Just to clarify although some points in my last post were addressed to Waybread exclusively most of the post was intended as a general contribution to this thread for anyone reading it.

However, when time allows I will be responding to Waybread's latest posts.

Mark

To add some information on points recently raised.

Waybread wrote:4. If we look at Hellenistic astrology, my recent focus, I am hard pressed to find the Hellenistic astrologers except Valens mentioning a (a) sun-intellect thematic rulership or (b) using the concept of detriment (and their concept of exaltation and fall commonly went by degree, not by an entire sign.) This really surprised me, but a cursory look through the above-named sources (plus Greenbaum's Paulus Alexandrinus translation) turned up empty.

Detriment (meaning a planet in a sign opposite its domicile sign) seems to be a post-Hellenistic development. Which is fine-- hopefully a student here of Muslim or later European astrology will chime in.

I further note that some signs have no planets in an exaltation or fall, notably Aquarius.

a) Firmicus also captures the notion that the Sun-intellect theme is more about the concept of cosmic intelligence than expression of personal intellectual faculty, (attributed to Mercury) - in his description of the Sun as ?Mind and Moderator of the Universe? (1.14).

b) Re recognition of detriment: I contributed refs to a previous discussions about this some years ago, but I can't find the notes now, having had a quick search. I'd suggest making a fuller check of Valens, since one the most interesting was an interpretation made of a chart judgement, based on a planet being in it sign of detriment. Anyway, there is clear recognition of the principle in Antiochus' Thesaurus, I.8: ?The contrarieties of the Stars?, where he explains why the domiciles of the Sun and Moon are contrary to those of Saturn, based on the fact that their principles are opposed (Sun and Moon are light and life / Saturn is darkness). The same notion of opposing principles appears in the other house-rulership pairings. Don?t expect the word ?detriment? to be used ? there was a lack of convention on this, even in English translations of Latin works (the 1593 English translation of Oger Ferrier?s table of dignities refers to the signs of debility as ?the hurts and the falls? and John Searle?s 1609 table describes these signs as the ?banishments? and ?abasements?). The term contrariety captures the principle of planets being weak in signs that are opposed to areas of strength and authority.

c) Re exaltation by sign: though many authors report the degrees, recognition that the condition of fall (or depression) applies to the whole sign is also found in Antiochus 1.7: ?Concerning Exaltations and Depressions?. He points out that where the Sun is exalted Saturn is depressed (vice versa) - same for Jupiter (life-breath and abundance) and Mars (bringer of death), and Venus (desire) and Mercury (logic) - this is only true if the condition is recognised by sign rather than degree.
We also find general examples of reference to the signs as exaltations, such as Valens III. 6 ?The house of the Sun is Leo, its exaltation Aries, its trigon Sagittarius ? the house of the Moon is Cancer, its exaltation Taurus ??

Waybread, I?m not sure of the point you are making when you say ?I further note that some signs have no planets in an exaltation or fall, notably Aquarius?, or why you think this is notable for Aquarius when it also applies to Gemini, Leo, and Sagittarius. If this is significant, could you elaborate? Also, I want to eliminate confusion where you say:

let us go back to your recommendation that traditional astrologers could understand Uranus in the context of traditional categories. A "hot" and "dry" planet stimulates and separates, a "cold" and "moist" planet does the opposite.

The principle expressed in traditional works (Ptolemy, for example, is very clear on this) is that warmth and moisture are the two activating and fertilizing conditions, coldness and dryness are the two that are destructive and separative. The most separative combination is to be cold and dry.

Of relevance to this - there seems to be an assumption of agreement in this thread that Uranus is ?hot and dry?, although this contradicts earlier definitions of the basis of its influence. For example, Raphael?s Manual of Astrology (1828) describes Uranus as being an unfortunate planet because it is "extremely frigid, cold, dry and devoid of any cheering influence". That makes sense to me, in terms of the notion of separation that Uranus represents. I also really liked the explanation that Phil gave here, which begins:

The way I intuit Uranian energy is not as the red, flaming, consuming energy of Mars or even the Sun. I picture Uranian energy as more of a ?cool? blue energy, this even though it is certainly hot. Not the fiery flare of the Sun; more a blue streak of lightning. Or a spark of electricity. Ever seen a spark plug work? Kind of like that. It?s hot in that there is certainly energy there, but it?s not raging, consuming, or engulfing anything. It won?t in and of itself grow out of control like Mars? flame (which is what makes Mars ?malefic?). Although in the right setting of other things, a reaction can occur, one that grows, possibly out of control, for better or worse.

I connect with Phil's other points too, and especially relate to his description of Uranus acting as a catalytist which ?amplifies the beneficence or maleficence of aspecting planets or other chart factors with which it interacts?. That?s why for me, arguing too strongly about sign affinities is a bit of a red herring. Outer planets certainly have significance in my mind, but ? being transpersonal ? it falls into a different category to that of the seven traditional planets. That is why I think there are a lot of astrologers like myself, who are very comfortable interpreting the meaning of outer planets, without feeling that the traditional dignity scheme has to be rearranged to make a place for them.

BTW, Waybread, my earlier reference to ?blood-red Mars? was intended to be taken as an analogy of its colour association, not a literal description of the precise colour shade of its light

deb - thanks for picking up phils comments. i was in agreement with them as well and neglected to mention that in everything else i felt i wanted to say. phil makes some observations that are in line with my own as well.

Deb, thanks for your detailed comments on my posts! Back to them soon. I see many points of agreement, appreciate many of your elaborations and inclusions of different sources, and have just a few points where I take a different tack or could clarify my meaning to minimize misinterpretation.

Mark, I would like to finish up responding to your long post, specifically regarding your planetary pairs. Just to recap, I see:

1. the need to clarify what is meant by affiliation or affinity. I don't have a problem with seeing commonalities between Uranus and Aries; or Uranus and Gemini, for that matter. I do use Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius, however, so if the argument is that Aries is a better match than Aquarius for which sign has the top affiliation with Uranus, I stick with Aquarius.

2. Uranus as having characteristics that are not summed up by any of the traditional planets (outined in my previous post.)

3. Uranus as generally being problematic for traditional astrology, because its impact is change to tradition. Another key word for Uranus might be unpredictability. Moments of not-knowing which end is up are precisely what Uranus represents.

4. The need to understand planet-sign rulerships/affinities/affiliations, &c in all their complexity. The Hellenists went well beyond single- or binary attributes, back when the basics of essential dignities were first worked out.

Consequently, I cannot accept planet-to-planet delineations as having a "sole nature only."

Mark, it is important to minimize arguing from syllogism: an argument which runs like, "All A is C, B is A, therefore all B is C." Because too often the premises of the first statement cannot be met. The classic example is "All swans (A) are white (C), B is a swan (A), therefore B is white (C).

Obviously, the promoter of this argument has never heard of the black swan or back-necked swan species, or hasn't considered that colour is not the defining characteristics of the swan genus, such that non-white swans are entirely possible. (Cygnets are generally gray in colour, so the category "swan" was over-generalized.)

Your planet pairs arguments seem to operate accordingly. Some planets like Mars (A) are (C) hot and dry; Aries (B) is ruled by Mars (A), therefore Aries (B) belongs with hot-dry Uranus (C). This logic assumes that heat and moisture are the only defining characteristics of planets, just as the author of the above syllogism assumed that colour defines swans. It further bypasses the fact that the sun is hot and dry yet affiliates with an entirely different sign.

If we unpack your binary schema, however, apart from various appeals to authority (like Crowley! ) or red herrings, we are left with your arguments that:

Uranus-Mars, both hot dry, so Aries is a better match.

So far so good, except that planet-sign affiliations go by many more attributes than these two. By this logic, we could affiliate Uranus with Leo.

Uranus-sun. The sun is a fire sign, so if Uranus is like the sun, it belongs to a fire sign. You wrote:
"...Robert Schmidt has proposed this association. Schmidt?s view is not that Uranus represents the everyday intellect but rather the transcendent mind or nous. This view doesn't really support an Aquarius connection. [/quote]

Can you cite this article? Actually Schmidt's isolated statement surficially supports the association of a generational outer planet like Uranus with an air sign like Aquarius. Then you would first have to make a case that nous is of the fire elment. We odn't have an A=C type of proposition here.

Uranus-Mercury . Based upon an esoteric octave theory that I and many modern astrologers find irrelevant? The trouble with the octave theory, as appealing as it might be to esotericists, is that I haven't seen modern astrologers operationalize it in horoscope readings. It is just a Nice Idea. If you have a source on an astrologer who does operationalize the octave theory successfully, please post it.

But we are at least onto an affiliation with air signs. So far, so good. I note, however, that Virgo is an earth sign not noted for the key words associated with Uranus. Virgo wants to improve things, but not blow them out of the water. Gemini is not notably an agent for social change, although its versatility on an individual level has something in common with Uranus. But then you (not me!) are left with explaining why Gemini is not a better match for Uranus than Aries.

If we get into Nixx's argument about trans-personal planets, we are going to need separate threads on Neptune and Pluto! More pragmatically, I don't think anyone who works extensively with modern planets conflates their operation.

Rather than "trans-personal" I prefer the term "generational" for the modern outers. Unless you have an outer-to-outer aspect that persists for years (like the current Uranus-Pluto square) that doesn't personalize on its lonesome, the relationship between Uranus and personal planets and points is truly personal, indeed. Then everyone is shaped by his/her generation.

(to be continued, with Uranus-Saturn....)

The term "generational" is relevant, but so is "trans-personal" IMO, by the way it describes the influence as being essentially collective. What I teach (specifically in regard to planetary significations in horary, although it has general applicability) is that when a significator is in strong aspect with an outer planet, it shows someone whose characteristics personalise collective trends. So, for example, a significator in strong aspect with Uranus, will give the signature of someone who is outside the norm - maybe they seem a little freaky because they are ahead of the trends, maybe bringing in attitudes or styles that are not yet, but are about to become fashionable. In the here and now, they are not fitting in, but they are the first to personalise a new generational influence.

On the other hand, I think the term "outers" speaks voumes about the fact that these planets shouldn't be squeezed into categories intended for the personal planets. To understand the logic of dignities or various planetary schemes; we need to recognise the hierachical principles embedded into them. All planets are not equal. The Sun is far and away the most important, as accords wih its light, and partnered with the Moon as the lesser luminary to stand apart from the other planets (hence many ancient texts talk about the 5 planets, to recognise differentiation from the status of the luminaries). Then within the 5 planets, we really have four, controlling different qualities, plus one (Merc) mixing between them. So please don't take my views on the outers being "outer" as being based on some kind of discrimination against modern-thinking - it's not: it's from trying to integrate these planets into the greater sheme in a way that is appropriate, and not weakening to the logic that lies behind concepts many astrologers use, without being greatly aware of the philosophical principles they express.

Hi again, Mark-- Isn't it great to feel so passionate about astrology! I respect what you are trying to achieve more generally, even while differing on the particulars, so here is more feedback.

To get back to your planet-pairings on p. 8, by way of contemplating a possible home for Uranus:

Uranus-Saturn. I agree with the first part of your paragraph 1, but I don't see Tarnas's comment as definitive. I've run through these points in previous posts, but just to summarize: the elemental qualities are not the decisive factors in current planet-sign rulerships and exaltations. And actually, in following your own lines of reasoning, you apparently do not think so either; although your strongest case seems to rest on elemental qualities.

Venus rules both Taurus and Libra, a cardinal air sign, for example. Cardinality does not specifically relate to Mars. Jupiter (moderately moist) rules Sagittarius, a fire sign. The exaltations do not fair much better. Mars (hot and dry) is exalted in Capricorn (feminine earth, ruled by cold Saturn.) Saturn actually has two strong air connotations: ruler of Aquarius and exalted in Libra. It has the day triplicity for all of the air signs. So some astrologer in Antiquity thought air and Saturn were a good match.

Tarnas had some super things to say about Uranus, but he was not trying to fit Uranus into traditional astrology. (I have his book after all.) He argued a case for Uranus as bursting out of structures; but actually if we look at Uranus in the context of science, aviation, and space travel-- we don't get anywhere without structure and innovation ("intellectual catalyst") working in tandem. These activities have both a strong mental and pragmatic component.

You wrote:

As I suggested earlier we don?t need to be monolithic in our view of Uranus. We can take the view it contains the nature of more than one planet. My current position is that Uranus probably partakes in the nature of Mars but also the Sun. However, I am open to the possibility of a Mars-Mercury nature. I am suggesting the first planet listed as the primary influence.

We should then consider (1) whether Uranus brings anything to the zodiac that is unlike its predecessors, and (2) how Mars (or any other planet) operates in a horoscope beyond its elemental attributes. I addressed (1) extensively in one of yesterday's posts. I do not think Uranus overlaps entirely with traditional planets even in combination.

I think your reasoning is that planet-wise, Mars (A) is like (C) Uranus (A=C.) Mars (A) affiliates with (B) Aries (B=A). Therefore Uranus (C) belongs to Aries (B) (B=C). See the difficulty with syllogisms in my previous post.

(2) Let's look at Mars. It rules warriors and athletes. It operates in the horoscope as a kind of raw survival instinct, assertiveness, competitive spirit,or aggression. Mars is often very personal.

Mars is not notably generational/transpersonal. Robert Hand (Horoscope Symbols, 62-63) makes an interesting point about Mars, that it can be trained by one's mind or the state to operate in a social manner, but this happens only if the individual begins to identify his survival or instinctual aggression with a common cause. In this calculus, the mind actually bridles raw Mars energy . So we can see Mars getting put to work by the mind in all kinds of ways, many of which are poor fits with Aries. To paraphrase, Mars throws the punch, but the mind creates a scenario in which violence is an understandable reaction.

Mind=air.

To the extent that I take your point about Uranus being like Mars, Hand gives a perfect oportunity to view Uranus as related to the air element, or at least under its authority. (My own syllogism, BTW. Hey, I like it!)

I don't mind Mars-sun not supporting an Aquarius connection, because I don't find this to be a particularly fruitful line of reasoning. As I noted previously, most of the traditional associations of the sun are with authority, kingship, and fathers. Sure, you can find a "creative" component (which sounds more modern than traditional, incidentally) but I do not think this is the primary way the sun is used in traditional astrology practice. Note that if the sun gets too hot and dry (as it can be when the sun is in Leo) the sun acts as a destructive malefic (Tetrabiblos I:5,) not as a source of creativity. The sun was noted for its constancy in comparison with, say, the moon and Mercury.

Given that I think your argument is really based upon an over-generalized syllogism ("All swans are white") there doesn't seem to be much point in addressing the rest of your non-Uranian two-planet comparisons. See my comments in my previous posts, which I think are more to the point. I wouldn't look to Mars-Saturn to make a case for Aquarius-- I might look to Uranus-Saturn, because it is relevant.

However, just to extrapolate from your comparisions: if Uranus is like Mercury, then Uranus is at home in an air sign. If Uranus actually has commonalities with Saturn (as I argued, despite the preponderance of modern astrologers saying the opposite) then Uranus is at home in Aquarius.

Does anybody seriously associate Leo, Gemini, or Virgo with the "higher mind"? In contrast, we see the opposition of Sagittarius and Jupiter (rules philosophy and higher education, the great benefic) and Gemini, where Jupiter is in detriment. Mercury rules the intellect but it is not the philosopher-king. As an earth sign, Virgo focuses on practical matters.

We also want to clarify where we jump-shift from considering a natal horoscope and cosmology. They have parallels but are not identical.

Mark wrote:

While you do not seem to accept a Mars association with Uranus(?) you seem to strongly support its connection to Mercury. Correct? While you reject the modern ?higher octave? theory you implicity seem to see Uranus as an agent of intellectual change.

I don't have a problem in seeing commonalities between Mars-Uranus, Mercury-Uranus, Saturn-Uranus, and all sorts of other planet-pairs. I do have a problem in arguing by syllogism when the foundational premises are in doubt. ("All swans are white.")

One can see Uranus as an agent of intellectual change without subscribing to the "higher octave" doctrine. The latter modern astrology proposition has to stand or fall on its own merits, and I just have not seen it applied successfully in chart interpretations for real people with real problems. Probably I am missing something. If you have, would you kindly send me the references?

I would also appreciate your sending me the reference to the Schmidt doctrine that you mention. I tried googling it but came up short.

Incidentally, Valens (bk 1) didn't think much of Aquarius, but his following key words seem entirely Uranian: celestial, anthropomorphic, free, upward trending, self-willed, godless, uncontrollable.

(to be continued..... )

Deb wrote

a) Firmicus also captures the notion that the Sun-intellect theme is more about the concept of cosmic intelligence than expression of personal intellectual faculty, (attributed to Mercury) - in his description of the Sun as ?Mind and Moderator of the Universe? (1.14).

Thanks Deb. Its good to have another reference supporting the notion of the Sun as symbolising the transcendent or cosmic mind.

Deb wrote:

.....there seems to be an assumption of agreement in this thread that Uranus is ?hot and dry?,

Well there have been quite a lot of people disagreeing with the Robert Hand/Lee Lehman stance on this too here. Not just modern astrologers. Indirectly I suppose Robert Schmidt has supported the stance of Hand with his linkage of Uranus to the nature of the transcendent Sun.

Deb wrote:

although this contradicts earlier definitions of the basis of its influence. For example, Raphael?s Manual of Astrology (1828) describes Uranus as being an unfortunate planet because it is "extremely frigid, cold, dry and devoid of any cheering influence".

You seem to be implying there was some kind of older astrological consensus on the nature of Uranus that Hand/Lehman/Schmidt have defied. But I question how accurate a representation of 19th century astrology that really is.

Like you I have read the Kim Farnell article which you are getting that Raphael quote from. I already discussed Raphael in my previous post looking at possible planetary combinations. He suggested Uranus was basically of the nature of Saturn but also partook of the nature of Mercury. As I stated earlier this planetary nature combination makes this the most logical combination if we are seeking an association or affinity with Aquarius.

The only other astrologer Kim Farnell mentions that seems to take a similar line to Raphael is Thomas White in his The Beauties of Occult Science (1810), who says of Uranus (Georgium Sidus) "He has no houses alloted him, but participates of the nature of the malevolent planet Saturn in the highest degree; and it is therefore equally unfortunate."

Nevertheless, it appears most astrologers reached no consensus on this topic of the nature of Saturn throughout the 19th century.

Naturally, I cannot see modern astrologers queuing up to accept this interpretation of the nature of Uranus.

This basically ?malefic? take on Uranus is a very long way from the more progressive, positivistic interpretation given to Uranus in modern astrology works such as those by Richard Tarnas, Prometheus the Awakener, (1995), Liz Greene, The Art of Stealing Fire: Uranus in the Horoscope (1996) or Bill Tierney, Alive and Well with Uranus: Transits of Self Awakening (1999).

At the risk of misrepresenting her I see similarities with these authors and the stance Waybread has taken here.

Coming from a more traditional perspective I don?t have any hang ups about accepting terms like 'malefic'. However, I have a few difficulties with the notion that Uranus operates like Saturn astrologically.

Experientially, the transits of Uranus feel nothing like Saturn transits to me. I associate Saturn with a slow interminable pressure and often a downbeat mood. Life can seem to be moving at a sluggish pace. When Uranus comes into operation the pace of life seems to speed up dramatically. For good or ill we are shaken out of our complacency. There is always a sense of energy and urgency with this planet as I perceive it. As I perceive it, this feels more like Mars than Saturn , if we are choosing between the traditional malefics.

Another issue is how Uranus operates with Saturn. To me these planets seem to operate as totally opposed astrological principles. Saturn is tradition, stability and order while Uranus is change, revolution and chaos. If these planets share an identical planetary nature I would expect them to work together quite harmoniously but they clearly operate at cross purposes. I suspect this might be part of the reason Robert Schmidt associates Uranus with the transcendent Sun. The Sun and Saturn are diametrically opposed principles in the tradition.

Deb wrote:

That?s why for me, arguing too strongly about sign affinities is a bit of a red herring.

So my whole thread is one big red herring eh? Thanks Deb! Seriously though I suppose discussing signs is putting the cart before the horse. The pivotal issue is deciding on the nature of Uranus and the other outer planets. Its good we have got down to that here whatever our take on this.

Deb wrote:

Outer planets certainly have significance in my mind, but ? being transpersonal ? it falls into a different category to that of the seven traditional planets. That is why I think there are a lot of astrologers like myself, who are very comfortable interpreting the meaning of outer planets, without feeling that the traditional dignity scheme has to be rearranged to make a place for them.

Clearly, the outer planets are of a different category to the seven traditional planets. Still, even if they are transpersonal I don?t think that invalidates attempting to describe their nature in terms of the traditional qualities or even planetary natures.

As a traditional astrologer I have seen you frequently make use of Ptolemy?s system of assigning planetary nature to fixed stars in your delineations. These bodies are not just on the outer edge of our solar system but way outside altogether! So if it is acceptable to use the symbolism of the seven planets to describe the nature of these stars in other solar systems why not for the outer planets? Your position seems rather contradictory to me.

Mark

Waybread, you say:

"Note that if the sun gets too hot and dry (as it can be when the sun is in Leo) the sun acts as a destructive malefic (Tetrabiblos I:5,)".

Here is what that text says (Robbins translation):

5. Of Beneficent and Maleficent Planets.

Since the foregoing is the case, because two of the four humours are fertile and active, the hot and the moist (for all things are brought together and increased by them), and two are destructive and passive, the dry and the cold, through which all things, again, are separated and destroyed, the ancients accepted two of the planets, Jupiter and Venus, together with the moon, as beneficent because of their tempered nature and because they abound in the hot and the moist, and Saturn and Mars as producing effects of the opposite nature, one because of his excessive cold and the other for his excessive dryness; the sun and Mercury, however, they thought to have both powers, because they have a common nature, and to join their influences with those of the other planets, with whichever of them they are associated.

Is this the passage you mean? If so, where are you getting the notion that the Sun gets destructive, when in Leo, on account of it being "too hot and dry"? There is nothing in this passage to suggest that.

Hi Deb,

Our posts crossed over at the same time. I have just responded to your last post. I'm interested in your response.

Mark

regarding debs 832pm post - it reminds me of the overview i got from modern astrology back in the 70's, with the major difference being only that uranus was said to 'rule' ( there is that word again) aquarius.. other then that, it reminds me of something a modern astrologer would say or would have said back then..

ot - waybread - i like the black swan reference.. anyone here read taleb nassims book 'the black swan' which talked about anomalies like this? it is a good 'uranian' type book!

Mark wrote:Like you I have read the Kim Farnell article which you are getting that Raphael quote from.

I didn't just grab a quote from Kim Farnell's article Mark, informative as it is. As the notice at the top of that article explains, it arose as a result of a forum discussion which started here in 2003. That thread, available here, is where I discussed Raphael's comments, based on my reading of his book, together with associations made by a variety of 19th century astrologers. See my post dated 17 Dec 2003, and several others that follow. That thread has a lot of valuable info in it, re the background to assignation of outer planets to signs, and its representation in the 19th century. It motivated several of us, Kim especially, to delve deeper into historical views. I assumed you were already aware of it. I don't recognise the view you hold, that they had a notion that Uranus operates like Saturn astrologically, or that transits of Uranus are supposed to feel like transits of Saturn.

Also, I never expressed the opionion (or held it) that defining the outers as
transpersonal "invalidates attempting to describe their nature in terms of the traditional qualities or even planetary natures". So I'm not sure why you describe my position on that as contradictory

Also (one last edit) as I am writing this post after the replies - I should admit that I have only skimmed through some pages of this very long thread, and haven't followed all the arguments in detail, just picked up on some points that caught my eye as I've skimmed along. I don't actually know what the views of other contemporary astrologers (Hand, Lehman, Schmidt, etc) are. So I have no idea whether anything I've said argues for or against the position they hold.

deb - i linked to that skyscript thread back on Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:27 am - page 5 of this thread.. i agree - good thread to read for those here interested in this..