Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:28 am**

Michael Sternbach wrote:

As I wrote in aforesaid post, I do respect the classical scheme, but some of its planets now become co-rulers. By the same token, it seems reasonable to assume that the trans saturnians are co-rulers of the hitherto only "classically ruled" signs - which may, to a degree, reconcile those who think that Pluto should be assigned to Aries. And still to be found planets accordingly to further signs in the order of the signs (for example, Therese - by the way, your Zoroastrian text fragment is fascinating [] ).

I think so, too. And all we have is a fragment recorded by Gregory of Nicaea (C.E. 330-395), original source and date unknown.

I have found strong evidence that the classical planets that were formerly exclusively ruling these signs should still be considered co-rulers. For reasons of symmetry, it could be argued that Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto should then be co-rulers of Capricorn, Sagittarius, and Aries. This is an area open to research.

Michael, have you seen the exaltation and rulership chart at the link below? I find it very interesting how the new planet domiciles (or affinities) may fall in the lunar half of the zodiac in relation to the exaltation signs. I'm trying to find a way to have the chart professionally drawn with shading for the lunar signs. http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:42 am**

waybread wrote: I am fascinated by the question of how Uranus became associated with Aquarius, as well as how those first post-discovery astrologers understood Uranus. The two questions are linked.

To a certain level I completely agree. How Uranus became associated with Aquarius is interesting, and we can examine this, but if we ourselves make conclusions on a given set of logic, then we are, implicitly, agreeing or accepting the premise. Whilst we can be interested in what Raphael said, if you yourself are then making a conclusion on it, then you are accepting his premises - otherwise you're rejecting all the premises and logic that went into the argument and just deciding to agree with the conclusion - this is what I see you doing with Raphael's quote, which is why I begin to wonder if there isn't a sense of latching on to anything which posits that Uranus rules Aquarius.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you do think of Saturn as having similar traits to Uranus as per the traits that Rapahel himself gave. If you, as you say, do not agree with Raphael's logic, but link Uranus and Saturn for other reasons, it's those other reasons we need to stick with if are to form a conclusion or judgement (which you did following Raphael's argument). That's all I'm trying to say.

(BTW, the 1806 "Dutch" source cited by Eddy in the 2003 Uranus thread is actually (for some reason) a Dutch "cover" on English content.) But it is just a brief and derogatory mention of an astrologer's use of Uranus in interpreting Napolean's horoscope. English astrologers, at least seemed interested in incorporating "Georgium Sidum" or "Herschel," as they called it.

Okay, I still agree with your point about how focused we are on the english language and what gems we might uncover from studying other languages though.

A genesis can be based on fallacious grounds and still yield some good results with subsequent development. Traditional astrology's genesis was the worship of planets as gods. People made animal sacrifices to them.

Right, but then people held Ceres, Neptune etc. as gods too. So really it is not that traditional astrology's genesis is in the worship of planets as gods, as though this is somehow distinct from modern astrology, and rather that planets were seen, at one point in time, as being gods.

Of course we can "pick and choose" fom a given author's work! This is only sensible. If we apply some critical thinking, we can accept parts of it while rejecting others. (Which you did with my post, incidentally.)

Of course, the problem obviously is when what we're picking and choosing is such that we choose to completely disagree with the main premise and logic for building a case and just agree with the conclusion - it becomes then meaningless to cite that logic and case.

I am not the one who came up with the modern "Uranus smashing the boundaries of Saturn" definition, and I do not actually like it.

No, but my question was do you actually see Saturn and Uranus as depicting the things that Rapahel says about Uranus - because my educated guess is that you don't, having had the liberty to see, from time to time, your interpretation of charts, and of course your own keywords you use to describe Uranus.

I would happily update Saturn, because I don't see it as malefic as many of the old traditional astrologers did. I think both Saturn and Uranus work well as rulers of Aquarius.

Right, you've said that multiple times, but really what I'm questioning isn't whether you think Saturn and Uranus work well as rulers of Aquarius (after 17 pages I think we can all appreciate that this is your view) but whether you agree with Raphaels' logic, and if not, why cite it as a supporting argument, historical interest aside, you cite it as a supporting argument implicitly, by making a conclusion based off this logic. Raphael says "because of X, Y and Z, Uranus has some affinity to Aquarius" and you say "I disagree with X, whole heartedly disagree with Y, and haven't really said anything either way about Z but my posts strongly suggest I think otherwise, but as we can see from Rapahel, Uranus works fine in Aquarius".

I doubt you're meaning to do this of course, but I thought it worth pointing out so we don't just argue for the sake of arguing and we limit our sources and points to those we actually believe in ourselves. You've returned to doing this in your latest post (Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:35 am).

Ultimately, as I have said multiple times, the only thing we will be left with is you suggesting that Uranus rules Aquarius, me suggesting it doesn't, and that will be that. We really do not need to cite authorities to justify our preferences - you can like impressionist art, to use your analogy, without needing to cite some other artist who also liked impressionist art to make your case.

The question for me, then, to keep using your analogy, is in whether we say "I am an impressionist artist" or "I am an artist". For me the answer would be the latter.
However, if you say that the one thing you gain from this thread is that you "actually prefer to keep modern and traditional astrology as separate schools" (Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:28 pm), then what you're implying is that you would wish to keep "Impressionist Art" distinct from "Abstract Art", and really I don't see why we would do this. I know I said this pages ago, but really the divide is only as big as it is in our own minds. Mark has agreed with you on this so it's probably refreshing to find that myself and Mark have a point with which we can disagree with one another on, after pages of agreeing with on another

For me, I think it's fine to stick with impressionist art if you prefer it, but there's really no reason to draw up those divides. To use Mark's analogy, we can prefer Jazz over Classical or Pop, but we shouldn't pretend that Music itself generates those divides, whilst we can classify and label particular types of music (or astrology), there is, for me, no reason why a given artist wouldn't mix classical pieces or techniques with pop music or anything else. There are so many examples of this, whether it's George Harrison employing eastern musical styles or Paul McCartney incorporating complex classical music techniques into a pop genre etc. Whilst I accept that all these things are a matter of taste and preference, I think it's important that we continue to see them as a matter of taste and preference, and not as some immutable divide across the front lines, where never the two should or could meet.

I am not saying you are arguing for this, but I want to really put the focus back on this being just a matter of style. I have absolutely no problem and perceive absolutely no divide in using something like Zodiacal Releasing in one instance and then talk to someone about how they lack Air in their chart or that they have a T-Square in their chart to Saturn. Then I might consider that Saturn is in sect and well dignified and receives one of the planets. There is no divide then for me. Whilst I do agree with the idea that your chart may indicate what your preferences or styles are, I think it's worth also pointing out that this works for everyone (as Mark pointed out with his Neptune issues example). Having been schooled by Frank Clifford, I do recognise what he means by this Saturn issues thing, really I think it's more true to say that when Saturn is strongly placed in the chart, then you're probably more likely to enjoy a structured approach to things, and there's something about the tradition, with its minutiae of rules, that is probably appealing. It is not necessarily an issue. Similarly people who have, of course, Uranus, in their chart, or Neptune, probably prefer a less organised or less structured approach to things, and so find many of the approaches in modern astrology to be more appealing.

Heck, as someone with Saturn in the first and aspecting one luminary, and then Uranus aspecting the other luminary, and jupiter aspecting both, maybe this is why I am fine with not bothering with these divides. I use whatever works for whatever reason I have to do astrology. Sometimes then, I will play a bit of Jazz, and other times a bit of Pop, sometimes I'll use an impressionist style and others a post-modern one. Ultimately what I'll have done is still art, and it may be that in some contexts or for some individuals, depending on their needs, you might want to focus more on one than the other.

And for me that's okay.

waybread wrote: (Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:35 am)
If I articulate my views on Saturn and Uranus, hopefully I can clarify their joint operation
...
Uranus is fundamentally about extending the frontiers, whether personal or social. But if all it achieves is some sort of childish disruption for no purpose, those frontiers do not get expanded.

Thanks waybread, I agree with several things you have said, and disagree with others. I do agree in general with a lot of what you're saying here, but I would only caveat that I really do not see Uranus as chiefly expanding frontiers - altering them, certainly, breaking into them, of course, but not necessarily expanding. Just changing - making something fixed and apparently permanent to be disturbed and changed, often quickly. In this context we see Saturn as quite antithetical to this - we do not need to put a theosophist under as a crutch for this idea, I think it can stand on its own with any recourse to what a theosophist might say.

But hey, that we don't all agree makes the world that bit more creative no doubt.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:18 am**

Michael Sternbach wrote:Since you are asking me to elaborate several fairly complex matters, in order to answer adequately, my post is not going to be exactly a short one...

Thanks Michael, I think one thing we have all learned is how much we all have to say on this issue, judging by the length of all of our replies - as we push into page 17 of this thread!

Nevertheless, wouldn't you agree, they are all just fine the way Nature has made them?

I agree, but then malefics are not about being antithetical to nature, they are about being too extreme for us little mortals. To return to my fire example (with fire being like mars), we all agree fire is naturally extremely hot, and that's just as nature made it. But nobody would suddenly decide that they wish to pick up a bit of fire in their hands - we all recognise that, natural or not, it is so extremely hot to us that it has the potential to damage us greatly. Of course if we place it where it ought to go, like a fire place, the it can give light and warmth. And so we can recognise some traditional logic here - fire is dangerous and can hurt us, but can be beneficial if contained. Similarly mars is a malefic in that it can be very destructive, and yet put it in sect and dignity and it can be beneficial to us.

Remember when we say malefic here, we really do not mean evil as per the modern definition. We just mean too extreme.

I, for one, do realise this. Actually, this is exactly what I wrote. Of course, in the traditional scheme this modification by circumstances applies to "benefics" as well as "malefics" - so why not consider both of them rather neutral in the first place?

For the simple expedient that as people, we prefer that which is pleasurable and carries less connotation of stress and conflict, to things which create conflict or are destructive. As a similar analogy, why don't we just consider all events to be neutral - whether that's getting a massive pay increase or losing your job. One has the connotation of a benefic, the other a malefic. We can use these principles, whether we care to use the words malefic and benefic or not, to recognise that there are certain spectrums of existence - not everything is perceived neutral and our astrology benefits, I think, when we recognise this. Whether we use the terminology or not is besides the point. As I say, modern astrologers do the same thing, they just avoid using the words.

I agree with her that this seems to go a little too far, though. But consider: No Pluto = no putrefaction (dead bodies of all species lying around everywhere ? yuck!). No sex life!!! No Mickey Mouse comics! At least in the modern astrological understanding. - Sure enough, Pluto's lectures are rather harsh sometimes.

Well I personally do not attribute Pluto to sex life, and of course with no Pluto there's still Saturn for our dead bodies, but I take your point.

However, the Sun occupies the central orbit in the geocentric system (that would be the fourth, independent from where you start counting).

Now, the order given still holds if you switch to a heliocentric perspective - except that the Earth and the Sun exchange their positions.

Right, but then we're changing the logic of the model to allow a conclusion we prefer, rather than deriving our conclusion from the logic of the model, this is what I mean. It assumes, a priori, that Uranus goes where it does.

As I wrote in aforesaid post, I do respect the classical scheme, but some of its planets now become co-rulers.

Right, unless of course they don't. It depends on your view. For me they don't, for you they do.

Why the slow movement of a body should disqualify it as a sign ruler is beyond my comprehension, frankly.

Michael that question got me wondering - what characteristics are actually needed for a ruler? Does it have to be a body? Could a point be one? Could a fixed star? What exactly do we mean by ruler anyway? How is the expression of a planet/point in its sign differ from when it's not, does it differ at all?

Since Uranus is the innermost of them, this puts him in a position comparable to the Sun's among the classical planets. O. k., you may object to this that there are seven ?classics? but (in my scheme) only five transsaturnians.

What I was interested in particular is that you specify the inner planets, not the five classical planets. Also if we are to take this logic, what do we mean exactly by innermost?

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:35 am**

Mark wrote:Amongst tropical astrologers I think this is the most fundamental issue that separates astrologers in their delineation of charts. We may disagree on house systems, aspects, or particular niche techniques like lots, antiscia, midpoints or asteroids. However, I see this issue as effectively an unbridgeable difference. Especially,with the increasing trend in modern astrology to not even consider traditional rulers of signs. I confronted this issue in my Association lately when we discussed who should run our beginners classes. Should our teacher be an modern astrologer who only uses modern rulers or a more traditional astrologer who works with outers but uses traditional rulers? I try very hard as a Chair to not to let my personal astrological beliefs colour decisions like this but I was deeply uncomfortable that someone could be teaching astrology without any consideration given to the traditional rulers whatsoever.

Hi Mark

As I said in my reply to Waybread, I really do not see anything all that unbridgeable about it, unless in such ways that we make it so. If nothing else, we can at least imagine or hypothesise about an astrologer who uses traditional rulerships and uses midpoints, elemental imbalances, aspect patterns, and pays close attention to Juno. Similarly we can imagine someone who uses modern rulers and focuses closely upon circumambulations and profections. The divide is only where we make it and we can all personally unmake it as we will.

What is perhaps a more difficult bridge to cross is not so much with the technical aspects of the astrology we do as the philosophies we bring to our astrologies and indeed why we are doing astrology to begin with. If we automatically are more inclined to take the stance that the chart is depicting only some model of our inner selves, however we define that, then we are perhaps more inclined to find the writings of modern psycholgoical astrologers more in keeping with our particular paradigms. Similarly if we take a more holistic view that the chart depicts outwardly realities as well as inwardly then we may be disinclined from that approach.

IN doing this we begin finding ourselves 'following' or being inspired by certain authors, and by extension, find ourselves being roped into their particular idiosyncrasies.

Then there's the issue of free will and fatalism as it is perceived by astrologers. There is absolutely no point in getting into exactly how these things were perceived by astrologers of their time through the millennia which is often complicated and far from as simple many astrologers today wish to believe. What matters is the person who says "I believe in free will and astrology of ancient times didn't" - reality and truth are not important here.

I have had the luxury of having my chart read by exactly two professional astrologers. One was a modern astrologer the other was a traditional one (Ben Dykes via Skype). My own experience has proven to me that modern astrologers can be exceptionally fatalistic and damaging - I was spoken to at length about how terrible a person I was in a previous life, how I would never find love in this life (I have saturn, the ascendant AND the south node all in scorpio, which of course explains all this) and how I all manner of terrible things will befall me as a result of this negative karma, but to not lose hope, as it means my next life will be all the much better for it.

An extreme example of a modern astrologer perhaps, but it's worth making the point that the techniques that one uses tells us absolutely nothing about the paradigms and philosophies of the astrologer nor about how helpful or sensitive they are to a potentially vulnerable client.

On the other hand the traditional astrologer didn't bother talking about unverifiable things, and instead focused on practical solutions to practical problems, mentioned my likely return to University (at the time I had applied privately without telling anyone), and gave a list of dates of likely manifestation of varying things. It was, in some ways, exhausting in the sense of trying to maintain focus on all the information that needed to be conveyed to me. For the first time ever I needed to relisten to the recordings I was given. In the end not only did I come away feeling more empowered by the consultation, but I also had a infinitely more accurate reading as well. Which, really, when it boils down to it, is what it's all about right?

So I think the more important thing isn't in what techniques we use, as much as how we use and employ them. The mark of a good astrologer, for me, isn't in the techniques they use but how they wield the tools they do use. I am sure there are some, in my view, excellent astrologers who may only use sun signs or a very limited scope of techniques. And I'm sure there are many that use every traditional or modern technique under the sun and are woeful astrologers.

And then I am sure there are many who use traditional and modern techniques all the time, and this really tells us nothing about how they are using them, what their paradigms and philosophies are, because really I think there is no gulf between the techniques whatsoever, there are only gulfs in how we use them, and for what reason.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:48 am**

There are times when I wish we had a "like" button in the forum.

Posted: **Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:07 pm**

Paul sounded like Professor Paul Bloom

May his next life be not as terrible as the present one.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:44 pm**

Hi Mark, re: yours Mar 09, 2014 9:10 pm

Malefics and benefics

Mark wrote: 08, 2014 2:43 am

But in astrological terms the planets have historically been seen as having different natures. This dates back to Babylonian times before the Greeks applied Aristotelian qualities to them.

Another way of looking of looking at a planet's nature is based on the planetary sigils: Saturn's glyph consists of a moon under a cross, the latter symbolizing the physical (earth = the four elements or directions); and Mars' glyph (in one variation) is a circle (sun) under a cross. The benefics' glyphs are exactly reversed: Jupiter is a moon over a cross, Venus a circle over a cross. The way I read this, the material forces are dominating the spiritual in a malefic; vice versa with the benefics. The division into malefics and benefics may then reflect a certain gnostic perspective according to which the physical world is conceived as inherently bad, the spiritual world as good. Not a point of view that I would subscribe to - but in terms of etheric energies, it's fair to say that the malefics have a stronger tendency to lower the frequency while the benefics tend to lift it up. Sure enough, living in a physical world, we need both types of influences. I wouldn't make a dualistic bad/good thing out of it, which the ancient terms however imply.

Mark wrote: 08, 2014 2:43 am

Its true in our culture the word doesn?t go down to well with many. But I feel modern western culture has an excessively libertarian/free will view on everything. These ideas developed in cultures that took a more fated view of destiny. While I am not an ancient Greek/Roman I find some aspects of their outlook not too dissimilar to my own. I am influenced by Buddhist philosophy and the Stoic and Neo-Platonist outlooks have some interesting parallels.

That's what it boils down to, the word reflects a fatalistic/Stoic philosophy, not unlike Buddhism's notion that ?life is suffering? (notwithstanding the fact that I often found the atmosphere more exhilarating in Japanese temples than in western churches ? but that's going off-topic). I'm not na?ve, but I'm more comfortable with the idea that we create our own destiny and have a high degree of ?artistic? freedom in doing so; that basically ?(not even) the sky is the limit?. This is reflecting the strong Jovian and Uranian influences in my chart. Free will, in my view, is a function of the innermost self which is not subject to the planetary influences (but may be symbolically seen as residing at the center of the chart).

Mark wrote: 08, 2014 2:43 am

For example as the greater malefic Saturn has more destructive potential than Jupiter. For example, when Jupiter lacks dignity it weakens its protective potential. However, as a benefic its destructive potential is less than Saturn. In the traditional view nothing is as destructive as a debilitated malefic in a powerful placement by house/angle.

If you define ?malefic? and ?benefic? this way, I agree.

Rulerships revised

Michael Sternbach wrote: Mar 02, 2014 4:03 pm

The scheme that I am suggesting coincides with a model I found in "Lehrbuch der klassischen Astrologie" by traditional astrologer Rafael Gil Brand. Brand fits the caducaeus (Hermes' wand, bearing the twin snakes) into the classical diagram. The "snake of the Moon" connects the classical planets, winding itself from Saturn in Capricorn to Jupiter in Sagittarius, Mars in Aries, Venus in Libra, Mercury in Gemini, and finally to the Moon in Cancer. The "snake of the Sun" connects all the transsaturnians, from Uranius in Aquarius to Neptune in Pisces, Pluto in Scorpio, a still undiscovered planet in Taurus, another in Virgo, and finally to the Sun in Leo.
First, one might wonder about the Sun being associated with the transsaturnians. But I remember Dane Rudhyar writing that, just like Mars is balanced by Venus, etc., the outer planets find their counterpoise in the interior of the Sun. Also, the transsaturnians are opening the solar system to the stellar world - and isn't the Sun a star, really?

Michael Sternbach wrote: Mar 08, 2014 2:43 am

Note that in this scheme classical planets are facing classical planets, and transsaturnians transsaturnians. The latter with the exception of Uranus opposite to the Sun, for which I have given an explanation in that same post. The two symbolical snakes fitted into the zodiac, one belonging to the Sun, the other to the Moon, once again bestow pivotal roles to the Luminaries, much in the way they own in the classical system.

Mark wrote: Mar 02, 2014 4:03 pm

Ok. For me that analogy is far too abstract. Its clever I grant you though. But it really only incorporates the luminaries in quite an indirect way. The classical system has them at its very core. Moreover, it relates to nature in a way your argument doesn't.

Incidentally, can I just clarify are these ideas your theory or those of Rafael Gil Brand you have adopted? In your original post of Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:03 pm you seem to attribute a lot of these ideas to him and his article Lehrbuch der klassischen Astrologie?

Its not a theory I am likely to adopt myself but this re-working of rulerships you suggest is very thought provoking

Thinking about the rulership question, I eventually concluded (based on practical as well as theoretical considerations) that the common modern view does work best, but that there are two still to be found transsaturnians required for Taurus and Virgo. Quite recently, I found Brand's scheme, ?confirming? my perspective and somewhat expanding it. So the schematic with the solar and lunar snakes is Brand's concept. Any further observations here regarding it are my own.

BTW, I have long ago worked out what you could call a variation of this rulership schematic which involves the luminaries in a more direct manner. But this would require a lengthy explanation (including plenty of background information), going well beyond the scope of this thread. However, as soon as I have published it somewhere, I will refer you to it.

Michael Sternbach wrote: Mar 02, 2014 4:03 pm

I have found strong evidence that the classical planets that were formerly exclusively ruling these signs should still be considered co-rulers. For reasons of symmetry, it could be argued that Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto should then be co-rulers of Capricorn, Sagittarius, and Aries. This is an area open to research.

Mark wrote: Mar 08, 2014 2:43 am

So you see Uranus as a co-ruler of both Aquarius and Capricorn! What evidence do you have then for Uranus co-ruling Capricorn with Saturn?

I suppose this arrangement means you only require two more planetary bodies to assign co-rulers to all the non-luminary signs.

Mark wrote: Mar 09, 2014 9:57 pm

Now you have added to the pot the idea of Uranus co-ruling Capricorn so I am very intrigued to see your argument to support this. It does seem quite counter-intutive to me.

Mark, this is quite a recent idea of mine. I feel it should be considered in the interest of having a balanced scenario of rulerships. I gladly accept your challenge. Actually, I'm already working on the issue and will write a post about it soon. Thanks for making me think about this!

Michael Sternbach wrote: Mar 09, 2014 9:10 pm

Now, the order given still holds if you switch to a heliocentric perspective - except that the Earth and the Sun exchange their positions. And, of course, the Moon falls out of the picture altogether as it is circling around the Earth. For reasons of symmetry, in the heliocentric model, an innermost circle may be substituted for the Moon's, belonging to the planet Vulcan (no, not Mr. Spock's home world). I hear some of you exclaiming: What else is Michael going to throw in?! However... such a body in the vicinity of the Sun has been sighted by a number of astronomers in history, but was always lost again - so it could never be confirmed. Nevertheless, many astronomers state good reasons for the existence of one or several small bodies orbiting the Sun very closely; they call them vulcanoids. In recent times, there are great efforts being made to observe them, involving the use of telescopes on plains and satellites. Once one of them will be established as a fact, it conceivably may be named Vulcan. For what it's worth, consider that notable esotericists like Steiner, Bailey, and Cacey included Vulcan in their systems. So from a heliocentric perspective, Vulcan (or a system of vulcanoids) would replace the Moon as a "counterpoise" to Saturn. - But this would be a theme for another thread.

Mark wrote: Mar 09, 2014 9:10 pm

I have to express scepticism on your hopes for another planet between Mercury and the Sun. Astronomers pretty much abandoned the idea of a large planetary body in this zone around WWW1. There might be some tiny objects there but the chances of another undiscovered planet there seems very slim.

I don't think that there would be a planet found between Mercury and the Sun, either. In my scheme, Vulcan would have to be something like a ?moon? to the Sun; a body that concludes the solar sphere just like the Moon has been seen as concluding the sublunar sphere (= Earth) by the ancients. It could well be an asteroid, or a system of asteroids (much like the gas planets have a system of moons), perhaps with a principal body. I wouldn't assign it any sign rulership of its own - from a geocentric perspective, it would belong to the solar sphere (and always be conjunct to the Sun). Its astrological effects would also be comparable to an asteroid's.

Mark wrote: Mar 09, 2014 9:10 pm

What about Ceres? It?s the only spherical asteroid and the largest by far. Plus astronomers consider it a dwarf planet. Not sure what sign it would tie in best to though.

Good question. Still thinking about this.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:11 pm**

Paul wrote:
waybread wrote: I am fascinated by the question of how Uranus became associated with Aquarius, as well as how those first post-discovery astrologers understood Uranus. The two questions are linked.

... Whilst we can be interested in what Raphael said, if you yourself are then making a conclusion on it, then you are accepting his premises - otherwise you're rejecting all the premises and logic that went into the argument and just deciding to agree with the conclusion - this is what I see you doing with Raphael's quote, which is why I begin to wonder if there isn't a sense of latching on to anything which posits that Uranus rules Aquarius.
Gosh, Paul. you really know how to hurt a girl! I've said that I don't accept most of what he wrote. But possibly we think about novel ideas in different ways and in different contexts. Is it possible for a text to be correct in some particulars, yet incorrect in others? Of course it is. Think of how an academic literature review, or a film review works.

I think you are reading my posts on Raphael through the belief that I derive a significant part of my beliefs about Saturn, Uranus, and Aquarius from his text. I do not. I do find his work interesting in the context of how modern astrology came to associate Uranus with Aquarius.

Of course, I think Saturn and Uranus share similar traits. I identified some similarities, prior to reading Raphael's manual. I realize that this perspective seems unorthodox to many, but then, hey-- so is exploring a Uranus-Aries connection.

I wrote:
A genesis can be based on fallacious grounds and still yield some good results with subsequent development. Traditional astrology's genesis was the worship of planets as gods. People made animal sacrifices to them.
You wrote:

Right, but then people held Ceres, Neptune etc. as gods too. So really it is not that traditional astrology's genesis is in the worship of planets as gods, as though this is somehow distinct from modern astrology, and rather that planets were seen, at one point in time, as being gods.
Not at all. Why does the planet Mars rule most things military? It is because the god Ares was the god of war. Why does the planet Mars rule various sorts of aggressive behaviour? Because such was the god's nature. Why does Mercury rule liars and thieves? Because the young god Hermes told lies and stole livestock. The ancient mythological legacy is with us today. But if I take your point, about a belief or theory having moved beyond its antecedents, then this would apply to modern astrology equally.

I wrote:
Of course we can "pick and choose" from a given author's work! This is only sensible. If we apply some critical thinking, we can accept parts of it while rejecting others. ...
Yours:
Of course, the problem obviously is when what we're picking and choosing is such that we choose to completely disagree with the main premise and logic for building a case and just agree with the conclusion - it becomes then meaningless to cite that logic and case.
You are drawing far more out of my discussion of Raphel's treatment of Uranus than I did. I did not cite him to demonstrate or "prove" a point that I happen to hold. (I noted Saturn-Uranus similarities prior to reading him-- I will scrounge up the post dates upon request.)

Raphael was worth describing in order to address the question of how Uranus came to be the modern ruler of Aquarius.

Me:
I am not the one who came up with the modern "Uranus smashing the boundaries of Saturn" definition, and I do not actually like it.
You:
No, but my question was do you actually see Saturn and Uranus as depicting the things that Rapahel says about Uranus - because my educated guess is that you don't, having had the liberty to see, from time to time, your interpretation of charts, and of course your own keywords you use to describe Uranus.
Actually the one part of Raphael's discussion of Uranus that still holds up today is where he talks about Uranian personalities in a more favourable light. He wrote (pp. 70-72)

"He causes the native born under his influence to be of a very eccentric and original disposition. Those persons born under his influence are unusually romantic, unsettled, addicted to change, and searchers after novelty. If the moon or Mercury and Herschel be well aspected, they are searchers after nature?s secrets, excellent chymists, and usually profound in the more secret sciences. He gives the most extraordinary magnanimity and loftiness of mind mixed with an uncontrollable and intense desire for pursuits or desire out of the ?track of custom.?

Ultimately, as I have said multiple times, the only thing we will be left with is you suggesting that Uranus rules Aquarius, me suggesting it doesn't, and that will be that. We really do not need to cite authorities to justify our preferences - you can like impressionist art, to use your analogy, without needing to cite some other artist who also liked impressionist art to make your case.
I do not think it is entirely a matter of personal taste. If this were the way astrology worked, it would be a far more individualistic, ideosyncratic field than it is. I have not based my argument on personal taste, but on experience. However, astrology operates with different schools of thought, and within their own paradigms, each can produce good interpretive results.

...the one thing you gain from this thread is that you "actually prefer to keep modern and traditional astrology as separate schools" (Fri Mar 07, 2014 10:28 pm), then what you're implying is that you would wish to keep "Impressionist Art" distinct from "Abstract Art", and really I don't see why we would do this. I know I said this pages ago, but really the divide is only as big as it is in our own minds. ...
To use the fine arts example, and following from my previous paragraph, we can think of astrology, the fine arts, and many other disciplines as operating under different paradigms. A proposition that works well in one school (Newtonian physics) does not work so well in another school (quantum physics.) A cooking style that works well in northern European cuisine (long slow simmering) would completely wreck a Chinese stir-fry dish.

Modern and traditional astrology already have huge areas of overlap, as I learned to my delight in studying traditional and horary astrology late in my career. But there is a point at which "fusion astrology" might only wreck what it is that different astrologers like about their own school of thought. Mark has referred to the logic and orderliness of traditional astrology: if I try to infuse it with too much Dane Rudhyar or Edgar Cayce, then I may trample on exactly the reasons why he left modern astrology in the first place.

So this is a sensitive negotiation! Looking for areas of overlap and agreement is a great place to start. Since you use a mix of traditional and modern methods in your own work, Paul, I would encourage you to start a thread on how you do this for a particular theme. As per your statement:

I have absolutely no problem and perceive absolutely no divide in using something like Zodiacal Releasing in one instance and then talk to someone about how they lack Air in their chart or that they have a T-Square in their chart to Saturn. Then I might consider that Saturn is in sect and well dignified and receives one of the planets. There is no divide then for me.
waybread wrote: (Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:35 am)
If I articulate my views on Saturn and Uranus, hopefully I can clarify their joint operation
...
Uranus is fundamentally about extending the frontiers, whether personal or social. But if all it achieves is some sort of childish disruption for no purpose, those frontiers do not get expanded.

Thanks waybread, I agree with several things you have said, and disagree with others. I do agree in general with a lot of what you're saying here,
Wow, Paul-- You just made my day!

but I would only caveat that I really do not see Uranus as chiefly expanding frontiers - altering them, certainly, breaking into them, of course, but not necessarily expanding. Just changing - making something fixed and apparently permanent to be disturbed and changed, often quickly. In this context we see Saturn as quite antithetical to this - we do not need to put a theosophist under as a crutch for this idea, I think it can stand on its own with any recourse to what a theosophist might say.
Perhaps-- Uranus can have an "out of the blue" quality to it. But so often in hindsight, we see that something that seemingly represents a big break with the past actually had all kinds of antecedents leading up to it. This is forcefully impressed on me by the current pro-Russian "uprising" in the Crimea. We can do the same thing with most revolutions or even automobile accidents. From the "God's eye view" there were all kinds of events leading up to the Crimean backlash, just as we might spot the trajectory of one speeding car heading into another.

Come to think of it, this looks like another Saturn-Uranus link. Ignore Saturn, and you get blind-sided by Uranus. Heed Saturn, and Uranus expresses its serendipity effect.

But hey, that we don't all agree makes the world that bit more creative no doubt.
Absolutely. Thesis, antithesis.... and if not synthesis, at least hopefully more clarity.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:42 pm**

If nothing else, we can at least imagine or hypothesise about an astrologer who uses traditional rulerships and uses midpoints, elemental imbalances, aspect patterns, and pays close attention to Juno. Similarly we can imagine someone who uses modern rulers and focuses closely upon circumambulations and profections. The divide is only where we make it and we can all personally unmake it as we will.

This was from Paul's reply on 10 march at 10.35 am Marks' earlier post on teaching trad or modern to new astrologers and I would question the idea that unmaking ideas is so easy. In astrology and in other "new age" pursuits I have noticed over the years that people always go back to the first things that they were taught. In astrology we may dub this the "the tenacious Uranus Effect"

Paul also mentions the practical reading from Dr Dykes but most of all astrologers he is one who most emphasises the philosophical ideas prevalent when astrology was practised including in his beginners primer book.

The ideas behind modern astrology like the influence of theosophy are well known. I might compare them to the neo-pagans I knew who worshipped bloodthirsty Goddesses and non PC Gods but never really altered their own middle class liberal mores.

But still one might gain by looking at olders ideas to challenge ones own preconceptions.

My tupennyworth

Matthew

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:02 pm**

waybread wrote: Gosh, Paul. you really know how to hurt a girl! I've said that I don't accept most of what he wrote. But possibly we think about novel ideas in different ways and in different contexts. Is it possible for a text to be correct in some particulars, yet incorrect in others? Of course it is. Think of how an academic literature review, or a film review works.

I certainly didn't mean to hurt you (or understand how I have) but really all I can go by is your own messages, so if you do not mean to derive your beliefs about Saturn, Uranus and Aquarius then I guess I have lost the point you were making, unless it was just an historical interlude. You seemed to mention to him in relation to finding a way around the problem of assignation when you say "Raphael" chose an interesting way around the problem" (Thu Mar 06, 2014 11:42 pm) from this I assumed that you agreed with it - but if not then okay.

You wrote:

Right, but then people held Ceres, Neptune etc. as gods too. So really it is not that traditional astrology's genesis is in the worship of planets as gods, as though this is somehow distinct from modern astrology, and rather that planets were seen, at one point in time, as being gods.
Not at all. Why does the planet Mars rule most things military? It is because the god Ares was the god of war. Why does the planet Mars rule various sorts of aggressive behaviour? Because such was the god's nature. Why does Mercury rule liars and thieves? Because the young god Hermes told lies and stole livestock. The ancient mythological legacy is with us today. But if I take your point, about a belief or theory having moved beyond its antecedents, then this would apply to modern astrology equally.

Yes, that is the gist of my point.

So this is a sensitive negotiation! Looking for areas of overlap and agreement is a great place to start. Since you use a mix of traditional and modern methods in your own work, Paul, I would encourage you to start a thread on how you do this for a particular theme. As per your statement:

I think a thread dedicated to how I interpret charts might well get very boring indeed! But really I am not sure why you might not be able to easily imagine someone talking about elemental imbalances in one instant and an abundance of, say, choler in another, and then discussing a t-square whilst paying attention to sect and reception and whether a planet involved is a given chronocrator. There is really no divide here. It isn't that I am wrecking my chinese stir fry by using european methods (to use your analogy) and rather that I am just cooking, and the importance is in the dish, and not how we describe that dish - the proof is in the eating, not in the naming.

Perhaps instead I will make an effort to answer a thread on the nativities section and you may see me interpret a chart, but really there's very little that might surprise you. I suspect a hard core traditionalist would recognise a lot of what I do and purse his/her lips at other parts, whilst a modern astrologer would be well able to follow along and just humour me on others.

Posted: **Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:11 pm**

Mjacob wrote:In astrology and in other "new age" pursuits I have noticed over the years that people always go back to the first things that they were taught. In astrology we may dub this the "the tenacious Uranus Effect"

Sure, but it's still a choice to do this, it is not that some divide exists in and of itself with regards technique, the interpretation perhaps, but this is dependent upon our own paradigms. Really it's still up to us. Of course if what you say is true, then we can see why Mark may be worried about what is taught originally to beginners. Personally I am not sure why a good compromise couldn't be in accepting the outers as co-rulers for the moment whilst caveating that they are somewhat debatable.

Really I think what happens more often is that beginners to astrology find a particular author, and as astrology is so new and the concepts so novel, they attribute this great wisdom not with the astrology, but with the amazing insights of the author - it is irrelevant if that author is regurgitating concepts from years or even millennia ago. Then that author will have many idiosyncrasies and the student starts to think if this is good enough for this author, then it's good enough for me.

Posted: **Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:32 pm**

Mark, re: yours Mar 09, 2014 9:57 pm

However, in the English speaking astrological community today the term ? traditional astrology? is seen as relating to medieval, renaissance and early modern astrology. More recently hellenistic astrological ideas have also been included under this umbrella term. While you may have been influenced by some ideas in that period your rejection of the basic rulership scheme puts your approach in a different category as I see it. Your clearly eclectic and do use some classical ideas but that in itself doesn't make a traditional (or neo-traditional) astrologer as I see it.

Hopefully I made it sufficiently clear meanwhile that my personal approach does not reject the traditional rulership system at all. Besides, what I meant to say was that I'm traditional to a certain degree (meaning: with a part of my astrological being... expressing my Saturn issues...)

. I'm the first to admit that I'm eclectic! "Neo-traditional" doesn't sound bad though... Or how about "retro-modern"? But we don't need to fight about this.

I like what some have said on this thread about intermingling traditional and modern techniques in one's practice (especially the music analogy). For a truly unified approach, there would be the question if and how the transsaturnian planets can be used with some traditional techniques that presuppose only the classical planets.

I don?t consider contemporary astrology as a science Michael so I dont really go with your basic assumption here. However, that discussion is really a topic on its own.

As I see it divination like astrology doesn't need to 'modernize' because it is based on symbolic or magical principles.

It has been said: ?There is no magic, only science that we don't understand.?

Alright, in case this sounds a little too positivist to you, let me state: I'm interested in a unified perspective that embraces both science and magic/mysticism. Because I'd like to know what kind of universe I'm living in.

Therese wrote: Mar 10, 2014 3:28 am

Michael, have you seen the exaltation and rulership chart at the link below? I find it very interesting how the new planet domiciles (or affinities) may fall in the lunar half of the zodiac in relation to the exaltation signs.

I experimented with a rulership arrangement equivalent to the one you are suggesting for a long time but eventually decided that the most common view (Pluto ruling Scorpio instead of Aries) works best. Having said this, I see a convergence of the two schemes as I start assigning double-rulerships not only to the classical but to the transsaturnians as well.

Studying your exaltation chart, I took the liberty to replace some of your exaltations with the ones preferred by me (Neptune exalted in Aquarius, Pluto in Leo, transsaturnian Taurus ruler in Gemini, transsaturnian Virgo ruler in Sagittarius) and this resulted in a scheme closely paralleling yours.

Thank you for making me consider this!!!

Paul, re yours Mar 10, 2014 11:18 am

Michael Sternbach wrote: Mar 08, 2014 3:43 amMar 08, 2014 3:43 am

However, the Sun occupies the central orbit in the geocentric system (that would be the fourth, independent from where you start counting).

Now, the order given still holds if you switch to a heliocentric perspective - except that the Earth and the Sun exchange their positions.

Paul wrote:

Right, but then we're changing the logic of the model to allow a conclusion we prefer, rather than deriving our conclusion from the logic of the model, this is what I mean. It assumes, a priori, that Uranus goes where it does.

I'm not quite sure if I'm getting you right here. I did not mean to derive Aquarius as Uranus' domicile but rather, taking this as given, aimed at reconciling it with the classical rulership scheme. In light of the theory that, in a higher sense, the Sun and the Earth are both central to the planetary system, the former being its energetic centre, the latter its material centre - as nowhere in the solar system except on (?mother?) Earth has matter reached the highly complex state of organisation that we know as biological life, vitalised by the Sun's energy (the ?father?).

Michael Sternbach wrote: Mar 08, 2014 3:43 am

Why the slow movement of a body should disqualify it as a sign ruler is beyond my comprehension, frankly.

Paul wrote:

Michael that question got me wondering - what characteristics are actually needed for a ruler? Does it have to be a body? Could a point be one? Could a fixed star? What exactly do we mean by ruler anyway? How is the expression of a planet/point in its sign differ from when it's not, does it differ at all?

Remarkable thoughts! A few ideas on this...

Firstly, I assume that every sign is ?ruled? by a planet as the domicile system suggests (by extrapolation). The sign is akin to the energy of its ruler, however, using an analogy from physics, the planet would resemble a point source of energy, but the sign an energy field. On the level of human beings, the planets represent different functions that are common to all humans (the ?what?), these are getting ?colored? by the signs the planets are in at birth (the ?how?). - I recall reading something on this topic in this forum not long ago.

What is the nature of a planet ?as such?? It may be useful to start with a consideration of how a planet expresses itself in its two signs. I am thinking about this at the moment while preparing a response to Mark's challenge to find arguments supporting Uranus as the co-ruler of Capricorn.

Can fixed stars be rulers? Can we say that the stars of a constellation are ruling the corresponding tropical sign? Is this the ?missing link? between the tropical and the sidereal zodiac? Wow, this offers a lot of food for thought...

Paul wrote: Mar 07, 2014 1:58 pm

Can you explain? I am not following how Uranus assumes a role akin to the Sun for the inner planets. What is this relationship/role that is so similar? What is the role of the Sun to the inner planets (which is presumably not true for the other planets) that is similar to the role of uranus to the transsaturnians?

Michael Sternbach wrote: Mar 08, 2014 3:43 am

Since Uranus is the innermost of them, this puts him in a position comparable to the Sun's among the classical planets.

Paul wrote: Mar 10, 2014 11:18 am

What I was interested in particular is that you specify the inner planets, not the five classical planets. Also if we are to take this logic, what do we mean exactly by innermost?

When I wrote ?inner planets? rather than ?classical planets?, I had a heliocentric picture of the solar system in front of mind's eye. The innermost body would then be the Sun, the outermost Saturn. This pattern repeats itself in the realm of the transsaturnians, correlating Uranus with the Sun, Neptune with Vulcan (which is equivalent to the Moon, if you have followed my argument until now), and Pluto with Mercury. This is paralleling Rob Smith's statements regarding these planets that people have been talking about earlier in this thread!

May The Force be with you
Michael

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Is Uranus Associated with Aries?

Re: Classical verses modern rulers - is there a reconciliati