Skyscript Astrology Forum

Waybread wrote:

So far as I understand the arguments made by those who oppose an affiliation (let alone rulership) of Uranus and Aquarius, a lot depends upon: (1) whether or not one sees Uranus as (a) an amalgam of planetary pairs or (b) as highly similar to another planet; (2) what inferences one draws from planet-sign rulerships; and (3) what inferences one consequently draws from the sun domiciled in the sign opposite Aquarius, and in detriment in Aquarius. (If A=C and B=A, then B=C.... or does it?)

Hi Waybread,

Deb has asked for our responses to be very brief. In fairness though I am trying to catch up on multiple posts you made here towards my position.

I do want to pick you up on your syllogism argument which you used a few times here. Yes the black swans analogy is an amusing notorious example of an illogical case. However, you haven't identified any logical fallacies here as I see it. You seem to think defining my position as a syllogism is sufficient to invalidate it. I dont think it is. A syllogism is by definition not necessarily logically inconsistent. That doesn't mean I think my position is impregnable by any means. I can see lots of points where others may legitimately disagree for good reasons. Lets run through the details of how I establish an association and the various stages where people might part company with a position set out here.

1 Use of the traditional qualities to define a planet (modernists will likely reject this approach at the outset. In reality I think you do too)
2 Settling on the view of the quality of Uranus as hot + dry (some might see it as cold +dry instead). It could be concluded this stage is sufficient in itself without the need to assign planetary nature.
3 Assuming 2. Linking the nature of Uranus to the hot and dry planets. Especially Mars and the Sun. (Some might argue Mercury should be included here too)

It is an interesting piece of synchronicity that the astronomical symbol for Uranus contains the glyphs for Mars and the Sun. Pure coincidence of course......
From a traditional point of view we really dont need to proceed any further. Unlike you I dont see Uranus ruling anything. Many traditionalists may think it unprofitable to seek to associate these essentially transpersonal planets to any sign. I can respect that point of view.

4. Only, if we proceed to step 4 do we get to possible sign associations.
However, it is a mistake to think that those assigning qualities to the outer planets will all be interested in discussing sign associations.

I have pushed the case a little further by suggesting a possible sign association to Aries because it is the only sign where where Mars and the Sun are dignified. It also shares the same (alleged) quality of Uranus.

Your welcome disagree with my logic at any stage.

I have to say your arguments for Uranus ruling Aquarius seem like circular reasoning to me.

Essentially you seem to be saying:

A Uranus is a planet of revolution, social progress and creative breakthrough

b Aquarius is a socially radical, progressive and creative sign

c Therefore Uranus rules Aquarius.

Although you have claimed you see both sides of Uranus you seem to naturally default to a positivist stance. I still question assumptions you and many moderns have about Uranus symbolizing social collaboration. I see it as often linked to socially separative and conflict inducing behaviour.

I am also not convinced Aquarius is always such a progressive or socially radical sign. It goes against the grain of many moderns to even think this way but have you noticed how many political conservatives are strongly Aquarian? I think this is easier to explain if you see the sign as Saturn ruled. I am certainly not suggesting all Aquarians are conservatives ( I am certainly not) but I think raising issues like this challenges stereotypical thinking about this sign I frequently see in modern astrology.

Examples

-Sarah Palin-An uber Aquarian if ever there was one!
-Dick Chaney
-Ronald Reagan
-Barry Goldwater
-Harold MacMillan
-Nicholas Sarkozy
-Valery Giscard d'Estaing
-Sir Robert Peel

Your analogy about using Uranus as like the fool in the deck is interesting. I dont know if you are aware but many modern Tarot readers have assigned the Major Arcana card of the Fool to Uranus! Before this it was associated as the zodiacal sign of Aries.
Another Tarot card linked to Uranus is the Lightning Struck Tower.
However, traditionally most Tarot students still link it to the planet Mars.

Both cards are an interesting symbolic example of how the planet Uranus can be perceived as overlapping with Mars/Aries.

From Anthony Louis's website:

http://accessnewage.com/articles/Tarot/Tarot1.htm


Mark

Ptolemy's rulership scheme creates as many logical problems as it solves

Since your comment might be read to suggest Ptolemy invented or created the rulership scheme, just thought I should clarify that he explained it, he didn't invent it. It is known to have been used before his time.
Waybread, if you do decide to commence a new thread, and if you want its focus to be specific, then give it a limiting title. For example, if you want to consider views on the Sun only up to, and not after the Hellenistic period, then Mark's older thread on the Sun in traditional astrology will be too broad in scope.

Nixx wrote:

So would Cayce, or did he, claim Uranus ruled or was associated with Cancer, Capricorn, ... and you tell me.

I don't think this question was directly answered. No, compared to the planets Cayce had very few words for signs of the zodiac. He never associated any planet with a sign, but sometimes spoke of sign influences alone and at other times mentioned the influences of the constellations. Although Cayce recommended what he called "the Persian zodiac," his organization has defaulted to tropical astrology.

Deb wrote:

Ptolemy's rulership scheme creates as many logical problems as it solves

Since your comment might be read to suggest Ptolemy invented or created the rulership scheme, just thought I should clarify that he explained it, he didn't invent it. It is known to have been used before his time.
Waybread, if you do decide to commence a new thread, and if you want its focus to be specific, then give it a limiting title. For example, if you want to consider views on the Sun only up to, and not after the Hellenistic period, then Mark's older thread on the Sun in traditional astrology will be too broad in scope.

I know that Ptolemy didn't invent it, Deb. He did popularize it in a book that became foundational for much of the astrology that was to follow. He was very concerned to systematize astrology, but this is one case where i personally feel that the solution to one problem generated some others.

Mercury retrograde just now! No wonder some communications are problematic.

I just started a separate thread on the nature of the sun and ancient astrology.

Therese Hamilton wrote: I don't think this question was directly answered. No, compared to the planets Cayce had very few words for signs of the zodiac. He never associated any planet with a sign, but sometimes spoke of sign influences alone and at other times mentioned the influences of the constellations. Although Cayce recommended what he called "the Persian zodiac," his organization has defaulted to tropical astrology.

James's narrative seemed to be his ideas about Uranus came about in a 'trance' state, as opposed to being influenced by other authors.

Googling a little i found this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayc ... _abilities

and the author talks about Sasportas and Tarnas, which might suggest some folks who find Cayce's ideas interesting have rejected your/his

extreme mood swings, moody and changeable, can be prone to depression; interest in occult subjects (including astrology!) Intuition: picking up "vibrations" underneath the actions and words of others.

.

Nixx wrote:

James's narrative seemed to be his ideas about Uranus came about in a 'trance' state, as opposed to being influenced by other authors.

Yes, Cayce's information came through in total trance from the Akashic records. Upon waking he had no memory of what he said in trance. As a church going Christian he had no knowledge of topics like astrology, reincarnation, Atlantis, etc. and was amazed when he was told what he had said by those who recorded his trance readings. Well, it's all in the books and on the Readings CD sold by his organization.

waybread wrote:Just to clarify-- I am hardly suggesting that the Hellenists dealt with Uranus!

No, instead you are precluding examination of any other era of traditional astrology (such as medieval or rennaissance) by continually presuming that the arguments were originally made in regards Hellensitic astrology despite being told several times that they were not. You are hardly suggesting that Hellenists dealt with Uranus, but you are certainly implying that examination of Hellenistic astrologers' words are the best way to deal with an argument that is not based on Hellenistic astrologers' words alone.

Rather, I have indicated above that some of their writings provide a context for incorporating a new planet that becomes more difficult once the detriments, exaltations, and falls become more codified by sign subsequently in astrology's history.

I am not sure how subsequent you mean, nor why you think it becomes more difficult. Rhetorius explicitly shows that the planetary domiciles oppose one another in regards their essential nature - surely this is all that is needed, if we do not like to use the term 'detriment' perhaps we can simply use this instead?

Also, surely this argument backfires on you? If you need to ignore detriments and falls (I presume you don't mean to include exaltations here) and instead look to an era 'before' this in order to understand how to assign domicile rulership, then modern rulership should stick to this completely - or at least we could presume that you do? In other words that you see Uranus as ruler of Aquarius because of the astronomical order from a given luminary, and as such you also see it as ruling Capricorn (its night ruler), and Neptune for Pisces and Sagittarius, and Pluto for Aries and Scorpio?

If not, then why the special exception?

I'm not sure when you think that the idea of detriment and fall began to become widespread - you almost speak about it like it was some distant era much later from the Hellenistic period. Although it is true that detriment is perhaps less focused upon or less clearly defined, we do have several examples of the concept within the Hellenistic tradition, certainly more obvious examples with fall than with detriment.

They also combined planets and signs through terms and decans, apart from domiciles and exaltations, suggesting that their views on planet-sign affiliations were rather inclusive.

Yes but what has that got to do with this discussion - which seems to centre mostly on affinity and on domicile rulership. If anything, your recognition that there are other ways for a planet to be affiliated with a sign than by domicile should surely circumvent any major disagreements with regards uranus's association to Aries?

Hellenistic astrology is just so foundational to the rest of astrology's edifice that it is worth consideration. It seems to be having its own renaissance within traditional astrology today.

It is certainly worth consideration but let's not focus on it as though it is the only tradition worth considering when examining the affinity of outer planets, because if we do so then we run into problems with both the ideas that Mark has outline here, but also the ideas that modern astrologers have about modern rulerships.

The planet-pairing, use of the fixed star analogy, concept of "nous" and other points initiated by others derive from the astrologers and philosophers of ancient times.

Actually whilst they may be inspired by these things, I do not believe that they are 'derived' from ancient astrology, or at least not solely Hellenistic astrology that you have argued for implicitly or explicitly above.

By the way I have been looking over some Hellenistic astrologers myself with regards connection of the Sun to Intellect/Nous/Mind/Spirit (the core idea of which I was arguing earlier) I am not sure why you only saw an example in Valens.

waybread wrote: 1. A syllogism is a powerful sort of deductive reasoning if (and only if) its basic propositions and premises are correct. We can take "Mars rules Aries" as a sound proposition. I think the problem comes in more if we say: Uranus (C) is comparable to Mars (A), Aries (B) is comparable to Mars (A) so Aries (B) is comparable to Uranus (C).

I am not sure why are you so focused on arguing from syllogism. Apart from not agreeing with logical fallacy in the example of swans you gave (I prefix my syllogism arguments with an 'if'), I think it's worth actually quoting the arguments which are logically fallacious rather than just warning against them - as this connotes the idea that there have been fallacious arguments made, if there have been, let's focus on those and state why they are of necessity fallacious.

Stating that Uranus is comparable to Mars is not a syllogism, so I am not sure what exactly you have in mind here, nor why using a syllogism would be necessarily logically fallacious to begin with. You imply that Mark is guilty of this by way of stating that Uranus, like Mars, is hot and dry (personally I am a cold and dry supporter) but did Mark actually say and therefore Uranus must have affinity with Aries based on this alone? Because this is the syllogism that you are warning against? But is he actually guilty of it?

My concern is that I see themes in which Mars and Uranus are not alike, as well as deductions drawn from their similarities that do not extend into a Uranus affiliation with Aries. Part of my reasoning is that there is a real mixed bag of planet-sign affiliations in the traditional essential dignities, in which seemingly unlike planets and signs get paired up.

I see many ways in which Mars and Uranus are not alike too. But then I see many ways in which bronze is not like copper, or steel is not like iron. And yet this does not mean that bronze is not an alloy involving copper, or steel not an alloy involving iron. In a similar way whilst there are many ways in which Uranus and Mars are not identical, this does not preclude the idea that Uranus may be understood like an alloy of, say, Mars and the Sun. As with all alloys, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and is not entirely composed of the full of either part.

Seeing the outer planets then as an alloy is perhaps not a bad analogy, at least in understanding my own thoughts on the outer planets, and perhaps, if I understand Mark's, his also.

How, for example, would your rationale fit with Mars domiciled in Scorpio

But aren't you presuming that Mark's argument for Uranus-Aries affinity is directly based on domicile dignity? Even in spite of the fact that Mark has repeatedly stated he does not apply domicile dignity to the outer planets?

Therefore why would it matter what connection is made by domicile or by triplicity etc. when Mark isn't arguing that the affiliation between Aries and Uranus is one of domicile or triplicity etc.?

All you're really pointing out is that planets and signs can connect in many ways. We know that already surely?

If I demonstrate no commonality between Uranus and Aquarius, I fail to make my case. If I list commonalities, I am open to the charge that my definition of Aquarius was actually premised upon that which I conclude.

Actually the solution is rather simple is not? Take attributions of Aquarius prior to the discovery of Uranus. You are, after all, after posting many times how you find the hellenistic tradition so useful in this discussion in providing context for this conversation. Well surely this is your way out of making circular arguments. Like you are requesting of others, you could limit your understanding of the signs back to what is written in the Hellenistic era.

However, the traditional rulerships can be open to the same charge, so I am not sure where this gets us. Is a hot, dry planet (Mars) affiliated with Aries for any logically sensible reason? The month of Aries is spring in the Mediterranean region, when it is a lot cooler than during the heat of the summer-- when we might find the nocturnal, moist moon presiding over the summer solstice sign of Cancer. Ptolemy's rulership scheme creates as many logical problems as it solves.

The domicile rulership scheme described by Ptolemy may well create problems, but why then aren't you finding problems yourself with Mars ruling Aries? Let's take your stance here, are you able to find it palatable enough that you are happy to have Mars rule Aries and Venus rule Taurus? If so, then why the special exceptions?

Notice that in Ptolemy's scheme he does not say that Mars has domicile dignity in Scorpio because it is hot and dry. Juxtapose this with the fact that Mark has not called this affiliation of Uranus to Aries as being domicile dignity. What then is your point about the traditional domiciles exactly?

Re: "Take attributions of Aquarius prior to the discovery of Aquarius."

What does that mean?

My vote goes for "typo."


James

Atlantean wrote:Re: "Take attributions of Aquarius prior to the discovery of Aquarius."

What does that mean?

My vote goes for "typo."


James

Ack, thanks James, at least I know that someone is reading my posts

I have edited my previous post to correct this!

Hi everyone. I just went through two books on horary astrology where Uranus is used as a point of supplementary information, but not a sign ruler: Lehman's Martial Art of Horary Astrology, and Barclay's Horary Astrology Rediscovered. If we want to argue that Uranus fits well with a particular sign, it would be good to consider what these usages and thematic rulerships are in their eyes.

In addition to the "sudden change" motif (which she apparently sees as malefic or boding negatively for the querent) Lehman included electricity (as in the electrical system of a car) and aviation. Barclay gave Uranian rulership to: unexpected matters (earthquakes, revolutions,) electricity, aviation, divorce, telephone calls, eccentric or unusual people, uranium, and the colour Prussian blue.

Modern astrologers (the ones who use Uranus consistently) would add science and things futuristic to the above.

If we focus only on the "sudden change" nature of Uranus, we would miss attributes with some widespread agreement across modern and a more liberal type of traditional astrology. Each of us can decide whether Aries, Aquarius, or no sign is a better match with aviation or electricity.

It also occured to me that synastry does have some bearing on how people perceive Uranus (or if not astrologers, how they respond to Uranian themes.)

Regardless of whether or not we use it as a sign ruler, Uranus in its "sudden change" capacity has a lot to do with human relationships-- I don't mean just the romantic kind. But these don't ground it as a malefic or even disruptive in an objective sense. To cite some examples:

1. Person A has a very strong natal chart, and one indicating some ambition. Having gained some authority in his profession according to its norms, he is liable to resist an outsider coming in from left field with some innovative and iconoclastic ideas that essentially confound the norms through which Person A made his reputation. No matter if the outsider has some great ideas combined with the personal sweetness of a Lady Grantham, Person A is liable to experience unusual (to him) ideas and the person who brings them as disruptive.

2. Person B has an undigested Uranus in his own natal chart. If Person C's horoscope pings on B's Uranus or on another planet in stressful relationship to it, Person C is going to seem like an irritant.

We can consider the power relations in the two above examples. Who defines what is "disruptive"? It is not only a subjective assessment, but a circumstantial one, as well. The supervisor defines "disruptive" to the subordinate. Never mind that the iconoclastic ideas might make money for the company. (Uranus seems very post-modern.)

3. We have to be cautious and prudent in using outer-outer planet relationships in synastry, especially where two people are born within a few years of each other. Here is where Uranus can become generational: i.e., an entire high school or university cohort will have it in the same sign. But if Person D's Uranus is in a happy relationship to Person E's Venus, maybe D's eccentricities become endearing.

With positive Uranian inter-connections with personal planets among two Uranian types of people, maybe they happily fly off into the sunset in their private Cessna, listening to New Age music on their headphones, while wearing Prussian blue.

Waybread wrote:

Hopefully we are OK so long as we focus on Uranus and Aries or its competitor.

First off I suspect I have a lot less personally invested on the issue of Aries vs Aquarius for Uranus than you do. For me its not an issue of sign rulership. Just a much vaguer matter of a kind of association. What a traditional astrologer like myself does with this practically is not entirely clear to me!

I think I already stated I had come to accept Deb?s point that sign association was really a red herring. Not just because it muddles ideas of traditional dignity. More fundamentally, because the first issue is not sign association but the quality of Uranus. There is no point suggesting a planetary nature of an outer planet if we cannot agree on its basic quality much less a sign association.

If I was starting this thread again I would reformulate the topic to something like ?What is the quality of Uranus?? Ironically, I now feel constricted by the terms of a thread I created! Moreover, this thread has become overwhelmingly long for anyone trying to follow it. So I think the best thing is to create a new thread on this much tighter issue. I will be doing that soon.

Waybread wrote:

1. A syllogism is a powerful sort of deductive reasoning if (and only if) its basic propositions and premises are correct.

I am grateful to Paul for his recent reply to you. I don?t feel I need to add anything to his comments as he has put over my position extremely well too.

Waybread wrote:

2. I am familiar with the European glyph for Uranus, but coming from North America, I've always used the one that looks like an old-fashioned TV antenna. Should I make something from that about Uranus ruling electricity? You are probably familiar with the esoteric system of using circles, crosses, &c to symbolize metaphysical qualities. Obviously the inventor of this glyph would have had the sun and Mars in mind, but this doesn't mean he correctly grasped Uranian allegiances.

This was hardly intended as a killer argument! I just thought it was an interesting piece of synchronicity. The history of how the two different symbols developed for Uranus is very interesting. This from Wikipedia:

The symbols for Uranus were created shortly after its discovery. One symbol, , invented by J. G. K?hler and refined by Bode, was intended to represent the newly discovered metal platinum; since platinum, commonly called white gold, was found by chemists mixed with iron, the symbol for platinum combines the alchemical symbols for iron, ?, and gold, ?. This symbol also combines the symbols of Mars (?) and the Sun (?) because in Greek Mythology, Uranus represented heaven, and represents the combined power of Mars' spear and the Sun. Another symbol, , was suggested by Lalande in 1784. In a letter to Herschel, Lalande described it as "un globe surmont? par la premi?re lettre de votre nom" ("a globe surmounted by the first letter of your name")

I think the Kohler/Bode symbol is more common in German speaking astrology. I don?t know which is more preferred in astronomy worldwide but I would imagine it would be universal nowadays.

Waybread wrote:

5. At the risk of repeating myself, I have said multiple times that Uranus-- like any planet-- can have a positive or negative nature. I gave the American examples of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, as well as Eugene McCarthy, above, to demonstrate how Uranus works in a politically conservative setting. We recall what was the original Boston Tea Party! That is how the current Tea Party construe themselves. (Is Mercury retrograde, or what?)

Leaving aside your obvious irritation with me here Waybread this reply is very revealing in illustrating your thinking pattern on this matter. You make an implicit assumption here that we have discussed the nature of Aquarius because we have discussed Uranus on the thread several times.

As it doesn't appear to be clear to you let me emphasize that I don?t see Uranus as synonymous with Aquarius. While I think quite a few strongly Aquarian people incline to a conservative outlook I see this as generally different from the Uranian examples I gave.

My take on this is that Uranian types of a conservative (or left wing) disposition are more inclined towards violence or extremist politics. All the Aquarian politicians I listed above were democrats. They were working within the system. Overall, I see Aquarius as a collaborative and non-confrontational sign. Aquarius can be socially progressive and with their fixed nature often very opinionated too. However, in my opinion strongly Uranian influenced people often care little for consensus or working to change the system within it. They seem to incline more towards extremism.

Naturally, there are some individuals with planets or key angles in Aquarius who clearly, don?t fit into the pattern I have described like Robespierre , Nicolae Ceau?escu, or Anders Breivik. However, in all these instances there are other chart themes that can easily explain this.

Waybread wrote:

6. Tarot. Actually, I mentioned the jokers in a conventional deck of playing cards, simply noting that some card games permit them and some don't. Uranus is like a joker. I don't think tarot cards make an argument either way for Uranus's closest sign affiliation. I wonder, however, whether a theosophical astrology-tarot connection is a sub-text on this thread.

This was a bit of light relief on a rather heavy thread. I thought it might appeal to some members. I actually think sources like Papus, The Golden Dawn and Crowley were the initial major source of astrological attributions to Tarot cards. However, that is most definitely a topic for a separate thread!