I was going to reply to Waybread's posts in detail but I lack the time for a line by line reply to her very extensive posts. Plus I feel that is a rather negative approach. We obviously disagree fundamentally on a number of issues and I suspect no end of discussion will alter that. I prefer to elaborate on my own take on this topic and let others decide for themselves where they stand.

However, .....just a few points I cannot let pass without a response.

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

True. But the views of modern Americans or Russians today are far removed from the experiences of the generation that lived through these revolutions. Much suffering and bloodshed had to be endured. That is all I am saying. It reminds me of Lenin's saying ' If you want to make an omelette, you have to be willing to break a few eggs.? . Unfortunately, people are not just eggs.

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

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

This is why I concluded you were arguing Uranus was connected to Mercury.

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

I disagree. You keep referring to Uranus being synonymous with freedom and liberation. You repeat that positivist belief in the face of conflicting evidence from mundane astrology in the world around us. I dont deny , it can represent the principle of liberation in certain situations. However, I already gave you lots of historical examples refuting that view with its strong connections to radical conservatism or fascism. The Nazis and Sadaam Hussein were hardly 'liberating' to humanity yet they were strongly Uranian. I suspect these are inconvenient truths for many steeped in modern astrology where this is almost an article of faith.

Paul has a very similar view on the topic of Uranus sharing an association to the sign of Aries. He is clearly a brilliant and gifted astrologer.

Its interesting we have come to a similar view on the Uranus association with Aries. Perhaps because we both work from traditional principles and using them can lead to a similar train of thought. Although there are of course many fine traditional astrologers who choose to exclude them entirely.

I was trying to think where this idea originally popped into my head. I think the original seed was planted a few years ago when I read Deborah Houlding writing on Aquarius and why it was totally odds with the nature of Uranus. Unfortunately, I cant find the piece where she wrote that now.


Another major influence on my thinking was reading the ideas of Robert Hand and his theories of how the traditional qualities could apply to the outer planets.

This is found from an article here on Skyscript where he is interviewed by Gary Phillipson.

Q: Whilst we're talking about these traditional texts, there's an anomaly which I've been trying to figure out, and I wonder if I could ask for your perspective on it. In Ptolemy, Venus is described as hot and moist; by the time we get to Lilly, it's cold and moist. What's going on there?

I believe the answer is that it's moist. And these principles of hot/cold, wet/dry are easily demonstrated: Does love heat you up or cool you down?


Q: Heats you up.

And cools you down. If you're angry, love cools you down. Don't just think of sexual love, think of all love. On the other hand, if you're alienated and disconnected, love heats you up. This indicates that it's a perfect balance between hot and cold. You can do this with all the planets whose hot/cold, wet/dry status is not clear. For example, Neptune. Does Neptune increase or decrease energy levels, typically?


Q: Decrease.

So, it's cold. Does Neptune create clear, distinct, disconnected, discrete parts? Or does it sort of mush everything together?


Q: The latter.

Therefore, it's wet. Neptune is cold and wet. Now, Uranus. Does Uranus connect or make separate?


Q: It makes separate.

Does it increase or decrease the energy level?


Q: It increases energy.

It's hot and dry. Now, Pluto gets tricky. You can make an argument for Pluto all the way around, but here is my suggestion: Pluto is the reverse of Mercury. Mercury attains its quality from whatever it contacts; Pluto inverts the quality of whatever it contacts. So, it turns the cold and wet into the hot and dry, and the hot and dry into the cold and wet - because Pluto represents, actually, the turning of that cycle. Wherever Pluto comes into the picture, things tend to turn into their opposite. I wouldn't say this is the most essential quality of Pluto, but I think it's one aspect of it. And we have unconsciously chosen a glyph for Pluto that has approximately the same parts as Mercury's, but slightly differently arranged, which suggests that there might be a connection. (I'm talking about the "cocktail glass" glyph that we use in the States mostly, not the P + L combination.)

Pluto is hard to pin down, and Mercury is impossible. Mercury, by definition, has no quality of its own. Maybe slightly dry - warm or cold, I can't tell - but it's so nearly neutral on all fronts that it takes on the quality of whatever it contacts, because Mercury is conveying the essence of whatever it is in touch with. It's the messenger. The messenger should have no message of his own. That's solid, traditional astrology.


Q: It's beautifully lucid, I have to say.

Well, that's the thing about the traditional foundations of astrology. They are beautifully lucid: That's exactly it. So, here we are - able to sort out immediately the elemental qualities of the new planets. No ambiguity at all, except for Pluto. And I think that Pluto is irrevocably ambiguous.

As Paul suggested Waybread clearly misunderstood what I meant by my reference to outer planets being like 'fixed stars'. I can assure Waybread I am every bit as well informed on planetary cycles as she is. The reference to fixed stars was really shorthand for traditionalists since they both have no essential dignity but I guess it could be misread by others.

However, I was also making another point in the thread I think Paul missed. Like Ptolemy's description of fixed stars I believe the outer planets can be compared as composites of the 7 visible planets with a dominant and subsidiary planetary influence applying.

Hence as previously suggested:

Uranus: Mars + Sun. Hot and Dry. Cardinal Signs

Neptune: Moon + Venus, Cold and Moist. Mutable

Pluto: Saturn + Mars, Cold + Dry

Clearly, Waybread is highly resistant to the idea that Uranus has any Mars characteristics. However, if we accept the position of Hand that Uranus is Hot + Dry we only have three candidates in terms of the traditional planets: Mars, The Sun and Mercury.

The characteristic of a malefic according Ptolemy is not that it is evil but rather it is an excess of one quality. I would say Uranus is like Mars in terms of its excessively dry and hot nature. However, in its more positive manifestation it could be said to have solar characteristics.

I found this interesting piece by Curtis Manwaring on his website where he discusses the three astrological camps on what planets Uranus is connected to in its nature.

Some astrologers have said that the outer planets are higher octaves of the inner planets, but there are a number of schemes relating to this issue. One sect says that Uranus is the higher octave of Mercury. This is probably because communication as represented by Mercury often takes electronic form these days. Also if the mind and thought patterns are represented by Mercury, then mental breakthroughs are represented by Uranus. However, another sect says that Uranus is like the higher octave of Mars. The reasoning here is that Uranus represents disruptions, violent lightening storms, and wars as represented by Mars. The scientific symbol for Uranus looks very much like Mars but with a dot in the center of the circle. Incidentally, the dot in the center of the circle is reminescient of the Sun which brings me to the third sect that says that Uranus is the "transcendental Sun" The idea here is that if Uranus represents enlightenment and breakthroughs in understanding, then it is somehow a transcendent form of the Sun, the realm of Nous which is the realm of the pure ideas (called eidetic forms) or the absolute idea.

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... ation.html

I think this is an interesting philosophical issue worth further discussion.

In discussing the nature or quality of the outer planets we are fundamentally getting into the concept of essentialism.

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

Overall, I fully concur with Waybread that the outer planets have characteristics that make them unique. They are different from the traditional planets and are also not synonymous with other points like fixed stars, nodes etc.

I have listed below what I see as the characteristics of the outer planets.

I believe these bodies share some characterics with traditional planets:

Like a Traditional Planet

-They Orbit the Sun

-Like a traditional planet (and lot, node but not a fixed star) they have planetary dispositors

-They have a 'quality' that can be defined by observation of their effects

-Planetary phase arguably alters the nature of these bodies somewhat

- Their effects can be intertwined with other planets by aspect


Unlike the Traditional Planets

-They are invisible to the naked eye

-Because they are invisible points they 'cast no rays' and therefore have no orbs of their own.

-They have no Essential Dignity (Including domicile rulership)

-Since there is no Essential Dignity there can be no Mutual Reception

-They have 'association' not rulership regarding certain signs

-Unlike the traditional planets the three outer planets each seem to be linked to a particular modality by sign.

-Arguably, they do not have a unique planetary nature but rather a composite nature of two of the 7 traditional planets combined like fixed stars (See Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos chapter 9)

- They do not fit into a traditional role in planetary sect

i tend to see pluto and uranus as very different energies, but both having a fixed quality to them generally.. i am not so sure about any strong cardinal quality tie in with uranus myself.

as for the malefic nature of the outers - i think the idea is that the energy of the outers can come out of left field and as a consequence operate more in a fatalistic sense, as opposed to someone being able to harness the energy in a conscious manner.. but, perhaps the relationships they form with the inner 7 planetary bodies out to saturn has a big say over whether something is going to come as a shock, verses an energy that a person can incorporate in a positive way. i think waybread does point out the 2 possible scenarios that can happen as well as i read him...

more to say, but have to go now.

James-M wrote:

i tend to see pluto and uranus as very different energies, but both having a fixed quality to them generally.. i am not so sure about any strong cardinal quality tie in with uranus myself.

Lets look at the basics. Is Uranus fast acting or slow?

Yes its cycle round the Sun is slow as an outer planet but when a Uranus transit materializes in someone's life how does it manifest?

What does astrology teach us regarding the differences between cardinal vs fixed signs?

In fairness though its worth pointing out Aleister Crowley and some other early 20th century astrologers seemed to think that Uranus was either the domicile or exaltation ruler of Scorpio. See this old thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

I dont personally see the logic of linking Uranus to a fixed sign myself. However, it is interesting Crowley associated the planet to another Mars ruled sign.

In the days when astrologers still asked questions about the associations of outer planets rather than assuming the issue was cut and dried there were actually numerous theories floating around.

For example, The early 20th century Scottish astrologer Maurice Weymss came up with an interesting counter theory attributing dignities to the outer planets. He set his ideas out in a series of booklets entitled Wheel of Life over several decades. A summary of Weymss proposed dignity system along with some thoughts of Alan Leo are contained below:

'

'The researches of Maurice Weymss indicate that there is little doubt that it (ie Pluto) is part ruler of Virgo and reflects the ''influence'' of that sign ( though some writers regard it as ruler of Scorpio and others as ruler of Aries). The view is also now gaining ground that Uranus is exalted in Aquarius, but ruler of Scorpio; and that Neptune is exalted in Pisces, but ruler of Libra in accordance with the sign rulership system of Maurice Weymss''. Editors note to Alan Leo?s Key to Your Own Nativity (6th edition 1947)

Interesting eh?

Mark

Paul and Mark, thanks for your detailed replies. Mark, having a much different opinion than yours is not being negative. It is simply having a different opinion.

I happen to like Uranus a lot. I've worked with it extensively, and wonder how deeply you guys really live and appreciate Uranus. I don't mean this disrespectfully, just experientially.

Natally my Uranus closely conjuncts my MC. Prior to my retirement, I was of a baby-boom generation of women who broke-- or at least cracked-- glass ceilings in my chosen field. This wasn't always a pleasant or easy process. But one of the most rewarding moments of my career was when I received a distinguished service award from my major national professional association-- in part for how I had tried to promote the status of women in what was formerly an extremely male-oriented discipline.

This wasn't Mars or Aries. Mars can provide some impetus, but it isn't a notably social planet, and Aries is not a notably social sign.

Aquarius is a human, social sign in its own arm's length fashion. It isn't a touchy-feely sign, but it has a keen sense of social justice. I wasn't out to butt heads with the male establishment in my field; but rather to promote the status of women within it. Very Uranian.

I work extensively with house cusp rulers in natal chart interpretation. As posted above, Uranus works just fine as the modern ruler of Aquarius, retaining Saturn as the traditional ruler. I can't imagine changing years of practice with this placement to suddenly move Uranus over to Aries as its house cusp ruler-- for what possible reason?

I also think aspects are highly important. I wonder how many astrologers who see Uranus in a mostly negative light as the Big Accident have challenging Uranus aspects to personal planets. It is a truism of modern astrology that if we cannot embody and exemplify a planet's positive traits, it will come back to bite us with its negative traits.

Mark, nobody denies that wars are horrible, horrible things. But Mars rules soldiers and aggression. We don't need to change that. The question with Uranus, rather, is what was the purpose of the war to begin with? However well or badly wrong a war might go, some wars have liberation ideologies, and some are purely instruments of oppression.

Uranus rules the ideology of freedom and independence for society. This is why Uranus rules an air sign, not a fire sign, in modern astrology. This is not to glamourize war: quite the contrary.

Uranus can show up in different ideologies, and if liberation means something to a reactionary right wing political movement, Uranus may be there as well. As I noted above, the Tea Party movement in the US (as well as Sarah Palin) have a strong Uranus in their mundane/natal charts.

Just possibly the traditional astrologers would like to get into exaltations, in which case Aries might be a decent candidate for Uranus. I am not convinced the modern outers have exaltations. But modern astrologers have been using Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius for decades now, to good effect.

If it's not broken, why fix it?

Paul, I do not associate Uranus with cardinal signs. This isn't the way the traditional rulerships work out. We do get Mercury and Jupiter ruling the mutable signs, but the other two-sign rulers like Mars combine cardinal and fixed rulerships.

Nothing remains fixed in perpetuity. But true social change simmers for a long time. If only the cardinal types initiate it in a more visible way, but have no fixity or staying power, then true social change will fizzle out. Liberation movements have their heroes, but they depend upon the backing of masses of people.

You've heard the saying, moreover, that "there is no one so conservative as an old liberal"? Having adopted a radical perspective once, the old liberal finds it difficult to change even after changing circumstances and new ideologies supplant the old beliefs.

Paul, I equally made the point in a previous post (that you didn't catch?) that there are circumstances in traditional astrology when a traditional malefic can operate in a beneficial way.

The trouble with comparing modern outer planets to fixed stars is that the latter do not change sign during a typical lifetime-- they scarcely change degree. The modern outers are far more dynamic than fixed stars. In addition to the wallop they can pack when they contact a personal planet or angle, the modern outers seriously do have a generational effect; something you won't find in fixed stars. And they are truly out there in the sky, unlike Arabian parts, terms, faces, the nodes, or other calculated info-bytes.

I am happy with the words "modern outer planet," to distinguish them from Saturn and Jupiter.

Mark, are you clear that we are actually on the same page so far as the evils of war are concerned? But that we can delineate the difference between an ideology and its implementation? And that reactionary political movements can be Uranian as well? And that soldiers and fighting are ruled by Mars? And that I think Mars and Uranus share some characteristics?

I do not recognize what I wrote in much of your long post to and about my arguments.

I am seeing a lot of confusion on this thread regarding Mars vs. Uranus. Yes, they share some similarities, but then the moon and Venus share some similarities, and we do not conflate them.

Frankly, we can identify many planet-sign affinities apart from the traditional rulerships or exaltations. This is especially true if you work with dwads or decans. This doesn't mean we fly in the face of the past half-century or more of pragmatic modern astrology. (I am not a fan of esoteric astrology or the looser types of psychological astrology, incidentally.)

In what way would you explain Uranus as hot and dry? Pardon me if you said so earlier and I missed that part.

Re: the political nature of Uranus:

I just hate it when the Nazis come up in discussion, because once this happens, rational discourse tends to fly out the window. But if you know your German history of the 1920s and 30s, you recall some very Uranian elements as well. For example, one of their ill-fated projects was to put society on a more "scientific" footing. Eugenics in the 1920s and 30s was not the dirty word that it became after the horrors of genocide became known, but was promoted (including in the US) as a social benefit to society.

Again, any planet can have a positive or negative face. Beneficent Venus can make men lazy and effeminate, according to traditional sources!

I cannot imagine why you call my views "positivist." They are anything but.

I admire Paul's brilliance, as well; but I part from him on some points. Like Uranus and Aries. I declare myself to be equally talented and gifted.

It would be nice if you could find the Houlding piece, because I assert that a traditional astrologer who wishes to switch Uranus from Aquarius to Aries should make a better case than I have seen so far. And this case needs to rest on praxis.

I read a lot of charts for people, and I just cannot fathom what switching Uranus over to Aries would accomplish, other than confusion.

Mark, I truly admire what you are attempting to accomplish, but I don't think the modern outers can put into the Procrustean Bed, and then trimmed or stretched to fit. Since many traditionalists will not use the modern outers anyhow, why not just let them be, in their own category? They don't need to fit into Aristotelian "science".

One wonders what you would do with the asteroids and dwarf planets. These, too, are part of many modern astrologers' practice. Then further delights await with the recently discovered trans-Plutonians.

As you can imagine (or at least find out, by reviewing my previous posts) I do think the modern outers work just fine as domiciled rulers of their respective signs. Simple telescopes capable of viewing Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto have been around for a very long time. The "naked eye" argument really doesn't hold up well in this day and age.

Don't be angry with me, Mark. I thank you for a stimulating discussion.

james_m wrote: i think waybread does point out the 2 possible scenarios that can happen as well as i read him...

Gosh, James. Does this mean you think I debate like a man??

waybread,

i was only pointing out that you seemed to have a more nuanced viewpoint that paul suggested.. something about marks association with brilliance and paul just isn't working for me.

paul - your comments on what constitutes a malefic imply no planet has to be a malefic.. is that what you are saying? you use the example of fire in a negative and positive sense. the same logic can be applied to any element.. obviously an over abundance of an element might be seen to imply a problem, as would an absence of an element for that matter.. what were you trying to say with that analogy as i missed it..

Mark wrote:James-M wrote:

i tend to see pluto and uranus as very different energies, but both having a fixed quality to them generally.. i am not so sure about any strong cardinal quality tie in with uranus myself.

Lets apply logic to this rather than emotion.Mark

hi mark, glad you felt motivated to address me directly for the first time on the thread.. are you suggesting i only apply emotion to arrive at my viewpoints on uranus? that is how i read your comment here in response to mine. perhaps you'd like to clarify.

Mark wrote:Is Uranus fast acting or slow?

sometimes uranus doesn't seem to do anything at all. it seems to need more then itself to make anything happen. also, some astrologers appear to believe it has no relevance whatsoever! i don't know that i would say it is fast acting as a consequence.. maybe in combination with jupiter or an inner planet it is fast acting. tough question for me to answer objectively.

Mark wrote:Yes its cycle round the Sun is slow as an outer planet but when a Uranus transit materializes in someone's life how does it manifest?

well the operative word here is 'when'.. i don't know that it always acts, so i wouldn't go so far as to say it always behaves in a certain predictable manner or that fast has to be an important descriptive word to define it's appearance.

Mark wrote:What does astrology teach us regarding the differences between cardinal vs fixed signs?

Mark

cardinal is more spontaneous energy connected to the beginning of each season.. fixed is more focused energy found in the center of the season which i associate with values and ideals that a person or society works towards living. this is one of the reasons i see uranus as more fixed air then cardinal fire in nature. if you or anyone missed it earlier, i did say i thought uranus energy has something in common with aries, or seems to associate well with aries energy.

i am curious if you'd like to answer the questions you've posed to me. and, as i said at the beginning of the thread - i was happy you started the conversation as i think it's good to engage in these types of questions and thought exercises.

As usual, Lee Lehman has some interesting thoughts on the outer planets and their rulerships. Her latest blog may be of interest, considering the topic of this thread.

http://leephd.blogspot.co.uk/

Waybread wrote:

Mark, are you clear that we are actually on the same page so far as the evils of war are concerned? But that we can delineate the difference between an ideology and its implementation? And that reactionary political movements can be Uranian as well? And that soldiers and fighting are ruled by Mars? And that I think Mars and Uranus share some characteristics?

Without quoting you line by line some of your previous comments here seemed to contradict these conclusions so thanks for this clarification. Up to now you seemed highly resistant to accepting any Mars like characteristics in Uranus. You said as much.

Still, perhaps we have both been trying to balance out was what we perceived as an overemphasis? I was trying to emphasize the more negative side of Uranus because I thought you were presenting it in an extremely positive manner. You seem to have been reacting back to what you perceived as excessive negativity in my view of Uranus. I was also reacting in part to the views Tarnas seems to have promoted. However, it seems clear we are actually both in agreement that the planet has a positive and negative dimension. I don?t have a problem acknowledging that. The debate is where we choose to put the emphasis. I put the emphasis more on Uranus as a malefic than you do.

Waybread wrote:

I am seeing a lot of confusion on this thread regarding Mars vs. Uranus. Yes, they share some similarities, but then the moon and Venus share some similarities, and we do not conflate them.

I cannot comment for others. Let me summarise my own position here. As I currently view it the outers have no unique essential planetary nature of their own. They must therefore be understood in reference to the nature of the seven traditional planets. I think they all have a composite nature. In other words like the traditional view of fixed stars they each manifest a combination of traditional planetary influences. I have suggested primarily two planets are at work but that is open to discussion. I am not focusing on any notion of a ?higher octave? here as found in some modern astrology?.

But there is plenty of room for debate, discussion and yes confusion here. Unlike modern astrology which often takes a hard wired view of these planets, traditional astrologers need some space to look at these issues for themselves and to ask themselves fundamental questions without the intellectual baggage of modern astrology. Some will conclude like John Frawley it is not worth the effort as we risk diluting and confusing a system that appears to work perfectly well already.

Others like myself feel the benefits outweigh the risks. I think the discovery of new bodies needs at least some re-evaluation of the traditional astrological universe. I think Robert Hand?s comments (quoted above) are a very helpful way forward for traditionalists trying to get a handle on the outer planets. He has gone back to the Aristotlean basics to look at what appears to be the qualities of these planets.

Based on that he states Uranus seems to have a basically hot+dry nature. In reference to the traditional planets Mars is hot + dry but according to Ptolemy primarily dry. The Sun is hot + dry too but primarily hot. Mercury seems to be moderately dry. Sources differ on whether it is hot or cold. However, as Hand states Mercury is ?common ? in nature and has its quality is altered by the planets aspecting it.

So in terms of traditional planets Uranus appears most like Mars and the Sun. Which has precedence? I would put more focus on Mars myself. However, this perhaps varies on the placement of Uranus. Looking at this traditionally the domicile and exaltation rulers should have an influence along with other dignities such as bound and decan/face rulers.

Another characteristic worth exploring is the planetary phase of Uranus. By this I mean its relationship to the Sun. Ptolemy and other ancient and medieval sources describe the modification of a planet?s nature due to its relationship to the yearly cycle to the Sun. One might expect a hot+ dry planet to be more negative in influence when at its hottest or driest (opposition or waning square to Sun). This goes back to the traditional notion that planets can be most malefic in influence whenever there is an excess of a particular quality. In Ptolemy we see malefics are about excess of a quality while benerfics are about moderation.

Waybread wrote:

Frankly, we can identify many planet-sign affinities apart from the traditional rulerships or exaltations. This is especially true if you work with dwads or decans. This doesn't mean we fly in the face of the past half-century or more of pragmatic modern astrology. (I am not a fan of esoteric astrology or the looser types of psychological astrology, incidentally.)

True. Traditionally, various planets can have a call on a degree of the zodiac. Although the domicile, exaltation and bound rulers were most important in ancient astrology.

Waybread wrote:

In what way would you explain Uranus as hot and dry? Pardon me if you said so earlier and I missed that part.

See the Robert Hand quote above. I note in the link just provided by Geoffrey below that Lee Lehman has independently adopted this view too.

Waybread wrote:

Re: the political nature of Uranus:

I just hate it when the Nazis come up in discussion, because once this happens, rational discourse tends to fly out the window. But if you know your German history of the 1920s and 30s, you recall some very Uranian elements as well. For example, one of their ill-fated projects was to put society on a more "scientific" footing. Eugenics in the 1920s and 30s was not the dirty word that it became after the horrors of genocide became known, but was promoted (including in the US) as a social benefit to society.

I should state I didn?t just mention the Nazis for rhetorical effect to stoke the flames!

I am aware of Godwin?s law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

The strongly Uranian nature of this movement seems an important challenge to the one dimensional focus of Tarnas. If you prefer we can focus on lots of other radical/reactionary figures. I already cited many of these people. However, as you don?t seem to be disputing that Uranus can also be linked in this way too we don?t seem to be disagreeing on this.

Waybread wrote:

Again, any planet can have a positive or negative face. Beneficent Venus can make men lazy and effeminate, according to traditional sources!

Agreed. See my comments above! We dont have essential dignity or sect for the outers but we do have aspects, planetary dispositors and their phase to the Sun. I think all these factors can modify how the outers manifest in a chart.

Waybread wrote:

I cannot imagine why you call my views "positivist." They are anything but.

It was really your rhetorical flourish around the American Revolution, and other freedom and emancipation movements you suggested were all linked to Uranus that I felt was rather one sided. You have also provided no actual astrology ( ie real chart examples) to support your position.

Waybread wrote:

Like Uranus and Aries. I declare myself to be equally talented and gifted.

A bit Like Oscar Wilde?s comment to on entering The USA that 'I have nothing to declare but my genius!'

Waybread wrote:

It would be nice if you could find the Houlding piece,

I'm afraid I cannot at present.

I thought it might be in this old piece from the Traditional Astrologer magazine from the 1990's preserved here on Skyscript electronically. However, I cannot see it there.

http://skyscript.co.uk/aquarius.html

Maybe it was in her much more recent article in the Mountain Astrologer on Aquarius?

When I studied with Deborah Houlding I know she emphasized her experience that the outer planets were largely malefic in influence in horary questions. Since horary is one of the most practical areas of astrology where vague generalities will not do I think that is a very interesting insight based on practical astrology not pure theory.

However, I recall Deborah was keen to emphasize that she really only looked at outers when they were strongly emphasized in a horary chart by being angular or in a close applying aspect to a planet representing the querant or other significators. I have applied that approach in my own attitude to the outers ever since.

Waybread wrote:

I assert that a traditional astrologer who wishes to switch Uranus from Aquarius to Aries should make a better case than I have seen so far. And this case needs to rest on praxis.

No traditional astrologer believes Uranus rules Aquarius in the first place. So we are not suggesting any kind of ?switch?. Like all other traditional astrologers I don?t assign Uranus rulership of anything. I started off the thread quoting Bernadette Brady and her argument that outer planets can have ?associations? to particular signs not formal rulership. I gave various philosophical reasons why I saw Uranus more connected to Aries than Aquarius. If this planet really is hot and dry ( like Mars and the Sun) it would have more natural affinity with a hot+dry sign like Aries which has Mars as its domicile ruler and the Sun as its exaltation ruler. Aquarius is the detriment of the Sun and Mars holds no domicile or exaltation rulership in that sign. I also suggested that when Uranus does exert influence it seems to be exceptionally.

I am happy to get into praxis examples ( which you haven?t at all) but I don?t think the philosophy forum is the place for that. I am willing to acknowledge my ideas are not yet fully formed on this subject. I am still investigating and asking questions. Moreover, this is not an article putting forward a fully fledged thesis. Its simply an exchange of views. I may well pull this all together and propose this as an article at some point. However, its quite clear wherever I go with this you are perfectly content with Uranus as ruler of Aquarius. Fair enough.

Waybread wrote:

I read a lot of charts for people, and I just cannot fathom what switching Uranus over to Aries would accomplish, other than confusion.

Yet again you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. I have never ever proposed this anywhere!

I am not suggesting modern astrologers assign Uranus ?rulership? of Aries. I don?t believe Uranus rules anything. Since much of my argument is based on traditional ideas which you neither use of practice I don?t expect you to adopt my viewpoint. I think this is largely an internal discussion for those that already work with the traditional rulers.

Mark, I truly admire what you are attempting to accomplish, but I don't think the modern outers can put into the Procrustean Bed, and then trimmed or stretched to fit. Since many traditionalists will not use the modern outers anyhow, why not just let them be, in their own category? They don't need to fit into Aristotelian "science".

Waybread many of the leading figures in traditional astrology already work with outer planets! To repeat the list I gave to Konrad earlier: Deborah Houlding; Robert Hand; Bernadette Brady; Lee Lehman; Chris Brennan, Anthony Louis; and Robert Schmidt ( I think??).

Yes there are people like Benjamin Dykes and John Frawley who ignore these bodies. I can respect that view.

However, as I stated to Konrad earlier I think traditional astrologers need to consider the post Copernicus/Galileo/Kepler cosmos. In my opinion Traditional astrology needs some reform but not the kind of obliteration represented in modernist astrology. I think we need to go about this process by applying traditional astrological principles and philosophy and not by going into the wild flights of fancy.

Waybread wrote:

One wonders what you would do with the asteroids and dwarf planets. These, too, are part of many modern astrologers' practice. Then further delights await with the recently discovered trans-Plutonians.

Good point. I raised this issue already in reply to Konrad.

The asteroids, centaurs, and trojans are relatively minor bodies in astronomical terms. I think there is a real danger of our astrology being swamped by minor objects we have no real understanding of how to apply. Simply, jumping on to the bandwagon of interpreting them entirely through the mythology of their astronomical name is insufficient in my view. We simply haven?t observed there effects long enough and it may be impractical due to their minor status.

The modern phenomena of moderns all using Chiron seems bizarre to me. What happened to the other Centaurs or asteroids? If we are going to use such bodies lets at least be consistent! I have heard the asteroids defended on feminist grounds that the traditional planets are too masculine and we need more feminine bodies. So it seems like as astrological quota system for some to even up the books. To me this isn?t
sound astrological logic.

I therefore choose to exclude them at present.

It?s a similar problem with the Trans Neptunian bodies like Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Sedna, etc. What do they really symbolise. Are we not at risk again of being overwhelmed with too many objects to delineate without a clear idea what they actually symbolze?

I do note the ancient Greek view that the planets were ?Gods? because they were spherical in shape. I think only one of the asteroids, centaurs and Trojans fits that descriptionThat is Ceres. Because of that I have toyed with exploring it in my charts. However, that is an extremely tentative view.

As someone who has a few doubts about Pluto in practical astrological terms I certainly don?t intend to ?boldly go? into working with these bodies in a hurry. My current working hypothesis is that Pluto is the gatekeeper of the Kuiper belt and all that lies beyond. In natal terms anyway, it is sufficient to work with as the planet symbolizing these astronomical bodies of ice. Still, for mundane work I might take a look at the TNOs out of curiousity.

Waybread wrote:

As you can imagine (or at least find out, by reviewing my previous posts) I do think the modern outers work just fine as domiciled rulers of their respective signs. Simple telescopes capable of viewing Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto have been around for a very long time. The "naked eye" argument really doesn't hold up well in this day and age.

Yes I had worked out you favoured the status quo of modern astrological rulerships. So be it.

I actually, think the philosophy of light and optics still has some merit. Yes we have telescopes but I think the fact the outers cannot be seen by the unaided eye does change their status. I have looked at this a lot in regards the astrology of comets.

Waybread wrote:

Don't be angry with me, Mark. I thank you for a stimulating discussion.

I am not angry with you Waybread. However, I did feel your reply explaning the motion of the outer planets through the signs to me was a bit patronising. I am not a raw beginner with no knowledge or practical experience in this area. I have done more research in this area than possibly the majority of people here.

I should have realised my reference to outer planets having a similarity to fixed stars in traditional astrology was wide open to misinterpretation. As Paul correctly pointed I was primarily thinking of their lack of rulership or essential dignity. However, I also had in mind the idea of outers as bodies with a composite planetary nature in reference to the seven traditional planets. This is the way Ptolemy describes the fixed stars nature.

Still, they are not synonymous. Fixed stars are beyond our solar system and therefore do not orbit our sun like the traditional planets. The outer planets actually move through signs as they orbit the earth. The stars slow movement through the tropical zoodiac is largely a visual artifact caused through the effects of precession. The outer planets also have dispositors of the signs they travel through. The fixed stars do not.

I agree with you that the outer planets are unique and deserve there own category. In traditional terms they share some similarities with planets and others with fixed stars.

Mark

waybread wrote:I happen to like Uranus a lot. I've worked with it extensively, and wonder how deeply you guys really live and appreciate Uranus. I don't mean this disrespectfully, just experientially.

I don't think "like" and "dislike" comes into it. I have one malefic ruling my ascendant, and another in the first house. I like both the tradiitonal malefics in their own way. They sure have offered me a few challenges, but that's not a bad thing. I have both both benefics in whole sign angles - without some malefics I'd never get out of bed!

I also love Uranus, but that doesn't stop it from having a malefic nature.

This wasn't Mars or Aries. Mars can provide some impetus, but it isn't a notably social planet, and Aries is not a notably social sign.

Well that's probably a matter of opinion, because I'm sure your Mars was highly involved as well.

I work extensively with house cusp rulers in natal chart interpretation. As posted above, Uranus works just fine as the modern ruler of Aquarius, retaining Saturn as the traditional ruler. I can't imagine changing years of practice with this placement to suddenly move Uranus over to Aries as its house cusp ruler-- for what possible reason?

Right, I just don't think Uranus works as well as Saturn. I have Aquarius on my fourth house cusp. Saturn seems to better describe it. I certainly don't see a whole lot Uranian about it.

I also think aspects are highly important. I wonder how many astrologers who see Uranus in a mostly negative light as the Big Accident have challenging Uranus aspects to personal planets. It is a truism of modern astrology that if we cannot embody and exemplify a planet's positive traits, it will come back to bite us with its negative traits.

Right, well mine is opposition the Sun (2 degree orb), Mercury (4 degree orb) and sextile Jupiter (1 degree orb). I think all of those aspects are relevant to me.

But then the question here isn't whether we use Uranus or recognise its symbolism was it? It was whether Uranus rules Aquarius. For that matter, I have Moon and Jupiter in Aquarius, I am not sure I would recognise Uranus as dispositor of either them, perhaps the Moon to an extent, but really its aspect to and reception by Saturn, as a dispositor, just happens to make more sense to me.

What I mean by all this is that whilst our own natal charts probably figure into this, I think we can examine the issue without falling on to an argument of suggesting that someone disagrees because they don't have the same strong connection to the planet as someone else.

But modern astrologers have been using Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius for decades now, to good effect.

If it's not broken, why fix it?

Well with logic like that, was anything broken with Saturn as ruler for millennia? ;P

waybread wrote:Paul, I do not associate Uranus with cardinal signs. This isn't the way the traditional rulerships work out. We do get Mercury and Jupiter ruling the mutable signs, but the other two-sign rulers like Mars combine cardinal and fixed rulerships.

I know that, but I do. And I'm a little blown away that Mark has had the same idea. To be honest, skyscript is probably the last place I would have expected to see this idea written so well and so closely to my own ideas. It has really made me sit up and take notice.

Paul, I equally made the point in a previous post (that you didn't catch?) that there are circumstances in traditional astrology when a traditional malefic can operate in a beneficial way.

Yes but I wanted to refocus on it because your arguments regarding malefic and negative seemed to forget it. You said that Uranus can be positive - I just wanted to refocus that so can all malefics.

The trouble with comparing modern outer planets to fixed stars is that the latter do not change sign during a typical lifetime-- they scarcely change degree.

True, apart from our own generation of course :/
However I understood Mark's analogy to be indicating that it has influence and natural symbolism, but not dignity and so on.

Of course we're all entitled to disagree with him. I just happen to either think in similar ways to Mark (if I can pay myself that compliment) or at least have similar ideas about the outer planets as he does.

But hey, there's plenty of room under the astrological umbrella to accommodate both theories right? After all, I do not think Mark is saying that modern astrologers should stop and switch to Aries, but rather offering a new way of thinking about the rulership scheme in modern astrology and rethink some of the associations.
Not everyone will agree with that, but personally I find it really interesting that Mark has posted this.

james_m wrote: i was only pointing out that you seemed to have a more nuanced viewpoint that paul suggested.. something about marks association with brilliance and paul just isn't working for me.

Don't worry James, I took it as tongue in cheek too. I wouldn't dream for a minute that I might 'recruit' you to my fanbase either.

paul - your comments on what constitutes a malefic imply no planet has to be a malefic.. is that what you are saying?

Let me be more clear about what I'm saying. All planets can behave malefically and benefically, but Mars and Saturn, unless in specific conditions, naturally incline toward malice. However put them in their sect and make them well dignified and they show their benefic side.

you use the example of fire in a negative and positive sense. the same logic can be applied to any element..

I meant actual flames, using the analogy of Mars ruling fire.

In other words, fire is too hot and too dry. Put it on your living room sofa for a few minutes and you'll see how powerfully destructive it is. As a rule malefics incline toward an excess that is harmful. However, in the right conditions, and constraints, such as on a very cold wintry night, put the fire 'where it belongs' (ie, a fire place) and you can see its benefic qualities too.

Perhaps my analogies are always destined to go over your head but hopefully this helps you understand what I am saying.