Skyscript Astrology Forum

James, unfortunately I don't have a copy of Tarnas's book, but a fair bit of it is actually on line at amazon.com. I scanned what I could find about Tarnas's views of Prometheus. Tarnas seems to use a Jungian/Joseph Campbell approach to archetypes and myths, and to have focused on one dimension of this multi-faceted god (or titan.)

My own particular miff with astrologers and mythology (sorry-- lecture mode is on!) is that many astrologers associate myths with silly fables and don't particularly like them. We can't incorporate into our astrology what we are unwilling to investigate.

The astrologers (that I am aware of) who do embrace mythology often do so at an extremely shallow level. With respect to Greek and Roman mythology, of the sort that shows how the planetary gods were understood back when people actually worshipped these gods, there is a huge literature from classics scholars that astrologers scarcely touch. I think most of the myths and their variants have been translated into English, as well as the antecedant myths from Mesopotamia, yet astrologers seem more or less OK with superficial research into the meanings that the gods had back when planetary meanings were being formed.

A great on-line site for Greek mythology is www.theoi.com .

So Prometheus for the planet Uranus works and it doesn't. Stealing fire sounds pretty good for Uranus. But Tarnas, so far as I can tell, doesn't mention some of the key stories about Prometheus, namely the ones involving Pandora and Heracles. One ancient reading of the Pandora narrative is pretty misogynistic, although it can be read more metaphorically.

Tarnas claims an awful lot for Prometheus/Uranus that is a huge leap of imagination from how the Greeks understood Prometheus. This doesn't mean we cannot rework myths for our time (as Campbell recommended.) But we should at least be clear when our modern narrative gets unhinged from historical evidence.

And then the Greeks (i. e. Hesiod and Homer) didn't invent these myths. They borrowed and reshaped a lot of their mythology from the Babylonians. The Prometheus myth that Tarnas describes comes straight out of Babylonian antecedents. (See, for example, Charles Penglase, 1994, Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Influences in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod, Routledge.)

This lineage should have some meaning for Hellenistic astrologers, at least, because the Greeks borrowed a lot of their understandings of the planets' effects from Mesopotamia, as well.

Regardless, planetary names are set by the International Astronomical Union, and it is unlikely that they will change the names of Uranus to suit a few astrologers. (Greek astronomers still use their own names, apparently.)

waybread wrote:Konrad, hopefully you can relax a little around my posts. You asked for an elaboration of my philosophy about the outers. I gave it, noting that it sounds a lot like your philosophy. I also suggested that philosophy wasn't really what you are after. So if we are on to the utility or pragmatics of a given system, then we may be moving beyond philosophy altogether, and looking for evidence.

Can we leave views of our personalities out of this, Waybread? Rest assured if I am tense or angry about a post on here, I won't repsond to it.

Yes, I noted what you said. I have also said countless times that I am looking for a broad rationale/philosophy/theory of why we should use the outers in the first place, something more than "it works for me". That sort of thinking is fine for personal reasoning but it is doesn't really work if we are to establish a system that others can understand.

You do not wish to find evidence for the utility of the Outers; so trust me. You won't find it. If you come to this discussion firmly believing there is no "system" behind the use of the Outers in astrology, you will not accept any propositions about them, either.

You seem to be projecting some idea onto me here. Let me be clear one more time:

• I know of no system, I wouldn't bother asking if I thought there wasn't one.
  I have no interest in provng or disproving anything to anyone, believe it or not it doesn't bother me that someone might think differently than me. If I am asking why something is, know that is all I am asking. There is no hidden motive to demean anything.
  I have asked how others justify their use, on a level preceding any significations, simply why we should think about using them in the first place.
  I have been told "it works for me" but, if that is all there is, that is using them before thinking about why we should use them.
  I have said I would like to see something else, is there anything else?
  If my style of post irritates anyone, please ignore me. I am not here to cause grief. If there is no problem, I would appreciate it if we leave views of personality or character out of the discussion. That is the last I will say on that.

The discovery of major outer planets and modern astrologers' claim that they have utility in chart reading is the bell that cannot be un-rung. If you do not wish to use them, that is perfectly OK with me. So far as I know, they are not used in traditional Vedic/jyotish astrology either, and I am not trying to convert those astrologers. I gave the analogy, above, of a harpsichord player who shouldn't feel pressured into playing an electronic keyboard simply because the latter is modern and the former is traditional-- and vice versa.

Yes, I underdstand, but is the discovery of something reason enough to apply it?

I will say that Uranus, by its very nature, is messy, unpredictable, and sometimes confronting. If we could totally categorize it, it wouldn't be Uranus, because Uranus by nature disrupts conventions.

Honestly, it sounds a bit like Mars. How can I disinguish between the two? If I see a dissolving of convention or structure how can I tell which one is doing it?

From my perspective, I see all kinds of messy variation and inconsistences in traditional astrology as it evolved over the centuries, but I am not trying to pick an argument here.

Yes, I know. However, the archetypal expressions of the planets and the signs of their rulership are consistent until the outers.

Are you actually asking for an introductory primer on mainstream interpretations of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto in the horoscope? Is that what you mean by "signification"? What precisely are you after?

No, I am asking why I should even begin to reinvestigate them. I am not interested in signfications at this stage as it seems counter-intuituve to assign significations to something that I am not even sure of the purpose of. The signification thing is a whole new set of problems such as Mercury losing astrology etc. and I don't want to get into that right now. When using "signification", I meant more the process of assigning them rather than what they actually are.

hi waybread,

yes - tarnas is very much influenced by jungian type ideas and the work of those key exponents of depth psychology like james hillman and etc.. this is all as i understand it of course. i don't really like to comment on books that i have read with any voice of authority, as i am not one to do this, but mostly like sharing ideas i have read that might have some bearing on the conversation. i had forgotten about the book until mark mentioned it earlier. i have another book by tarnas that i have yet to read 'cosmos and psyche'.

my own understanding of mythology in connection with astrology is mostly personal/subjective. i do like whoever mentioned it earlier - geoffrey perhaps - of venus being the god/dess of war in chinese culture. i think a lot depends on our background culture and stories we might hear about how the planets connect with different mythological gods from the past. you might be correct in saying most astrologers only take a superficial understanding of these gods and apply them to astrology in a shallow manner. i think it is most important to develop ones own mythology around how these planets relate via our own subjective observations on them. this is a personal journey more then it is an in depth study of a particular topic like mythology in some historical manner. that is how i approach it anyway. sure, i pick up ideas from others like tarnas or liz greene and often if i find the ideas resonate with my own experience which is subjective - then i will adopt it. i think we all do this, but perhaps some people think they are being very objective about what they let in, in terms of the myths they live by, or how it is all based on 'fact' so that their is no myth to any of it.

as i recall it was myth before logos. with only logos, everything seems crystallized in words and deprived the imagination of an active quality that is the basis for a part of our nature that could quickly be defined as our imagination, or some form of myth.. - anyway, i suppose this is all pretty wordy, but i am trying to convey that i believe it is okay for a person to adopt ideas from others and internalize them in their own way based on their own personal experience. if it is only a superficial rendition of the more complex nature of the actual myths as told in the ancient past - so be it.. we pick and choose what we want to believe in anyway - as this thread is testimony to.

Konrad, I don't mind engaging with you, but I am puzzled as to exactly what it is you are after. It doesn't seem to be philosophy, which I have given but you didn't like. Pragmatism is an established school of thought in philosophy. Are you after methodology? (theory + methods)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology

Are you familiar with this article on Hellenistic astrology from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy? http://www.iep.utm.edu/astr-hel/ Is this the sort of philosophical discussion that you are after?

I suggest that you summarize briefly what it is that your strict traditional astrology offers that you find so appealing, by way of philosophy or methodology, and then I or other Uranians here can work with your template.

Again, I am not trying to convert you into using outer planets, although some appreciation and understanding of them would be helpful for this discussion.

Mars and Uranus share some commonalities, but then so do other planetary pairs from an operational perspective. Moon-Venus, sun-Mars, or Mercury-Jupiter, to cite some examples. This doesn't mean that one can stand in for the other one.

Hi James-- Mythology is a long-standing interest, if not hobby horse of mine! The planet Venus was attached to a fascinating array of gods and goddesses, and some of the goddesses (like Anat) were very warlike, indeed. There is also a strong agricultural association with Venus in the myth of Venus and Adonis.

I think Joseph Campbell would agree with you that internalized myths speak to people in the context of their own lives today. If Uranus speaks to people as an instrument of personal liberation and if Prometheus seems a better name than Uranus, that's fine by me. The planets went by different names in Hellenistic astrology, and it didn't seem to bother anybody!

http://www.theoi.com/Titan/AsterStilbon.html

waybread wrote:
From my perspective, I see all kinds of messy variation and inconsistencies in traditional astrology as it evolved over the centuries....

I once heard Michel Gauqualin comment that the meanings or archetypes of the planets seem to get more accurate the further you go back into history.

Waybread wrote:

Mark, I really like Gavin White's book as well! But I don't think we can shoehorn Babylonian constellation origins too deeply into the Greek concept of elements, as it post-dated the Babylonian constellation lore.

I don?t think I ever actually suggested that Waybread. However, the Hellenistic tradition clearly borrowed a significant amount from its Mesopotamian antecedents. The notion of Aquarius as a ?watery sign? which we find in Valens is a very clear example of this. Ptolemy doesn?t describe Aquarius as an air sign either since he doesn?t link the four elements to the signs. Ptolemy had his own unique approach to the signs based on an Aristotelian approach based on a combination of planetary rulers and the seasonal associations of the signs.

Waybread wrote:

Aquarius doesn't work for me at all as a water sign. At least in modern astrology, water symbolizes emotions and feelings. (Some would say, spirituality.) Aquarius is not a touchy-feely sign.

Fair enough. I was just explaining that was an important part of the sign?s original meaning. Probably no sign has gone through more transformation in its meanings over the centuries than Aquarius.

Waybread wrote:

Uranus does have much to do with "concensus and collective action"! You can't have a revolution with just one person! Any effective liberation movement or rebellion isn't the work of a solo guy off on his lonesome.

I think you've set up Uranus as a "straw man." ("Straw planet"?) I think you've described Aries/Mars correctly, but Uranus has no problems working collectively on a mundane or group level.

The collective vision of the national liberation movements of the late 18th/early 19th centuries was precisely the concept of individual rights and freedoms. The US Declaration of Independence, that launched the American Revolutionary War, is a very Uranian, Aquarian document, for example. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...")

To take this example, the whole framing of the US Declaration and the Constitution were very idea-based (i. e., airy.) It wasn't just a bunch of tax revolters tossing tea into the Boston Harbor. Despite their flaws as human beings, the "founding fathers" were very concerned to promote a rational basis for the very revolutionary idea of a country without a king.

Uranus is always socially disruptive. Although you haven't stated it explicitly I get the impression you are adopting the modern idea that Uranus is basically a higher ?octave? of Mercury. Of course it can sometimes be productive as a result of the upheaval caused. Mentally it can shake up assumptions and pre-conceptions.

I wondered when you would bring up the American revolution or Constitution! However, that seems a quite idiosyncratic event to base a whole theory on.

As James pointed out earlier we cannot pick out one isolated historical period to describe the nature of a planet like Uranus. I haven?t studied the planetary cycles operating then but I am sure it would be instructive. I seem to recall in the period of the French revolution a Uranus-Pluto opposition was operating. As James has also pointed out its therefore often difficult to differentiate the operation of one planet on its own due to the interweaving planetary cycles.

Many revolutions ie French, Russian or Chinese ( I would argue the Nazis were a kind of revolutionary movement too) have been far more bloody and socially destructive . In terms of mundane astrology I think your view of Uranus is a bit pollyannaish. For example, look at the current civil war in Syria. Arguably, this dates back to the 'Arab Spring' and the Uranus + Jupiter ingresses into Aries. Much hailed as a positive revolution for the Arab people at the time the longer term consequences make that initial judgement questionable.

Moreover, I am surely not the first astrologer to notice that Uranus is often linked to right wing or extreme nationalist movements and politics. This may confirm the radical notion of Uranus but not the progressive idea you ( and I suspect Tarnas) seem to assume is integral to this planet. I am afraid that theory only works if you are highly selective in the charts you analyse.

A few natal examples: Hitler (Uranus conj ASC), Goebbels (Uranus opp ASC) , Hess ( Sun-Uranus opp), Himmler (Uranus conj MC ruler), Slobodan Milosevic (Sun Sq Uranus), Jean Marie Le Pen (Sun/Merc Sq Uranus) , George Wallace (Sun-Uranus opp), Pat Buchanan (Sun-Uranus opp), Ted Kaczynski 'Unibomber' (Sun-Uranus conj), David Duke (Sun-Uranus conj), Oswald Mosley (Sun/Merc conj Uranus), Sadaam Hussein (Sun-Uranus conj)

The chart for the founding of the Nazi party has a Sun-Uranus conjunction. The chart for the founding the Third Reich has Uranus in partile square to Venus ( the ASC ruler)

Iadopt an approach to the outer planets in delineation terms rather like fixed stars in traditional astrology. Like fixed stars they rule no signs. Using the traditional attitude to fixed stars given by Ptolemy I think their nature should be related back to the nature of one of the 7 visible planets. Ptolemy?s approach to fixed stars has a primary planet followed by a secondary one. Here is a working model of what I propose:

Uranus: Mars and Sun (hot and dry). Cardinal in operation
Neptune: Moon and Venus (cold and moist) Mutable in operation
Pluto: Saturn and Mars (cold and burning?) Fixed in operation

On reflection this is perhaps a more practical approach than trying to agree on sign associations as I originally proposed. These bodies have no rulership of any sign. However, even points like nodes and lots have planetary dispositors. Hence the outers are strongly influenced by the dispositor planets of the signs they are in. Hence, we see a Mars disposited Uranus in the sign of Aries at present.

This approach will obviously not appeal to moderns using Uranus as a planetary ruler (or joint ruler). Its not intended to. I think the difference in approach is to wide to attempt a consensus on this. However, I offer it more for traditional astrologers looking for an approach to the outer planets.

If Uranus , as many moderns insist, is really just a ?higher octave of Mercury' surely it should have 'rulership' of Gemini and/or Virgo? And if Uranus is a higher ?octave of Mercury why oh why is it linked to Aquarius? Both the mercury ruled signs are mutable while Aquarius is fixed??? I cannot see any logic or philosophical consistency in this approach.

Frankly, I have found the idea of joint rulers only leads to muddle and confusion in terms of accurate delineation. Maybe it can be made to work in a fashion for a generalised psychological reading but for areas like horary, elections or natal prediction I think it is a recipe for total confusion. This is probably the principle reason I took up traditional astrology in the first place.

Mark

Hi Mark-- Corrections noted!

But just to clarify.

No, I do not think Uranus is a "higher octave" of Mercury. (Give me a little credit. ) The "octave" approach is from a brand of modern esoteric astrology to which I do not subscribe.

It always puzzles me (if I might lean on your post a little) however, when people describe Uranus in only negative terms. It isn't a malefic; a concept that many modern astrologers reject, in any case. If Uranus symbolizes disruption, it also symbolizes liberation. Things sudden and unexpected can be happy occasions. Think serendipity, or a sudden release from an unwanted circumstance.

Is social disruption always bad? If it were, Europeans would still be burdened with the feudal system. Women wouldn't vote, and so on. Nobody in a ruling class has a motive to give an under-class any human rights unless (a) either they get a major change in the economic or social circumstances; or (b) the under-class fights for them.

In the modern astrology to which I personally subscribe, any planet can have a positive or negative side. (Or to get out of stultifying binaries, it can be a mixture.) You find this to some degree in traditional astrology, where under certain circumstances even Saturn can have a beneficial influence.)

Political revolutions like the American Revolution (or rapid evolutionary change) are not ideosyncratic around the globe and over time. France? Russia? Latin America? China? India? The persistence of the British monarchy and its influence in British life is actually a bit unusual in this regard.

Well, yes, revolutions or any type of war are "bloody and destructive." So just ask the average Frenchman or Russian if he thinks the average person was better off under their bloated monarchy. Today there is some option for separatist movements to accomplish their goals without war, but this wasn't such an option in many nations of the past.

I agree that Uranus is not necessarily tied to liberal causes. I've looked at charts for the formation of the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement in the US, and Uranus figures prominently. But holy smokes, is the Tea Party ideologically driven!

Each of the political leaders you cite was/is ideologically driven. Sometimes ideology is merely a way to dress up baser motives, but it is very different from raw aggression in a "might makes right" calculus.

I am not sure what "whole theory" you believe I base anything on. But here is why Uranus isn't Mars. Mars is to raw agression as Uranus is to ideologies of liberation. Mars may symbolize the violence (beatings, lynchings) that keep the under-classes in their place. (Think slavery in the American South, or Rome, I suppose.) Uranus is the ideology that says, "All men are created equal." And of course, no planet works in isolation from other planets. Mars + Saturn vs. Mars + Uranus should play out very differently in mundane affairs.

I think the idea of Aquarius as a watery sign reflects the Mediterranean environmental heritage. When the sun is in Aquarius, this region is still in the midst of its winter rainy season.

More later on your further points, Mark. Thank you for starting such a stimulating thread.

Hi Mark-- I appreciate your efforts to regularize the modern outers in some coherent way. Some further thoughts on the latter portion of your post to me:

Mark wrote: .....

I adopt an approach to the outer planets in delineation terms rather like fixed stars in traditional astrology. (1) Like fixed stars they rule no signs. (2) Using the traditional attitude to fixed stars given by Ptolemy I think their nature should be related back to the nature of one of the 7 visible planets. Ptolemy?s approach to fixed stars has a primary planet followed by a secondary one. Here is a working model of what I propose:

Uranus: Mars and Mercury (hot and dry). Cardinal in operation
Neptune: Moon and Venus (cold and moist) Mutable in operation
Pluto: Saturn and Mars (cold and burning?) Fixed in operation

On reflection this is perhaps a more practical approach than trying to agree on sign associations as I originally proposed. (3) These bodies have no rulership of any sign. However, even points like nodes and lots have planetary dispositors. Hence the outers are strongly influenced by the dispositor planets of the signs they are in. Hence, we see a Mars disposited Uranus in the sign of Aries at present.

This approach will obviously not appeal to moderns using Uranus as a planetary ruler (or joint ruler). Its not intended to. I think the difference in approach is to wide to attempt a consensus on this. (4) However, I offer it more for traditional astrologers looking for an approach to the outer planets.

(5) If Uranus , as many moderns insist, is really just a ?higher octave of Mercury' surely it should have 'rulership' of Gemini and/or Virgo? And if Uranus is a higher ?octave of Mercury why oh why is it linked to Aquarius? Both the mercury ruled signs are mutable while Aquarius is fixed??? I cannot see any logic or philosophical consistency in this approach.

(6) Frankly, I have found the idea of joint rulers only leads to muddle and confusion in terms of accurate delineation. Maybe it can be made to work in a fashion for a generalised psychological reading but for areas like horary, elections or natal prediction I think it is a recipe for total confusion. This is probably the principle reason I took up traditional astrology in the first place.

Mark

(1) An interesting approach, except that the modern outer planets do not operate like fixed stars. They operate like planets, just more slowly than the traditional seven. Uranus changes signs roughly every seven years. Even a "generational" planet like Pluto is now on its 6th sign in my lifetime.

(2) The modern outer planets rule their respective signs so brilliantly that I see no reason to boot them out. I note that the word "rule" has several different meanings in astrology, but as domicile rulers they work just fine, including as house cusp rulers (lords.) I use both traditional and modern rulers in natal chart interpretation and its derivatives, and have never had a problem with dual rulers.

I am less competent in horary astrology, but there it makes a little more sense to me to stick with the traditional planets only. A "generational" planet works well in a natal chart, because we are creatures of our generation. And a "generational" planet also becomes highly personal, however, when it aspects a planet or angle. In horary, which goes by the fleeting moment, I am less taken with the idea that every question over, say, a 10- or 20-year period will have Pluto in the same sign. There I would use the modern outers as supplementary info-bytes.

(3) I think modern planets work fine as dispositors. Depending on whether I go traditional or modern, I have Mercury in mutual reception with Uranus and/or Saturn. They both make sense to me.

(4) It would be nice to drive no further wedges between modern and traditional astrology. I don't think the moderns will pigeon-hole tidily into traditional essential dignities and debilities. And I don't see that as a problem.

(a) Karen Hamaker-Zondag, in her book on horary astrology, inserts the moderns as day rulers of their respective signs. Maybe this is just her thing, or perhaps it is more widely accepted in Dutch or non-Anglo astrology more generally, I don't know.

(b) The moderns work well in decans and dwads.

(c) The moderns work in accidental dignities and debilities

I recommend that traditional astrologers who wish to use the modern outer planets simply consider a different category for them. They are not traditional planets, fixed stars, Arabian parts, or what have you. This way, furthermore, the moderns don't intrude on the traditional system of dignities and debilities.

(5.) I really do not care for the "octave" idea of modern esoteric astrology. It is more like a spiritual belief about planets (if not "cotton candy for the soul") than a method with real utility. I have no idea how anybody could actually use octaves in a natal chart reading where the native asks about her ideal career or why she is still single at age 40.

(6). I don't think joint rulers of signs leads to any "muddle or confusion" once traditional astrologers are used to working with them. To cite analogies, many children have two parents, some citizens have two types of heads of state (president/monarch and prime minister), or two supervisors at work.

In analysizing a chart, I look at both traditional and modern rulers. No problem. To take the example of Aquarius sun people, usually it's a no-brainer to see whether Saturn or Uranus is the more influential planet in the person's life. If Uranus isn't up to much in the horoscope, yet the Aquarian sun's house cusp is in Capricorn with some other Capricorn planets besides, then let's give Saturn more influence than Uranus. If Uranus is a big focalizer in the person's chart and Saturn isn't a big player, then we've got a more Uranian guy or gal.

"Generalized psychological reading"? Big Ouch there, Mark.

To me, aspects are the most important part of a chart interpretion. The tighter the orb, especially with a hard aspect, the more the person is going to feel it. Planets in aspect are up there in the sky regardless of whether you use a tropical or sideral zodiac, whole-signs or Placidus, or any of the derivative itsy-bitsies of essential dignities or Arabian parts!

Each planet stands for something. It also has attributes (notably by element.) Uranus indicates sudden change, which can make it extremely useful in predictive work.

Once we grasp these two principles, there doesn't have to be anything mushy or muddly about astrology and its use of modern outer planets.

No, I do not think Uranus is a "higher octave" of Mercury. (Give me a little credit. Surprised ) The "octave" approach is from a brand of modern esoteric astrology to which I do not subscribe.

Hey any quick history of or takes on the "octave" concept? I've seen it mentioned on some of the information pages here on Skyscript.

Phil, I think the idea of modern outer planets as higher octaves of inner planets comes from Alice Bailey's brand of esoteric astrology-- maybe some of the theosophists developed it before her, I don't know. It was picked up by subsequent modern esoteric astrologers like Alan Oken, who studied with Bailey.

The esoteric astrologers (of various stripes) seem/ed to believe that people are on an evolutionary journey-- or should be. The contemplation of astrology, with its signs, planets, and houses serves as a set of stations through which the enlightened seeker passes. The outer modern planets supposedly stand for concepts like transfiguration, transsubstantiation, and regeneration.

This type of astrology wasn't designed to answer the ordinary, pragmatic questions of people's lives, but to reposition astrology as a kind of spiritual study through which higher states of consciousness could be achieved.

(Mark, this is one reason why I don't think the octave concept will help in fitting Uranus into astrological practice, if one's foci are the various pragmatic questions that most astrologers address. Equating Uranus to a "higher octave of Mercury" or "transfiguration" does exactly....what?)

Possibly the term "octaves" has its roots in the ancient Greek idea of the "music of the spheres," with distances between planets (or the spheres they presumably occupied) corresponding to different musical intervals.

I haven't followed all these posts, having only now seen the title.

My own view is that I associate Uranus with Aries and have done for some time now. I use traditional rulerships and recognise that some planets seem to have something in common with the timbre of a given sign - Pluto with Scorpio makes sense to me, though there are aspects of Pluto which I associate with all the Fixed signs (attachment and power). Similarly Neptune I associate with Pisces, though it has some affinity with all the mutable signs. Uranus with Aries though for me it has some affinity with all the cardinal signs.

I do not go so far as to talk of modern rulerships or higher octaves or anything like that.

Waybread mentions that this came from Alice Bailey. I am not sure about that. However one point from, I believe, Bailey is that Uranus is a veil of the Sun, Neptune a veil of the Moon. And there's something about this which I do think works or has some resonance with me. Seeing Uranus as an individuating process or a process of 'self' or separation of self from other makes a great deal of sense to me, and if you want to link that to the Sun, then I can see something in it that I could go along with. Similarly the Moon can have a receptive and 'blurring the lines' quality, the antithesis of definition and individuation that might be seen by Uranus/Sun, and I can go along with linking this with the Moon.

When I see Uranus in a chart, I am broadly thinking in terms of sudden change, disruption, separation and excitable conflict, and I think all the cardinal signs can relate to some degree with this changeable nature, and to some degree Aries more so. Similarly the 'separating' one from another, and the defining of a given thing from another is quite individuating in a way that does make me think of the Sun.
Just as the blurring together or melding or pooling effect of Neptune, and its tendency to give rise to illusion can remind me of the Moon.

I believe Melanie Reinhart takes a similar idea, also from Bailey, in one of her books (I cannot remember which one now).

Apologies if this doesn't further any of the discussion here, I just wanted to put my $0.02 out there simply because, like Mark is wondering, I associate Uranus with Aries myself. I do not discount Aquarius completely, but for me, it makes better sense to have an association with Aries. I have not read anyone else make the outer planet - mode connection, or suggest Uranus and Aries so for someone else to do it is really exciting for me. I have made a similar point as this on a few threads on astro.com over the last few years, just throwing out my ideas on it. It's interesting that someone else would come to the same conclusion independently.

waybread wrote: It always puzzles me (if I might lean on your post a little) however, when people describe Uranus in only negative terms. It isn't a malefic; a concept that many modern astrologers reject, in any case. If Uranus symbolizes disruption, it also symbolizes liberation. Things sudden and unexpected can be happy occasions. Think serendipity, or a sudden release from an unwanted circumstance.

But what is the criterion of what takes on the quality of a malefic, and are malefics always seen as bad?
In my view no. Mars rules fire, for example, and we might see it as a good example of a malefic. Fire burns, hurts, kills, destroys. But it also warms, provides light and so on, and yet Mars is still a malefic.

I think the problem is in presuming that Malefic = Always Evil/Bad. And it doesn't. It means intemperate in its qualities. Fire is excessive or intemperate in its qualities. Uranus is also, hence malefic.

In any event even in the tradition, malefics well placed can act benefically, so traditional astrology has always recognised that context is an important criterion as to whether a disruptive or excessive quality produces positive or negative results.

I recommend that traditional astrologers who wish to use the modern outer planets simply consider a different category for them. They are not traditional planets, fixed stars, Arabian parts, or what have you. This way, furthermore, the moderns don't intrude on the traditional system of dignities and debilities.

It's worth highlighting that Mark hasn't said he uses them as a fixed star or arabic part or what have you. He said he uses them like fixed stars, in that they do not rule signs - ie, they do not have domicile rulership over a given sign.
Of course modern astrologers do something different, but many traditional astrologers who do use modern planets do something similar to what Mark is saying here. I do the same. I think outers have natural symbolism, many of which can be seen by combinations of traditional planets. Maybe it would have been better to say "unlike traditional planets, they rule no signs" rather than "like fixed stars they rule no signs".

Of course by placing these caveats and conditions on the outer planets they are already placed into a different category than fixed stars, traditional planets, or arabic parts - it is just that we do not always have a word for this, unless of course the word we want to use is 'outer planet'.

Thanks, waybread. I'd seen the "octave" term here and there but didn't think much of it. I remember reading something Rob Hand wrote comparing Mercury and Uranus, noting how they're both visible to the naked eye but difficultly so, how they both "blink in and out of existence", or something like that.