yes, yes, yes!

Where to begin?if I told you everything I liked about ?Planetary Rulerships: Old and New? by Maggie Hyde, I could just copy the article here and tick every second line

Finally we arrive at Saturn, the slowest of the visible planets, ruling the positive sign of Aquarius and the negative sign of Capricorn. These two signs are opposite to those of the Sun and Moon. It is for this reason that Saturn is said to be the greater malefic and an enemy of life, since he opposes the forces of creation, "in a diametrical aspect not consistent with beneficence".

So we turn again to Saturn?s ?bad? self.

However I?m more taken with the thrust of this article and its position of resistance to scrapping the established structure of rulerships in favour of including the newer planets in their place. Instead, the article posits that it should be possible to find cohesive, integrated whole where the trans-Saturnians take their rightful place ? not only in the cosmos, but in astrology as well. Particularly in light of some of the recent threads and the eternal push/pull of shall we include the outers or not.

Ptolemy is the first to record this rulership system suggesting that planets "have affinity with" the signs to which they have been "assigned". He also terms this rulership. What is important to note is that the concept of rulerships is part of a much greater doctrine, that of the ?Dignities and Debilities? of the planets. . .

By the time of Lilly, Ptolemy?s system of Essential Dignities had prevailed over all others

So at this point astrology has a clear, concise, integrated and extremely specific language to describe a chart?s content. It does this very, very well in the traditional sense

The trans-Saturnians have clearly brought a challenge which threatens to destroy the whole structure of rulerships.

Clearly we now have a problem ? we?ve got more planets than we know where to put, if to put and how to delineate, according to the established rules.

The inter-relationship of planets and signs is part of a fundamental doctrine in astrology. It is not possible to ignore that doctrine and remain true to the mainstream astrological lineage. Planetary rulerships are astrological ?givens? , a matter of faith and not an individual preference. They are a transmission one takes up when one begins astrology, and however sober this may sound, it is only through initiation in this teaching that one can enter the wisdom tradition of astrology.

Hyde goes on to discuss how trying to fit trans-Saturnians in to the picture has usurped meaning and relationship from the established structure and how this has expanded the muddy muddle that has begun.

However ? this whole picture is about displacement. If we are to integrate the outers into astrology at all, surely they should fit within the established structure and enhance instead of diminish it.

Every time a traditional planet loses rulership to a trans-Saturnian, the new planet partly takes on the qualities which astrologers use to attribute to a traditional planet. For example, Saturn has been limited to only one realm, banished to the mountains of Capricorn to act as Lord of Form and Time, to his earthy domain where is master of the material world. Yet his rulership of the air sign Aquarius was formerly considered to be his greatest joy. It was in Aquarius that Saturn could find positive expression, could master the world of intellect and give form to abstract thought. His attributes were those of invention, sweet science and humane belief. Today, we have almost lost this understanding of Saturn in Aquarius, and given the qualities either to Uranus or the sign itself. What is odd about this movement is that most astrologers would agree positive Saturn is not the same as Uranus. It therefore makes no symbolic sense to substitute one for the other when they are recognisably different in principle. Considerable changes also arise not only with the planets, but with the meanings of the signs themselves. Aquarius is no longer understood as the place in which Saturn can manifest positively. It has become a sign of rebellion and eccentricity, qualities mapped on to it from assigning Uranus as its ruler.

Precisely?and again?

If astrologers were convinced that the trans-Saturnians merited the status of rulership, why does each trans-Saturnian not rule two signs of the zodiac?
. . .
One way of incorporating the new planets into the old order has been to speak of co-rulership.

Try octaves ? that word we are trying to use, ineffectually so far it might seem, with the trans-Saturnians.

Horses didn?t become non-existent with the advent of cars. Horses are still used for work, transport and recreation alongside cars. No doubt just as cars will retain utility for work, transport and recreation if/when space travel becomes more user-friendly.

If the outers have any meaning for astrology ? and who can doubt there are times they are so ?in your face? in a chart to ignore them completely would be almost negligent ? then they need their own space, without filching from a tried and true, working planet/method. The outers are trying to tell us something, it?s how we interpret them that we?re at odds with, not that they do in fact have something to say.

If as has been discussed, there really is an interconnectedness, a ?nature?s law of 3? ? perhaps we?re looking truly looking at octaves, 3 of them! Horses, cars and spaceships! Maybe instead of trying to assign as many planets as we find (and justify for a place) to just 12 signs by displacing the traditional 7 rulers, what if we?re actually looking for 24 planets? We already have the first octave (completed by a little number called Earth, remember?), and we?ve started on the second with Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Now there are others crying for attention ? Chiron, Sedna, Quaoar, Varuna etc.

"Astrologers of old set great store by the sign positions of planets, calling some ?exalted?, others ?debilitated? by their sign. This is now considered to be old-fashioned."

But it works ? if it ain?t broke, don?t fix it.

Contact with astrological tradition and dialogue with past astrologers is an essential source of inspiration for astrologers today. This does not mean that just because an idea is old we ought to adopt it. Much of older astrology expresses a level of secondary detail and sophistication that may not be easy to understand. In this respect, . . .

I love the rest of this but I have to stop somewhere and I really recommend that others do read the article in its entirity. This is the best bit of all?

To adopt the new planets as exclusive rulers at the expense of the old is indicative of a grave lack of the historical sense. Planetary rulerships are one of the fundamental things in astrology which we seek in our practice to examine and reaffirm. We may attempt to incorporate the new planets if we choose to do so, but unless we initially adopt the traditional structure as our starting-point, we cannot hope to create without our art for our own age. Without an awareness of the historical context, changes are no longer part of an evolving process and dialogue: they are naive and misconceived.

Soooo, who among you is going to go back to first principles and allocate the appropriate masculine/feminine, light and dark, benefic/malefic, conscious/unconscious, essential and accidental debilities and digities? With 2 signs to every trans-Saturnian please.

Now there?s a new career for some aspiring young thing!

Andrew

Look what you did!!!!!

Do attempts to incorporate the outer planets into the traditional philosophy of astrology disregard its integrity?

Well I think that the above sort of says where I'm standing at this point in time ? how about others?

Some astrologers have believed that Uranus is a higher octave of Saturn, Lord of Form and Time (or, in the words of Edgar Cayce, "Lord of Change"), Lord of Intellect and Invention. Whether or not one accepts the idea that "Uranus is a higher octave of Saturn," there is at least an underlying rationale for incorporating this notion into a traditional astrological system

If Saturn?s orbit is roughly 28 years and Uranus? orbit is 3 times that at 84 years ? could it be that 2004 DW at 84x3=252 years is the 3rd octave?

But it has to expand, not detract or displace.

(How?d I do? )

Sungem

PS - Happy to consider other views as long as they are in English and don?t contain too many numbers ? I have trouble adding the price of 2 icecreams together

PPS ? I forgot to add?.

. . .blame it on the fact that transiting Jupiter is conjunct my Neptune and trine Sun & Mercury

Tr Neptune is making up the grand trine from my 3rd. With Sun-Merc conjunct 7th and Tr Jupiter conjunct natal Neptune in the 9th - it has nothing to do with "happy and expansive communication with others in a forum on esoteric subjects" - while I may have missed the trine, it didn't miss me. As above so below? sparrows falling? interconnected? - nah! - it couldn't be, could it?

Hi Everyone,

I wouldn't think of looking for a discussion of Fate and Free Will under the heading of Mundane Astrology and World Events!

Sungem, I hope you don't mind if I transplant this thread where you originally intended (Philosophy and Science), and add my own thoughts to the mix.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5661#5661

KennethM

...moved response to continuation under Philosophy & Science.

Hi Everyone,

Hope it's okay to continue this discussion where it was originally indended to go, under Philosophy and Science.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=5668#5668

Best wishes,
KennethM

Thanks Kenneth. To help 'tidy up' I'm going to lock this thread, move it to the Philosophy section and keep a shadow copy in the mundane forum, (which I'll delete from that forum eventually).

As Kenneth suggests, please place all new responses in the new thread at
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=879