Sue,
"No traditional astrologer believes that Pluto relates to Scorpio."
Not sure how this relates to what I mentioned. Not every astrologer starts from traditional pov. Many have & do start from modern pov associating Pluto with Scorpio. If interested in Scorpio, those who start from a modern frame of reference have been known to backtrack through to rulerships Mars etc.
"It is astronomers who are determining whether Pluto, for example, is a planet or not."
I don't think Pluto being a planet or not was in question. Pluto's still a planet. Simply re-ordered/re-categorized as a "dwarf" and leader of a new group.
"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?"
Ceres was important.
Previously as a Fixed Star Spica (of Virgo constellation, to the Romans "Spica" was "Ceres").
The name lent to the (re)discovery of the planet in another earth sign, reappointed 'asteroid', redefined as a small planet.
"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."
1 person, a student. Who an authority in the field promptly checked. Appears to be blowing one comment out of proportion. And even if it was granted to one constellation as exhibiting certain qualities related to that region of the skies, I fail to see how that would over-turn primary ruler ... instead, potentially bringing forward certain other qualities of the primary ruler.
"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?
...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. "
Sorry, Sue - I found this all a bit contradictory and confusing, not sure what point it was you were making.
Ancient astrologers were aware of this constellation, had charted this constellation - the modern/western identification of it on the ecliptic was not new, except perhaps to western consciousness.
http://www.geocities.com/astrologyconst ... iuchus.htm
Are you suggesting the ancients charted constellations (stars) on and beyond the ecliptic but didn't relate them into the schematic and use them for interpretive purposes?
The tropical zodiac is a homogenization of the Sun's path, ie. approx. equal division of space/time per sign during course of a year and part & parcel of that's the calendar.
Change to 13 signs would flow through to change to 13 months ... this not being a new concept either, calendrical change being another part of the considerations leading into '30s which also dates back to ancient times (insertion of 13th month from time to time etc.
http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=calhistory/earlier/greek).
Astronomers didn't change anything with Ophiuchus - was already there, not a new discovery.
Proposed introduction of a 13th month
http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/13-month.htm was not new either.
But if division of annual time is by 12, remains 12 due to general consensus, and that's the quality of time society functions by, then it follows so do astrologers functioning within that society for astrology to be applicable to the times.
"The integrity of the system already in place would be severely compromised as it has been with that of rulerships."
Imo, the integrity of the system was compromised when the heliocentric order was broadly adopted to the detriment of geocentric. The order as it related back to earth was overturned. The emphasis on the heliocentric model brought with it developments and new perspectives to western consciousness - and would appear is primarily the base of 'modern' astrology - however, 'tradition' integrates both 'orders'.
"The tropical zodiac is very clearly no longer defined by astronomical reality so why depend on the current astronomical reality now?"
If you exclude astronomical reality (either now or back at some point of origin), what is astrology based on?
Tropical zodiac was defined through a homogenization process based upon astronomical reality of the time - the original principles still hold true and carry forward. The fact that current astronomical reality reveals a progression (& precession) from it's earlier years also reflects developmental shifts through time. To suggest point of origin has no bearing on or measure of truth to current reality I admittedly find odd.
Astrology arose from astronomical reality, why would it be devoid of astronomical reality now? Without it astrology wouldn't exist and no-one would be erecting charts, past or present.
"If astrology and astronomy go hand in hand then astrologers would currently consider the cardinal points to be Pisces, Taurus, Virgo and Sagittarius."
How do you figure that?
And if someone doesn't know or isn't learning about the 'astronomical reality' of the planets/lights/stars (incl. earth) that they're philosophizing about (which the ancients studied intently), then what is it they're philosophizing about?
"Are we going to stick them all in the chart too without due consideration?"
Due consideration by whom? Leading astrological authorities? If so, then why place such emphasis on one student's comment? Those leading research are duly considering developments ... and there's no demands imposed upon anyone as to what they choose to stick in charts for consideration.
Everyone has their own limitations as to what the mind's capable of embracing and making sense of, and some simply operate within tighter limitations than others. Can limit to cycles of Sun & Moon with effective results if one should choose.
But if those tighter limitations hamper development towards further understanding then imo that's just as problematic as not understanding the foundations upon which it was built in the first place.
"There is no relationship between Pluto and Scorpio except when Pluto is actually in Scorpio."
I think the discovery chart suggests otherwise.
"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?"
If they're not stuck in a chart and researched then how do they get duly considered by astrologers?
"Since Pluto's orbit crosses into Neptune's ..."
It doesn't, eg.
"What about Pluto crossing Neptune's orbit?
??? Partly this issue has come up from an incorrect statement in an AP wire story which says that Pluto is autmatically disqualified because it crosses the orbit of Neptune. Untrue.
"... surely this means Neptune has not cleared out Pluto and thus is not a planet, right? No. Neptune has a mass more than 8000 times greater than that of Pluto, and, in fact, totally dominates Pluto's region of the Kuiper belt. Much of the material in the Kuiper belt has indeed been tossed aside or accumulated by Neptune, but a very special region ("the Plutinos") have actually been captured by Neptune instead."
Ref: Mike Brown, Caltech:
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/eightplanets/
and
http://www.nineplanets.org/plutodyn.html
Tom:
"...or maybe the entire astrological structure needs to be re-thought."
And maybe this could be a good thing.
To re-think any structure involves learning about the structure that it was built upon. For those not aware of the predecessors to the "modern" frame-of-reference such a review may open eyes to a whole new depth of traditional wisdom.
All-in-all might find the Pluto review empowers the tradition.
TS
