Skyscript Astrology Forum

When defeat comes, accept it as a signal that your plans are not sound, rebuild those plans, and set sail once more toward your coveted goal. -- Napoleon Hill

Well geez I was kinda thinkin. Do you suppose the Earth was really flat in ancient ancient times when we had our foremost ancient astrolgers whether it changed it's guise just for fun of it for us modern people. Or should that be post- modern - people

"There is nothing permanent except change."--Heraclitus

well well well. There was I thinking that quote came from the native Americans.

Just goes to show whenever you think you've got a good idea someone else thought of it first.

From BBC summary:

"Pluto was automatically disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit
overlaps with that of Neptune."

Does it?

http://www.nineplanets.org/plutodyn.html

Pluto's still a planet, re-categorized as a "dwarf" and appointed as leader of a sub-group - a newly emerging order.
Demoted or Promoted? The decision's certainly pushed it higher in public awareness.

From elsewhere, on "dwarfs":

"In Arthurian legend ... "To display his power and authority Bilis brought in his company two kings who were dwarves ...".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf

"errrrr, doesn't that mean they have to disqualify Neptune too?"

Saturn's transiting opposite Neptune.
Appears the "authorities" have positioned Neptune as last of the 'classical 8' - attempting to end the proliferation with that planet.
8 is classically Saturn's territory ... "death to illusions" or the "illusion of death"?

To end the order on a planet associated with illusions, confusion etc might make for an interesting twist - at the least some general confusion that leads to clarifying terminology.

From another pov, Order of 8 vs Order of 9 = Saturn vs Mars.

Tom:

Prehaps gloating is premature, but I cannot help myself. Ahem, I wrote:

Quote:
But then, after a while some piece of space dust will determined to be in the same class as Pluto. Then some astrologer will demand equal status, perhaps even rulership of Taurus, Libra, Virgo, or Gemini.

And today - today, mind you on another unnamed astrology list I see this:

Quote:
I believe Ceres should rule Virgo/6th house

Posted by XXXXXXXXXXXX on Wednesday, 16 August 2006, at 1:21 p.m.

Ceres being classifed as a planet ...

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you that the gloating was premature ... am familiar with the posts of the student you quoted - not sure how holding a student up for ridicule behind his back furthers the integrity of the cause though. Also noting a published authority in the astrological field stepped in to put on the brakes.

Ceres was dubbed a planet before asteroid and now planet again.

But there's something perhaps you can explain, ie. how attributing a sub-group status and associating them with particular constellations affects original dignities or Lords.

Imo, it doesn't ... or if it does, it enhances the Lord's rule.

Would simply appear to suggest the 'Lords' employ more 'subjects' to work in their territory.

TS

There is a very big difference between progress and change that is based on a misunderstanding of fundamental principles. So called advances in modern astrology often has nothing to do with progress but rather a misunderstanding of the principles of astrology. It is not progress to decide that Pluto has rulership over Scorpio. It is a lack of understanding of the rulerships. It is also not progress when we attempt to personalise Pluto in a natal chart but rather a lack of understanding of planetary cycles. None of this has anything to do with progress or the fact that Pluto was discovered and so therefore belongs in astrology in the way that it has been placed by modern astrologers. Whether or not Pluto has been deemed a planet by astronomers is irrelevant to astrologers if it is used in a way that goes against the basic principles of astrology. Is it really progress to now place Ceres in the chart as a planet and perhaps give it rulership over Virgo or is it a disregard for the basics? Are we to now treat Ceres as a planet, giving it primary significance in the chart and not as an asteroid and therefore considered to be of secondary significance to most astrologers, even the modern ones? Isn't this perhaps allowing a bunch of astronomers to determine what is and isn't significant in the philosophy of astrology rather than astrologers?

Sue,

If you're referring to what I wrote, did you actually read what I wrote?

You talk of "over", I was speaking in terms of "under".

Progress was also a homogenization of the 48 constellations to the Middle Way of 12 ... way back when.

There are groupings of constellations both above and below the Middle Way (ecliptic).

Therefore, in view of "progress" who's not to say as the field of discovery (and rediscovery) broadens, so do the stars/constellations in astrological use?
Not really a step forwards, it's probably more of a step back to the originals charted - but would involve knowledge of such, and a broadening of current perspective.

These newly appointed sub-leaders may conceivably have greater significance in constellations further north or south of ecliptic which, due to centralized focus on ecliptic, get homogenized back as sub-territorial rulers along the Middle Way.

Imo, Pluto has not usurped Mars rulership of Scorpio, it simply added a new dimension. If starting at Pluto for an understanding of Scorpio then it leads towards Mars, Sun & Moon.
Insofar as cycles of Pluto in relation to nativity - someone does not have to live a full orbit of Pluto to personally experience its effects at any given point in time. Cycles of time unfold - the totality of the orbit does not exclude the cross-quarter periods etc.

And the nature of it's orbit is a dividing point between planets orbiting either side.

One of the basic tools of astrology is translation of light, and Pluto is a physical object capable of translating light with faster moving planets collecting it, modifying it, and passing it along ... all the way back to earth.

No astrological authority has yet granted Ceres rulership "over" Virgo, ruled by Mercury. This smacks of hysteria - Ceres was discovered conjunct Algol.
However, who's to say it doesn't work under Mercury, ruler of this nocturnal southern sign? Conceivably, governing a constellation further south of Virgo who's qualities have been homogenized back into Virgo.

Over/under is a matter of perspective. Ceres was Spica (of Virgo). Does a Fixed Star prevail over a wandering one? Or do the wandering ones prevail because of their proximity to earth, translating light from those objects further away?

"Isn't this perhaps allowing a bunch of astronomers to determine what is and isn't significant in the philosophy of astrology rather than astrologers?"

How do you arrive at that? Astrology is reliant upon astronomy - it was the study of the stars in relation to earth that gave rise to interpretation in the first place.

The two work hand-in-hand.

Simply because people struggle with ordering and interpreting chaos does not diminish the significance of astronomical discoveries, either now or way back when...

Sure, it's important to start with the foundations ... a little problematic as the "foundations" are still being discovered and translated.

TS

If you're referring to what I wrote, did you actually read what I wrote?

No, when I wrote my post I had not read yours and was not referring to it in any way. However, we will have to agree to disagree.

Pluto has not usurped Mars rulership of Scorpio, it simply added a new dimension. If starting at Pluto for an understanding of Scorpio then it leads towards Mars, Sun & Moon.

No traditional astrologer believes that Pluto relates to Scorpio. No traditional astrologer would start with thinking of Pluto first and then lead into Mars when it comes to Scorpio. There is no relationship between Pluto and Scorpio except when Pluto is actually in Scorpio.

No astrological authority has yet granted Ceres rulership "over" Virgo, ruled by Mercury.

Maybe not. However, there have been several discussions on other forums about just this point. And this is exactly how these things start. It does not matter to me because I won't be using it but having any discussion about giving rulership of Virgo to Ceres is an example of the lack of understanding regarding rulerships.

Quote:
"Isn't this perhaps allowing a bunch of astronomers to determine what is and isn't significant in the philosophy of astrology rather than astrologers?"

How do you arrive at that? Astrology is reliant upon astronomy - it was the study of the stars in relation to earth that gave rise to interpretation in the first place.

It is astronomers who are determining whether Pluto, for example, is a planet or not. This seems to be upsetting modern astrologers who now do not know how to treat Pluto. And we have people saying something along the lines of welcoming Ceres with open arms and wouldn't it be good if it could rule Virgo. Well, then, if Ceres wasn't that important before it was declared a planet then why is it suddenly important because a bunch of astronomers decide to change the definition of a planet? And if modern astrologers are so willing to include new things in the chart when astronomers either discover them or declare them to be more important than before then why didn't modern astrologers go along with the '13th sign' change when astronomers decided to change the list of constellations on the ecliptic and put Ophiuchus there around 1930? Because all astrologers saw that it would make no sense to do so and it would severely compromise the integrity of the tropical zodiac. It is the same with giving rulerships to the outer planets or including anything in the chart simply because it has been discovered by astronomers. The integrity of the system already in place would be severely compromised as it has been with that of rulerships.

Orphiuchus has long been an important constellation and was depicted on the Farnese Globe in the second century BCE. It was also included in Ptolemy's list in Almagest. But no one included it as a sign in the tropical zodiac because it does not make sense to do so. I find it hard to believe that ancient astrologers/astronomers were not aware that Orphiuchus was on the ecliptic. The tropical zodiac is very clearly no longer defined by astronomical reality so why depend on the current astronomical reality now? If astrology and astronomy go hand in hand then astrologers would currently consider the cardinal points to be Pisces, Taurus, Virgo and Sagittarius. Obviously I am not saying that the two have no relationship with each other and there was a time when the two correlated quite closely. However, I do believe that each has its own agenda that does not always sit comfortably with the other. Apparently there are currently another twelve heavenly bodies waiting in the wings to be called planets. Are we going to stick them all in the chart too without due consideration?

I met a woman in the late 80s at the Urania Trust who was what I would consider an astrological genius. The type that we often allude to as historical masters. She worked with the 13th sign. She said she worked with it from Vedic principles. Or rather the ancient vedics worked with the 13th constellation. She was truely outstanding in reading a nativity and predicting. I've never come across anyone who comes even close to her abilities. Unfortunately she had episodes of Bi-polar so was not able, I guess, to focus and get recognition for her work. I've never forgotten her.

I remember thinking would I dare to be an original thinker like her (I didn't recall anyone else in the serious community doing anything vaguely similar) or do I just go along with an easy life and follow what I've been taught. Well given that I just started out on the path to serious astrology I took the path of least resistance.

errrrr, doesn't that mean they have to disqualify Neptune too?

Actually, interestingly, this could happen! According to the new astronomical definition of a planet, one of the criteria is that the planet must "clear" its own orbital path of all debris, either by pulling it toward itself and converting it to a satellite or by pushing it out (something to do with gravitational theory which I cannot explain adequately). Since Pluto's orbit crosses into Neptune's, there is speculation that this could disqualify Neptune as well!

Just to clarify, I meant that some astronomers are now arguing a bit about Neptune.

Yes, I see your point. However, Neptune maintains its orbit. It is Pluto that interfers. If Neptune did something that causes Pluto to interfer with its orbit, for example, having the power to through Pluto off its orbit, then I can understand. I suppose the crucial bit is 'clears its own orbital path of all debris.' If Neptune does not have the power to make Pluto stay out of its own space then perhaps it does not deserve to be a planet along with Pluto. Okay, two down, only Uranus to go.

I was surprised and sort of horrified to hear about Pluto's demotion. However I am convinced that most, if not all, modern astrologers will continue to use Pluto.

As mostly a "modern" astrologer, I feel that it would be negligent of me not to advise a client of an up-coming Pluto transit to a personal planet esp. Sun, Moon, Venus. The experiences brought by these transits cannot be denied.

I also feel Pluto is important by way of aspect (to a lesser degree house placement) in natal astrology.

I do not personally use Pluto for sign rulerships and I have been persuaded by discussions on these boards and in various texts and elsewhere that the traditional rulerships are effective.

Anyway that's my two cents worth.

If anyone wants to know why I havent been posting on these boards for over a year well....I was undergoing a Pluto transit.

Hi kurgal,

As a matter of fact I have been wondering where you were. It was nice to see your name pop up again. I know what you mean by the Pluto transit thing. Finished one myself a year or so ago. Now all I have to look forward to is Pluto entering my 12th house (this year sometime I think) and then bumping over Mercury, Jupiter, Sun and Saturn who are all in a tight stellium of about four degrees. Can't wait.

Welcome back.
Sue

Thanks Sue.

I'll be making an effort to post a bit more again. I also need to make more of an effort in learning more about traditional techniques. I've been lazy. It's good to keep pushing the boundaries - it's so easy just to keep falling back on a few tried and trusted astrological techniques.

I don't want to divert this thread topic, but there are a couple of case-studies I have done on event charts for sentencing cases, (law is proving to be a fertile ground for using traditional astrology - in particular event charts), which I think are interesting, and I have been meaning to post about these for a while - alas sheer laziness has stopped me from posting!!

Anyway I promise to post these soon!!

I came back to this forum specifically to look for a thread on Pluto's demotion - sure enough I found one. When I heard about this on the late news last Friday, I almost dropped my tea in my lap, such was my shock and surprise