but I would propose a much simpler solution/explanation (the principle of Ocam's rasor) - if they're not felt, it is most probably because they don't exist astrologically.

That's not how Occam's razor works. For example, if I said "I have never felt period pains", would you then apply Occams razor in the same manner and conclude that 'period pains don't exist'? Or would you recognise that as a man I'm not going to get period pains.

Similarly there may be many other reasons afoot why someone would or would not notice their Pluto transits, just one conclusion of which is that Pluto does not exist astrologically.
As a further example, I seldom notice Mercury transits (it being so swift moving) and yet for every job I've ever had, I've had the interview for it during Mercury retrograde. When it was my time lord for an annual profection year, every ingress and station occurred during a time that was influential to my finances and career (it being related to those things in terms of my profections that year).
However there are many people who do not seem to notice anything at all to do with mercury (being, likely, too busy looking at pluto ) but they would never suggest that Mercury does not exist astrologically.
Similarly I've noticed things occurring during a Uranus transit that is not (as far as I can tell) demonstrated by any other transit. Just as not every Mars transit or Venus transit will make itself known to you, neither will every pluto or uranus or neptune transit - but their being so much slower moving we have less opportunity to notice them in the first place. And then when they are activated, were we to choose to do so, then we can just dismiss them and look at something else instead that describes something similar, regardless of how much stretching and clutching at straws that we have to do to get there.
If we don't want to find something, we won't.

Paul,

I never said 'Ocam's razor' has to do with the existence/non-existence of anything which you clearly imply by your example so it is actually you who stated it.
I only gave my viewpoint on the outers as actually non-existent hence non-influential; for some people, they are untouchable principles and that's fine with me. The fact is that astrology was fine without them for centuries and is perfectly able to function without them, as traditional system clearly shows. Introducing them only shows the lack of knowledge and understanding of what true astrology is and how it functions.

It is not a science - but a more or less unified and coherent system of principles/methods/philosophy which does not need the introduction of new elements, the way it has been done in modern astrology.
New discoveries are made in science and are incorporated in the scientific system of knowledge, yes, that's the way it should be - but why does every new discovery of a planet/piece of rock in our solar system has to be incorporated in modern astrology's approach, following the scientific methods ???
By trying to imitate science and to endear itself to it, the astrology has lost its credibility and essence. Modern astrology.The most widely known form of astrology today - and it's guilty of distorting the image of astrology in general.


There's no desperate grasping for straws in tradition - it's all about the knowledge of techniques/approaches which are more than sufficient in number and efficacy to account with a reasonable degree of accuracy/reliability for most of the things in a chart where moderns remain strangely silent about or have to introduce hypothetical "Zeus" in quindecile to heliocentric Ceres to explain something.
Tradition in this regard mainly resorts to well-established and widely used principles and techniques- that's a huge, essentially irreconcilable difference between the two approaches

Contra antiscion falling on something else of importance in a chart is maybe a straw-grasping for you, but not for me. The teaching on antiscia is very old and consistently found in all authorities...whereas many modern things found in the books are introduced ad-hoc, just because someone was trying to be creative and smart without having sound knowledge of true astrological principles.

Additionally, you've entirely missed my point on transits, taking it too personally - I was also talking in general terms, how one modernist usually takes and interprets transits - not you personally!

Regards,
Goran

Eddy wrote:
I already mentioned a few days ago that I was involved in a thread somewhere else in which the initiator of the thread argued that (briefly said) the higher a planet above the horizon or deep below it is placed the higher the soul is evolved.

To be honest every time I heard the word evolved/evolution I run away faster as I can.

My experience says the more someone pronounces this word, the more s/he shows the opposite.

In astrology it seems to explain everything especially when used with Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Pluto sextile transit with 5 degree orb and everything turns ok

I don't know if they did not work at all, maybe if they were 'parsimoniously' used, they would work, but like that they are just a stretched cover.

But I disagree that a transaturnian transit- for me the most ineffective is Neptune- could reveal more than a traditional reading. Just for traditional forecasts one should integrate different techniques, they are a little like mundane ones, more charts are needed.

margherita

cor scorpii wrote:I never said 'Ocam's razor' has to do with the existence/non-existence of anything which you clearly imply by your example so it is actually you who stated it.

Goran

Perahps I'm misunderstanding you, but here's what you said "I would propose a much simpler solution/explanation (the principle of Ocam's rasor) - if they're not felt, it is most probably because they don't exist astrologically." - If I'm understanding you right then you're saying that you would propose applying Occam's razor, namely that if they are not felt it is probably because they don't exist, hence why I disagreed with you saying that if they are not felt then they likely do not exist. The introduction of Occam's razor to imply the non-existence of something is not of my own making as can be seen in your quote - Unless of course I'm entirely misunderstanding what you mean here, in which case what exactly are you applying Occam's razor to and what is the conclusion of that application?

The fact is that astrology was fine without them for centuries and is perfectly able to function without them

I understand, and I'm not trying to critique traditional astrology here (as I use many traditional principles myself), the only thing I'm counter-arguing here is the apparent logic that if someone does not recognise a particular planetary transit that their conclusion is to discount the entire branch or mindset of astrology as a result. However, as for the point made, we existed just fine without motor vehicles, but we don't grumble when everyone doesn't cycle to work. Similarly astrology existed just fine prior to the introduction of the ascendant, and yet we still use it. In other words progress occurs and whilst progress for the sake of progress should be discouraged, we should equally discourage resistance to progress for the sake of resistance to progress. In my opinion I think it is better to apply more critical thinking to certain branches of modern astrology rather than ignore it altogether. I do think there's a lot of dross there and a lot of 'guru'-worshipping and (basically) nonsense, but at the same time I'd be loathe to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There's good stuff there too and it would be a shame to throw out the entirety of modern astrology based on the lack of recognition of particular planetary transits, just as much as it would to throw out the entirey of traditional astrology and approaches simply because you don't recognise (for example) a particular time lord.

Introducing them only shows the lack of knowledge and understanding of what true astrology is and how it functions

I think it would be grossly arrogant for any of us to state that we TRULY understand HOW astrology functions. We have theories that are applied and appear to work for us but is hardly the same. We should be aware that ultimately nobody has sufficiently proven that astrology works exactly as we claim it to. There's a level of humility in recognising that, which, personally, I'm quite happy and comfortable with.

which does not need the introduction of new elements, the way it has been done in modern astrology.

This is just an opinion, not a truth - which isn't to say the opinion isn't valid, merely that it is equal to those opinions which would disagree with you.

but why does every new discovery of a planet/piece of rock in our solar system has to be incorporated in modern astrology's approach, following the scientific methods

As I say, better that we apply more critical thinking rather than completely ignore it altogether.

Contra antiscion falling on something else of importance in a chart is maybe a straw-grasping for you, but not for me.

In the sense that something more 'obvious' was suggested first, that didn't work, so then something else, that didn't work, so something else, no that didn't work either? Oh it's the contra-antiscion, oh that worked? Oh yeah that's what it is - that's the kind of straw-grasping I'm talking about. It is, in my opinion, no different than a modern astrologer saying "oh it's pluto in quindecile with ceres, oh not that? oh well then it's chiron in aspect with [insert hypothetical planet], not that either? then it's just because you're not evolved enough.

The teaching on antiscia is very old and consistently found in all authorities

The laws for the handling and the buying and selling of slaves is equally old. Old does not equal right no more than modern equals right. Old just means old. The age of somethign does not necessarily indicate that something is more accurate than something else. (btw I use antiscia, I'm just playing devil's advocate to make a point here).

whereas many modern things found in the books are introduced ad-hoc

Agreed, hence the need to apply more critical thinking.


In short, many modern astrological authors kinda bug me too. When not sticking exclusively with sun sign stuff there is talk of entirely invented and 'hypothetical' planets whilst ignoring more obvious traditional signification in the chart. I've seen examples of someone harping on about Ceres and basically describing the position and condition of the person's Moon - but the Moon is too ordinary and not 'special' enough so Ceres is used instead. Novelty for the sake of novelty. However Uranus and Neptune really are out there, they're not made up. Now what they might mean (if anything) astrologically is open for debate, but Uranus, in my experience, really does relate to separations and unexpected turns of events. Not because some modern astrologer says so but because I've seen it in charts. Even in horary charts - sure the main story is told by the traditional planets, but Uranus is still adding in extra detail - not as a ruler of aquarius I might add. So instead people with better skills in critical thinking need to start writing books on these planets to counter-weigh some of the more asinine suggestions that are spewed out by certain quarters.

May have something to do with instability but I would propose a much simpler solution/explanation (the principle of Ocam's rasor) - if they're not felt, it is most probably because they don't exist astrologically.

There's a risk involved in using Occam's razor. When used drastically, nothing might remain. Occam's razor is sometimes related to reductionism, for some people the word reductionism has an ugly ring to it. But it depends of the context I think.

But I disagree that a transaturnian transit- for me the most ineffective is Neptune- could reveal more than a traditional reading.

I had a period of being very tired in the head and that was during a Neptune transit. However these could be listed under the 'vague symptoms'. Tracing back very few transits are related to concrete events, so might be attributed to imagination.

However even though I'm having my doubts now, one of the most concrete astrological relations I've found were my moving to other houses during Saturn transits over planets of a T-square, and also over the 'empty spot'. Only between the last two movings there were several other movings but these where somewhat my 'wandering' years. The first three movings were beyond my control because I was a child, at the fourth I didn't practice astrology and the last was an allotment after five years waiting, so therefore more or less beyond my control. Maybe a seven year itch for moving to other houses? Perhaps I should reconsider my thoughts on statistical testing now .

Yikes, Olivia! I use the outer planets as well as (shudder, moan) asteroids. I don't think I am highly spiritually evolved, or most other people I know, either. And life is going to be full of difficulties whether we use the outer planets to interpret them or not.

One of the worst transits I experienced, however, was a long chain involving transiting Pluto square Pluto, Pluto square sun, and Pluto square Mars that went on for some years. This was real "dark night of the soul" stuff--but I think (I hope?) a big maturation process came out of it.

One piece of conventional wisdom in modern astrology, however, is that the more the individual is attuned to or even has mastered the energies of a particular planet's symbolism, the less negative impact a challenging transit is likely to have on her. So all you people who think the outers don't matter because you breezed through the tough transits may simply have "owned" your "inner Pluto" more than I did.

I think Pluto is especially interesting in natal chart interpretation. People with Pluto square or opposite sun seem to engage in a lot of inter-personal power struggles. People with Pluto quintile sun seem highly ambitious.

waybread wrote: One piece of conventional wisdom in modern astrology, however, is that the more the individual is attuned to or even has mastered the energies of a particular planet's symbolism, the less negative impact a challenging transit is likely to have on her. So all you people who think the outers don't matter because you breezed through the tough transits may simply have "owned" your "inner Pluto" more than I did.

I make no claims to spiritual evolution, nor do I think such a thing is possible. I hope that most of us will become better people over the course of a lifetime, but I know that's not always true, either.

I guess in my case I haven't 'owned' much of anything. Born into bad circumstances, most of the people I loved dead by the time I was 25, usually though violence, something like 60 surgeries so far in my adult life (and the attendant financial and career woes that go with that, not to mention the misery of it), I've probably owned nothing at all, at least by modern astrology's lights.

Or it could just be that I have no unafflicted (traditional) planets in my chart.

For the record, I've got Sun trine Pluto within half a degree or so, but I'm thinking that's not a terrific aspect either, if it counts for anything at all (I honestly can't see it, at least in the kind of astrology I use). Out of curiosity I looked up some of the worst years - the outer planets didn't seem to be doing much.

I'm not playing the victim by the way. But I find it hard to believe that all of life's misfortunes befall us out of not 'owning' planetary energies, or what the symbolism of them represents. I've seen too many bad people who do quite well in life, and too many good people who've had horrible thngs happen to them, and many who never had a chance. In other words, it could be a lot worse. I could be in Rwanda. Or the Sudan. Or Afghanistan. Or any number of places where life is pure hell - and where a substantial number of the people on earth live.

I don't subscribe to the just world theory, nor to the concept of an afterlife where one is rewarded or punished for how they manage or what they believe in this world. I do believe we have an obligation to be decent human beings, because life is unfair, and whilst a lot of the misery is inevitable, quite a bit of it could be stopped, and quite a bit more eased, if we took our fellow humans into real consideration - as well as those who'll have to live here after us.

The best explanation I've found for any of it is the Book of Job. We don't get to know 'why' most of the time. It kind of beats the alternative - for me, anyway - of thinking in terms of 'owning' various types of energy, or even worse - that people get what they deserve.

Olivia, I am sorry you had such a rough life. Just possibly it colours your outlook.

Using outer planets does not deny the importance of looking at inner planets to explain what is going on in someone's life. I think of astrological techniques as similar to a carpenter's tool kit. Some couldn't get along without the latest power tools; others love the kind of work they do with hand tools. The "right tool for the job" may vary depending upon which carpenter you ask.

I think it is especially important not to tar all modern astrologers with the same brush, nor to assume a uniformity among this group that does not exist. "My astrology" has nothing to do with the theosophical movement, though at one time I read most of Dane Rudhyar's books. Frankly, any astrology today, traditional or modern, should thank the theosophical and allied movements of the late 19th/early 20th centuries for saving astrology's bacon at a time when it was largely reduced to almanacs. (Cf. Nicholas Campion's history of astrology.) At least it salavaged something from which better versions of astrology could emerge.

Nobody is saying "that all of life's misfortunes befall us out of not 'owning' planetary energies, or what the symbolism of them represents." This would be silly.

But many misfortunes are in our heads. For example, a rich person bemoans the reduction of his material circumstances to a level that the world's poor people would be thrilled to adopt. Also, most of the world's poorest people find simple things in life to be happy about. And astrology minus collateral information cannot say whether someone is born into a privileged home or to lepers on the streets of Calcutta.

I think the big lesson of the book of Job is that God and His actions surpass human understanding. Notwithstanding, we are asked to "keep the faith."

I see astrology's primary benefit as a tool for self-awareness. As such, "owning" a planet's energies makes a great deal of sense. In the case of Pluto, contemplating the ruthless and powerful side of my nature has not been comfortable, but it has had a maturing effect.

This isn't a thread to talk about my chart, but in the event - wrong on both counts. I possess neither of those virtues. If I hear one more time how 'strong' I supposedly am, I think I'll scream.

As for having power, that's truly laughable, though - so thanks for the giggle, I guess.

We aren't talking about your chart, Olivia, but about Pluto and its contact with the Sun. As for the strength and power thing, that's the idea I got reading your post and the examples provided. I'm sorry if that made you feel uncomfortable.

I'm not uncomfortable - it's just very silly and not at all true of me. I am quite certain of that. You haven't lived my life, nor have you witnessed it, so you've no way of knowing.

Please take my word for it. Thanks.