Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:36 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"

Not always, but the Serial Position Effect needs factoring in. We are in the hazardous realms of cognitive biases here.

Delivering an Astrology class more academically where you could explore the meanings given to Uranus within their cultural/cognitive context, not only enables you to make a more informed choice as to which one(s) resonate but enables you to engage in more constructive conversations with others smitten by alternative schemas.

Stephen Forrest some years ago, I forget where I bumped into this now, remarked Astrological conferences had morphed into (my words here, and maybe a few liberties taken) a day out at the United Nations when the translators are on strike. Prior to the 1980?s developments Western astrologers tended to converse within a modern western/ modern theosophy mindset where the thinking and language is similar enough to enable semantically coherent communications. When the plethora of new, or new-old, ideas seeped in this resulted in a situation now a few decades on where only the few can talk to the many, or the many talk to the few.

I don?t think this is ideal, thus my suggestion astrology is taught historically both as regards the ideas within or behind the symbols/structures and the actual techniques used.

Posted: **Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:38 pm**

Paul, re: yours of March 11-- no, my feelings are not hurt-- this is just my gentle, vernacular way suggesting that your critiques of my posts could be taken as focused on points other than what I wrote or intended.

If I said that "Raphael chose an interesting way around the problem" [of adding Uranus to the horoscope] but equally gave him the very opposite of an endorsement, one can safely assume that I do not support his interpretation of Uranus.

I found Raphael's pairing of Saturn and Uranus interesting, however, because I (prior to reading his manual) proposed that there are some similarities between Saturn and Uranus. My correspondences are different than Raphael's, with the slight exception that he seemed to find Uranus prominent in the charts of "chymists" [sic] and innovative thinkers, who might possibly transfer into today's affiliation of Aquarius and science in modern astrology.

Paul, I take it that cooking is not one of your hobbies.

No matter.

Posted: **Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:59 pm**

Mark wrote: Mar 09, 2014 10:57 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.

Hi Mark,

you really got me thinking!

Let me briefly summarize the content of our conversation so far in this regard:

Once we accept the traditional as well as the modern rulership schemes (the way a number of astrologers do), we are faced with a logical problem: Why should (by extrapolation to include still to be found transsaturnians) only five signs have double rulers? Wouldn't it be natural to assume that if, for example, Aquarius has Uranus as its ruler and Saturn as its co-ruler, vice versa Capricorn should be ruled by Saturn and co-ruled by Uranus? But are there any arguments to be found in support of this theory?

In considering Uranus as Capricorn's co-ruler, we have to deal with the problem that in modern astrology we are so used to equating Uranus with Aquarius that it is not so easy to distinguish Uranus' inherent traits from the particular way these are being expressed in that sign. Mercury as the ruler of Gemini is certainly quite a different story from him ruling Virgo, the same applies to Venus in Libra verses Taurus. If my concept holds, Capricorn is the night-house of Uranus, so we can expect him to express himself in a more concealed fashion. Moreover, he is assumed to be co-ruling Capricorn and would therefore not be the dominating influence (which remains with Saturn).

This being said, let's consider which of Capricorn's traits an be seen as expressing the Uranian archetype (I will print bold what I perceive as belonging to Uranus rather than Saturn):

Contrary to popular belief, people with the Sun in Capricorn are not always readily submitting to Saturn's dictate. While they do tend to take their obligations very seriously, I have often times observed them to live in deep conflict with them, longing for freedom, and occasionally they indeed suddenly turn their back on their long-standing Saturnian duties. In fact, it seems in many cases that their very life theme is the tension between high expectations from life verses practical limitations.

Interestingly, Aquarius folks have to deal with exactly the opposite issue: They insist on their independence and idiosyncrasy but usually can't truly break away from responsibility, social expectations and the need for recognition (Saturn as co-ruler).

In light of the aforesaid, it comes as no surprise that Capricorn personalities are indeed capable of committing social sins. They frequently have a fun-seeking side to themselves that they may express in eccentric amusements (think of the ?horny goat?, God Pan).

Capricorns often have a pronounced sense of humour; some of them can be really witty.

The advanced Capricorn personality is capable of acting independently and against convention (if their integrity demands it).

Metaphysically speaking, Capricorn is aiming for the highest attainable state of human existence, arguably this being the true (albeit often unconscious) motivation for the perfectionism and the ambition they exhibit - not least in relation to themselves! What they are really pursuing is the autonomous individuality.

Many Capricorns I got to personally know have a noticeable interest in things esoteric.

The spiritually advanced Capricorn personality may indeed become the hermit seeking enlightenment. A good symbol for this would be an ibex standing in lofty heights on a mountain top.

Contrary to Saturn symbolizing darkness, the Sun entering Capricorn equals the winter solstice, followed by a steady increase of light. In conjunction with this, in the time of the Capricorn Sun we cheerfully celebrate the end of the old and the beginning of the new year.

Alright Mark, now I am really curious what you think about this! Also, I would like to invite others (Capricorn personalities in particular) to share their thoughts on this interesting topic.

Best regards
Michael

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:11 am**

Possibly at some point in the future, modern astrology research on Ceres (reclassified in 2006 as a dwarf planet,) Eris, Chiron (a "minor planet",) and others of the "planetoid" category will show *affiliations* with more of the signs.

Eris is probably larger than Pluto, and the mythology of Eris is a better match with Aries than is the mythology of Pluto. http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Eris.html The "eccentric" orbit of Eris sometimes brings it closer to the sun than the orbit of Pluto, which sort-of fits in with the progression of Uranus:Aquarius, Neptune:Pisces, Eris:Aries.

I don't want to make too much of this.

Posted: **Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:37 am**

Its been a very long thread so forgive me if this point has already been made earlier by someone else!

I just wanted to throw into the pot that it is interesting to compare Uranus in terms of its inclination to the ecliptic. Uranus is the closest of the other planets in the solar system to this at only 0.77? out. On the other hand, the dwarf planets Pluto and Eris have inclinations to the ecliptic of 17 degrees and 44 degrees respectively. This point seems to be an interesting astronomical point which links Uranus to the Sun in a quite different way. I am not linking this into traditional astrological philosophy here. Just a point I thought was interesting.

Mark

Posted: **Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:01 pm**

mark,

nice pic!

i think that is a good observation on how uranus sits fairly close to the path of the ecliptic and i think may have more relevance as a consequence.

i was mentioning how uranus is the only planet to roll on it's belly earlier in the thread.. here is a link that mentions this in the words below.. it also gives some astronomical stats on the planets out to neptune.
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/uranus.html

"Uranus is the only planet rotates on its side. This produces the strangest seasons of any planet in the solar system. For 21 years, Uranus's moons are seen as one would view a dart board, with one pole facing the sun. The next 21 years Uranus has its side to the sun, and the moons move up and down across the equator. then the cycle repeats itself starting with the other pole. Scientists aren't sure why this is, but they think that a large body smashed into it with such force that it pushed the planet over."

ps - nice to see that scientists also speculate!

Posted: **Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:24 pm**

Mark wrote:

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.

Hi Mark,

As you probably noticed, with my post of Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:59 pm I did quite a lot of homework on your behalf...

So I would be very interested in hearing your comment!

Best regards
Michael

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:16 pm**

Michael Sternbach wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:59 pm

Hi Mark,

you really got me thinking!

Let me briefly summarize the content of our conversation so far in this regard:

Once we accept the traditional as well as the modern rulership schemes (the way a number of astrologers do), we are faced with a logical problem: Why should (by extrapolation to include still to be found transsaturnians) only five signs have double rulers? Wouldn't it be natural to assume that if, for example, Aquarius has Uranus as its ruler and Saturn as its co-ruler, vice versa Capricorn should be ruled by Saturn and co-ruled by Uranus? But are there any arguments to be found in of this theory?

In considering Uranus as Capricorn's co-ruler, we have to deal with the problem that in modern astrology we are so used to equating Uranus with Aquarius that it is not so easy to distinguish Uranus' inherent traits from the particular way these are being expressed in that sign. Mercury as the ruler of Gemini is certainly quite a different story from him ruling Virgo, the same applies to Venus in Libra verses Taurus. If my concept holds, Capricorn is the night-house of Uranus, so we can expect him to express himself in a more concealed fashion. Moreover, he is assumed to be co-ruling Capricorn and would therefore not be the dominating influence (which remains with Saturn).

This being said, let's consider which of Capricorn's traits an be seen as expressing the Uranian archetype (I will print bold what I perceive as belonging to Uranus rather than Saturn):

Contrary to popular belief, people with the Sun in Capricorn are not always readily submitting to Saturn's dictate. While they do tend to take their obligations very seriously, I have often times observed them to live in deep conflict with them, longing for freedom, and occasionally they indeed suddenly turn their back on their long-standing Saturnian duties. In fact, it seems in many cases that their very life theme is the tension between high expectations from life verses practical limitations.

Interestingly, Aquarius folks have to deal with exactly the opposite issue: They insist on their independence and idiosyncrasy but usually can't truly break away from responsibility, social expectations and the need for recognition (Saturn as co-ruler).

In light of the aforesaid, it comes as no surprise that Capricorn personalities are indeed capable of committing social sins. They frequently have a fun-seeking side to themselves that they may express in eccentric amusements (think of the ?horny goat?, God Pan).

Capricorns often have a pronounced sense of humour; some of them can be really witty.

The advanced Capricorn personality is capable of acting independently and against convention (if their integrity demands it).

Metaphysically speaking, Capricorn is aiming for the highest attainable state of human existence, arguably this being the true (albeit often unconscious) motivation for the perfectionism and the ambition they exhibit - not least in relation to themselves! What they are really pursuing is the autonomous individuality.

Many Capricorns I got to personally know have a noticeable interest in things esoteric.

The spiritually advanced Capricorn personality may indeed become the hermit seeking enlightenment. A good symbol for this would be an ibex standing in lofty heights on a mountain top.

Contrary to Saturn symbolizing darkness, the Sun entering Capricorn equals the winter solstice, followed by a steady increase of light. In conjunction with this, in the time of the Capricorn Sun we cheerfully the end of the old and the beginning of the new year.

Alright Mark, now I am really curious what you think about this! Also, I would like to invite others (Capricorn personalities in particular) to share their thoughts on this interesting topic.

Best regards
Michael

Hello Michael,

Frankly, its difficult for me to respond on the case you present for Uranus being the co-ruler of Capricorn.

As you know I am one of those astrologers who works with the traditional rulership scheme and dont really perceive any real need to overhaul the existing system. As I see it you are posing a solution to a problem I dont recognise in the first place. As far as I am concerned the traditional rulership scheme works extremely well. So in fairness I am not the ideal customer to sell your ideas to.

You should probably be targeting modern astrologers. I would think that some modern astrologers might be open to your argument that the current modern rulership scheme is in a sense 'unfinished business' and therefore requires some reform. Arguably, it has logical inconsistencies that need some kind of resolution.

However, when I asked you if you had more evidence to support your theory I was really thinking of historical examples of Uranus in Capricorn to support this idea of a strong association between this sign and Uranus.

Based on some interim mundane research I would say that Uranus tends to be exceptionally socially disruptive (or progressive depending on your view) when in The Saturn ruled signs. This is also very noticeable when in it is in the Mars ruled signs too and especially Aries.

It seems that the Saturnian structures are undermined when Uranus is in Capricorn. If they don?t collapse then they do when Uranus moves into the more diurnal manifestation of Saturn in the sign of Aquarius.

During 1910-11 both the Mexican and Chinese revolutions occurred with Uranus in Capricorn. Although it is often ignored by westerners the latter was one of the most significant revolutions in world history. The Chinese revolution of 1911 brought to an end a monarchic tradition that stretched back further than the founding of the Roman Empire. Uranus was also in Capricorn in the late 1980?s and early 1990?s which witnessed the fall of the Berlin wall, the break up of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

To me it seems that the traditional meaning of Capricorn is quite inimical to Uranus. However, as I have no investment in either supporting or opposing your theory its probably more appropriate for other modern astrologers to take this issue up.

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Contrary to Saturn symbolizing darkness, the Sun entering Capricorn equals the winter solstice, followed by a steady increase of light. In conjunction with this, in the time of the Capricorn Sun we cheerfully the end of the old and the beginning of the new year.

I suppose the only difficulty with this analogy is that it only applies to the northern hemisphere.

Posted: **Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:48 pm**

Nice picture, Mark!

Hopefully both trads and moderns can agree upon combining core planet and sign meanings if we focus on the nature of signs by element and quality, and recognize that any planet can operate positively or negatively.

I have a lot of interest in and respect for mythology in astrology: not so much the modern Jungian approach, but getting into some more serious classical studies to see how the folks who initially developed horoscopic astrology understood the gods for whom they named their planets. For them, it went far beyond mere naming, as these were gods actively worshipped in their day.

If we can get beyond the icky castration story about Uranus and Saturn for a moment, we can consider whether there could be a connection between the Uranus/Ouranos of ancient times and the modern sense of "disruption" or "sudden change." There is such a connection, if we take the god Uranus in the Greek sense of the undifferentiated sky god. (Check him out at www.theoi.com.) Indeed, the Greeks often used his name interchangeably with the heavens.

Uranus (like most of the Greek deities) was something of an import from Mesopotamia. His Sumerian prototype was the primordial Mesopotamian sky god An (meaning "sky" or "heaven") or Anu. We can see this embedded in the name Uranus. Mesopotamians believed that the stars were his soldiers (cf. the biblical "heavenly hosts.") Subsequently the sky god Enlil overtook some of Anu's functions.

One thing that struck me about reading Greek authors on astronomy prior to the introduction of astrology was how the study of the sky was intimately tied up with the weather. They didn't separate out meteorology and astronomy the way we do today. (Cf. Aratus Phaenomena, Hesiod's Works and Days; as well as the astrologers Valens in book 1 of Anthologies, Ptolemy on astro-meteorology; and Daryn Lehoux's work on perapegmata.) To me it makes sense to consider capricious, changeable weather that could bring plenty in one year and destructive storms the next as an attribute of an undifferentiated sky god.

I realize that it is a big leap from then to now, but as noted above, the early 19th century astronomers who settled on the name Uranus (post-"Herschel" and "George's Star") deliberately chose the classical association. I am not so taken with magical associations, but clearly people in ancient times (and to a much lesser extent today) believe/d that to name something is to define its nature and to control it to some extent.

I looked up Vladimir Putin's chart yesterday on the Astro-DataBank at Astrodienst: Uranus in Cancer square sun in Libra (where he has a stellium.) So no, Uranus does not always connote left-wing ideologies! What we can see is a man determined to forge a new imperial Russia out of the ashes of the old one; and someone surely having a Uranian disruptive impact on the Crimean ethnic Ukranians and Tatars. But to the Crimean Russians, he is a liberator.

Posted: **Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:55 am**

Hi Mark

Mark wrote: Mar 19, 2014 2:16 pm

Frankly, its difficult for me to respond on the case you present for Uranus being the co-ruler of Capricorn.

Frankly, I knew it would be!

As you know I am one of those astrologers who works with the traditional rulership scheme and dont really perceive any real need to overhaul the existing system. As I see it you are posing a solution to a problem I dont recognise in the first place. As far as I am concerned the traditional rulership scheme works extremely well. So in fairness I am not the ideal customer to sell your ideas to. Smile

In fact, I didn't expect you to revoke your astrological beliefs and swear obedience to a new doctrine, by threat of getting burned at the stake.

But the problem is arguably one that I didn't have before carelessly remarking to you that, in the retro-modern scheme, perhaps the transsaturnians in the retro-modern schemeshould should each get assigned to two signs just like the classical planets, for reasons of symmetry. And, shockingly, you wanted to have evidence for this.

You should probably be targeting modern astrologers. I would think that some modern astrologers might be open to your argument that the current modern rulership scheme is in a sense 'unfinished business' and therefore requires some reform. Arguably, it has logical inconsistencies that need some kind of resolution.

Thanks, that's very encouraging!

Based on some interim mundane research I would say that Uranus tends to be exceptionally socially disruptive (or progressive depending on your view) when in The Saturn ruled signs. This is also very noticeable when in it is in the Mars ruled signs too and especially Aries.

It seems that the Saturnian structures are undermined when Uranus is in Capricorn. If they don?t collapse then they do when Uranus moves into the more diurnal manifestation of Saturn in the sign of Aquarius.

Very interesting... I think this supports my hypothesis that Uranus is co-ruling Capricorn but sometimes in a more "submerged" manner. Just like I have observed that Capricorn personalities have a more or less "submerged" side of revolutionary spirit. But in some cases Uranus must first enter his diurnal sign Aquarius for the effects of his undermining preparatory work to burst out in the open. Do you know historical examples for this?

Posted: **Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:12 pm**

A friend of mine attended Robert Hand's webinar a few months ago.

Hand has an interesting approach where all the planets are seen to operate at three potential levels i.e. positive, middle level and lower level. The following is taken from a summary of Hand's webinar note on Uranus:

Uranus

Positive level: Sudden breakthroughs in individual and social consciousness that brings about innovation and reform. The recognition of the need to change a reality system.

Middle level: Anything sudden which is discontinuous with ordinary notions of reality, revolutionary change, revolution in general, the unusual and extraordinary, non-conformity the extremes.

Low level: Extremely dysfunctional eccentricity, rebels, negative suggestibility (when teenagers only do the opposite of what you tell them to do.)

Aquarius is about new order. Uranus destroys order, so Uranus is NOT the ruler of Aquarius, there is nothing fixed about Uranus.

Posted: **Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:45 am**

Hi Mark,

Great!

I like Robert Hand's classification of a planet potentially expressing itself on multiple levels. It's the foundation for what I would call Transformational Astrology. That such energies can be transformed from one level to another is part of the ancient Hermetic lore as exemplified in Magic and Alchemy. Moreover, it's a clear step away from fatalism.

Talking about Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius... I agree, Uranus doesn't look like such a good match if you highlight that this is a fixed sign. But there is a strong revolutionary spirit to be observed in many an Aquarius personality. I guess that the Air element is setting the fixed quality off, to some degree.

On a more fundamental level, there is the question: How much of a sign's traits are due to its ruling planet? What's the difference between a planet's and a sign's character?

As far as the classical scheme, i.e. Mars ruling the fixed Water sign Scorpio could be considered quite counter-intuitive, as well...

Michael

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Is Uranus Associated with Aries?

Is Uranus the co-ruler of Capricorn?

Is Uranus the co-ruler of Capricorn?