Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:52 pm**

I love this from access new age

When Uranus was discovered, the astrologers immediately placed its rulership to Aquarius. The same happened to Neptune. Astrologers gave it rulership of Pisces and there was consensus. Only with Pluto has there been debate.

Immediately huh? Where do these people get their information?

Tom

Posted: **Fri Feb 04, 2005 5:35 pm**

Immediately huh? Where do these people get their information?

This kind of reductionism is popular in contemporary astrological circles. It may be linked to the desire to instill symbolic systems with the same kind of metaphysical certainty normally reserved for religions. Astrology as religion produces its own infallible prophets whose 'fiat' cannot be questioned: such an astrologer can write astrology books that run in excess of 900 pages, teach 'master' classes, charge outrageous fees, make inflated claims, yet shrewdly sidestep offering a direct prediction on something as mundane as the outcome of an election while maintaining their status as a modern Theophrastus Bombastus. It is impossible to question a prophet (or to decline a profit). It seems a long way from the rather unassuming example of William Lilly.

Carl Payne Tobey's application of mathematical probability to verify the Chaldean order of the planets seems questionable. I would like to see this claim verified by a disinterested party. The model advanced by Rudhyar and Meyer is much more elegant and seems to make symbolic sense. I prefer it but that's totally subjective of course.

Andrew

Posted: **Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:10 pm**

Astrology as religion produces its own infallible prophets whose 'fiat' cannot be questioned: such an astrologer can write astrology books that run in excess of 900 pages, teach 'master' classes, charge outrageous fees, make inflated claims, yet shrewdly sidestep offering a direct prediction on something as mundane as the outcome of an election while maintaining their status as a modern Theophrastus Bombastus.

Hi Tom. Actually I had several astrologers in mind when I wrote the above, I did not mean to single out any one of them in particular although yes, the person you mentioned certainly came to mind. I do not think that the more well-known horoscope merchants ought to have sidestepped the election: if one claims to have a superior predictive ability, a superior forecasting technique, a superior astrological system, or a superior set of zodiacal coordinates, and if one markets oneself to students and clients precisely upon that basis, then surely one ought to be willing to offer some practical demonstration of the truth of one's claims. Many astrologers did make predictions about the election: some were right, many were wrong. The wonderful thing about being wrong is that it tends to make one much less inclined to offer inflated, unsupportable claims, or to at least qualify them somewhat. Unfortunately, ever since Western societies lost the capacity to think symbolically, we all seem to have become addicted to absolutist assertions, which may be why some astrologers describe the Ptolemaic system of planetary rulerships as "laughable" while others claim to use statistics to "prove" the astrological influence of "empty centres of gravity."

Andrew

Posted: **Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:54 am**

Unfortunately, ever since Western societies lost the capacity to think symbolically, we all seem to have become addicted to absolutist assertions, which may be why some astrologers describe the Ptolemaic system of planetary rulerships as "laughable" while others claim to use statistics to "prove" the astrological influence of "empty centres of gravity.

I think that's a very pertinent comment about the approach to astrology that generally applies today. I couldn't agree more.
Deb

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:43 pm**

It may be of interest as a side note to the discussion, that the Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra attributes the co-rulership of (sidereal) Aquarius to Rahu with Saturn, and the co-rulership of (sidereal) Scorpio to Ketu with Mars.

Rahu (the north node) is said to be a higher frequency of Saturn and the significations of Rahu are said to be: shock, cheating, perversion, confusion, deviance, inexplicable events, atheism, and thoughts which transcend cultural paradigms.

Rahu is said to act in a similar but more deviant version of Saturn, and the same is said to be true of Ketu as regards Mars in jyotish tradition.

It seemed interesting to consider the characteristics of Rahu and its co-rulership of Aquarius with the decision of another tradition to place the co-rulership of Aquarius to Uranus, in light of the similar modern descriptions of Uranus with the attributes of Rahu.

It may be relevant to this discussion to consider that in jyotish, the nodes are not given sole rulership of any sign, which makes sense since they are not objects. Perhaps this may indicate a pattern which parallels so-called Western astrology in that Uranus is given a co-rulership status of Aquarius, but with the understanding that Uranus does not get full status in determining many things like the traditional 7.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:38 am**

Tom wrote:I love this from access new age

When Uranus was discovered, the astrologers immediately placed its rulership to Aquarius. The same happened to Neptune. Astrologers gave it rulership of Pisces and there was consensus. Only with Pluto has there been debate.
Immediately huh? Where do these people get their information?

Tom

The debate went on for decades for all the outer planets.

Personally I like Uranus for Aries and Aquarius (not as traditional domicile lord) but Uranus to Aquarius describes the problem of finding the surface between water and air (and that Saturn is a black wall that either has to be re-entered or escaped). Re-entering the world is a saturnian experience, but the first transcendance is Uranian. As for what Uranus represents in the mundane (images) the scientific symbol for Uranus is a combination of Mars and the Sun (the domicile and exaltation of Aries). Is Aries more rebellious than Aquarius?

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:37 am**

I haven't read all these posts yet, but I've never been convinced by Uranus ruling Aquarius. I think Uranus being individuating is more akin to solar and amrtian, influences, so maybe Aries. Not that it rules Aries mind, just that it is somehow affiliated with it - I'm not sure how. We can just say that it "likes Aries" or we could invent some new dignity.

Having spent some time on the astro.com forums I've been quite surprised by how few astrologers actually even know about how the traditional rulerships were assigned, let alone argue their case for Uranus being the ruler of Aquarius. I think there's a lot of misinformation floating around that's picked up by modern astrologers. Whereas I can at least see the 'resemblance' between Pluto and Scorpio, the case for Aquarius and Uranus has always seemed very thin to me. Especially if we factor in the 'logic' that moderns use of equating signs with houses with planets.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:09 pm**

Having spent some time on the astro.com forums I've been quite surprised by how few astrologers actually even know about how the traditional rulerships were assigned, let alone argue their case for Uranus being the ruler of Aquarius.

It's never presented as a possibility or even a new idea. It's presented as fact. Many modern astrologers think Alan Leo and Marc Edmond Jones were traditional astrologers. Unless moderns are introduced to the traditional rulerships first in the first books they read or classes they take, they would assume Uranus ruling Aquarius etc is simply the way it is. There is no reason to challenge it or think about it because they are not taught the origins. Once they accept it, it becomes psychologically difficult to change their minds. They might think they were duped and nobody likes to admit that. The longer they hold on to the belief the less likely they are to change it.

I've had this fantasy about finding complete astrological beginners and not mentioning Uranus, Neptune or Pluto until they reached at least an intermediate level. At that point they could be introduced. I wonder how many would use them as sign rulers?

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:32 pm**

Tom wrote:Unless moderns are introduced to the traditional rulerships first in the first books they read or classes they take, they would assume Uranus ruling Aquarius etc is simply the way it is. There is no reason to challenge it or think about it because they are not taught the origins.

And yet, correct me if I'm wrong, you were introduced to modern astrology first, and, presumably, were informed of Uranus' rulership over Aquarius. I know I was. And yet here we both are making the claim for Saturn over Uranus for example. Why is it that some do and some don't? Is it just intellectual laziness on their part for not examining the issue or for ignoring the facts once presented?
Only on that other forum did I get into a longer debate about Mercury being exalted in Aquarius (or not, as I argued), and some of the logic behind their usage of it was everything from pseudo-christian ideas to the fact that Noel Tyl says so, and even Rob Hand. I had to then remind her that Rob Hand certainly doesn't.
Is it just laziness? Or ignorance? Or is it as you seem to suggest a problem with the teaching of the subject? It's something I'm incredibly curious about because you can hardly meet a modern astrologer, mention in passing by accident or otherwise saturn ruling aquarius and be treated like a second class citizen. Why?
I had the pleasure of attending a seminar a few months back by Deb and she managed to classily side step the issue entirely saying "just humour me" about traditional significators - no arguing, no "because..." just humour me. End of. Yet you could tell that some of the people in the room suddenly had made a value judgement both about Deb herself and her brand of astrology simply because she uses Saturn as ruler of Aquarius, say.
I'm sure we've all had this - I remember on another forum being remarked upon that "Paul doesn't believe in free will, he uses traditional astrology".

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:36 pm**

And yet, correct me if I'm wrong, you were introduced to modern astrology first, and, presumably, were informed of Uranus' rulership over Aquarius. I know I was. And yet here we both are making the claim for Saturn over Uranus for example. Why is it that some do and some don't?

The problem is that the concept of rulership was changed when the outer planets were given their "assignments." Today it means similarity or affinity. In the tradition, it has to do with planetary strength. Once we buy into planet=sign=house, the original meaning of rulership is lost and switching back to the traditional rulers makes no sense unless we change our entire viewpoint.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:39 pm**

Tom wrote:

The problem is that the concept of rulership was changed when the outer planets were given their "assignments." Today it means similarity or affinity. In the tradition, it has to do with planetary strength. Once we buy into planet=sign=house, the original meaning of rulership is lost and switching back to the traditional rulers makes no sense unless we change our entire viewpoint.

Tom,

Was planet=sign=house the conventional wisdom when you started studying modern astrology? It wasn't when I did (~1969). But rulership as affinity had already become the dominant model.

- Ed

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:51 pm**

Yes that is what I was taught. I began in the late 80s though. BY then things changed.

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Assignation of outer planet rulerships