Paul wrote: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?

Because these are the people who treat astrology as a "religion". The concept of rulership goes all the way back to at least the Hellenistic era. Valens refers to one of these as an "oikodektor" which means "one who give ear to". This is a stewardship situation where a planet is acting either as head of a household (oikodespotes) or as a steward for the true lord (usually the exaltation lord where domicile lord can't do so).

The interesting thing is that the modern concept of "affinity" is not that far removed from the ancient concept of "oikieosis" which means to "appropriate" or to make ones self "familiar" with. From a neo-platonic perspective an appropriation can happen on the noetic level by becoming formally identical (and not materially identical) as Schmidt would say with whatever the mind beholds. So it was theorized that the planets at creation "familiarized" or appropriated certain places for themselves in the cosmos, which is to say that planets in their eidos (forms) took on the images (zoidia). To some degree this happens to the planets in whatever sign they happen to be in, but there are special places that fit more closely to their own natures (perhaps in the material sense, rather than the eidei).

In this way the outer planets potentially have affinity to the images in various ways. It is not just a matter of likeness, but also of contrast. Uranus has a special place in relation to breaking up the "perfection" or completeness of Saturn. In Valens we find that Saturn can mean either high rank and the pinnacle of achievement or the dismantling of things. Symbolically within the circle of rulerships, you have two domiciles of Saturn right next to each other and in the process of going from the lights to Saturn back to the lights again, this break between Solar and Lunar halves of the zodiac happens at 0 Aquarius. The discovery of Uranus also broke this completeness and so it has an affinity to this issue of dismantling, breaking conformity, etc... But I don't use Uranus as "ruler" of Aquarius in the traditional sense (oikodektor) because that would be mixing two diffrerent paradigms. Then there is the innate character of Uranus and how this contrasts to various signs. There seems to be the lowest contrast in Aries where it would be more "camouflaged" in that sign than most others.

That's for sure!

Thanks.

zoidsoft wrote:

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.

After the rulership of Leo by the Sun, the following planets are in order of distance of the Sun, hence after Capricorn, ruled by Saturn, the next ruler would be Uranus over Aquarius and Neptune over Pisces. The latter one was a nice coincidence because according to Jim Tester's - A history of western astrology, p. 34, Manilius has the god Neptune rule over Pisces. I know of the use of Pluto from a Dutch book of 1934, where Pluto is mentioned as a new planet which still will need some astrological investigation. Although the book is a 1960?s reprint, the author already died in 1940?s and I don?t believe that the text was revised. In older books I sometimes read that Pluto was also proposed to serve as ruler of Aries, to continue in the same order. I believe this had some usage in Germany. But probably few people found it attractive to change the ruler of the first sign of the zodiac, and therefore gave Scorpio to Pluto. Scorpio is the other sign ruled by Mars. The traditional rulerships of Aquarius, Pisces and Aries by respectively Saturn, Jupiter and Mars is also used to explain meanings of the three moderns in terms of ?octaves?. So Uranus as a higher octave of Saturn, etc. However this may be of later date, at least of Rudhyar?s days.



The first astrological use of Uranus I found was of a journal from 1806, on page 222: http://books.google.nl/books?id=s5IFAAA ... &q&f=false . Uranus, still called Georgium Sidus (the name its discoverer William Herschel gave to it), is discussed in Napoleon Bonaparte?s chart. Its parallel declination position is also mentioned, also the mundane aspects, as well as a ?wrapt? (rapt?) quintile, probably the Placidus influence, which as the main source had oozed through in the 18th century (if I?m correct about this).

I hardly can trace the historical usage of asteroids, beginning from Ceres, discovered in 1801. I believe they were shown/mentioned in M.E. Jones ? Fundamentals of number significance. Although it was a pleasant to read and narrative written, I didn?t keep the book since he assigned meanings to the orb according the symbols of numbers of the whole degrees (e.g. 7? orb = mystical etc.). And when I later saw that he invented the sabian symbols, I knew his astrology wouldn?t be my guide.

Anyhow, with all these newly discovered planets and asteroids and especially the recent availability of ephemerides of the latter, has caused such an expansion of use of anything that I can understand the development of the use of only the classical planets.

To be more thorough, as to how I look at Uranus as a "ruler" of Aquarius, Aquarius shows where something is just past completion. The main choices here are fanfare, accomplishment, dismantling, corruption, breakdown and change (usually it is sudden change because Saturn does not bend, but breaks). So where Uranus/Aquarius is in the chart symbolically shows what is happening to that process in that area of your life, where one makes breakthroughs or where one struggles to hold something together, etc... It is one of the dimensions of Saturn, where if you remember that I said before that Uranus is 3 Saturn cycles (Neptune and Pluto also have assignments traceable to saturnian processes and are also multiples of Saturn cycles due to Bodes law). It is possible to do this for every planet to every sign of the zodiac in the same way that each individual will have a different reaction to staying in each house. A theme will emerge for every single case that can be followed in the same way moderns use asteroids.

I also have another general rule of thumb. The planets inside of Saturn (including Saturn) relate to changes happening more on the material realm and while they also have a spiritual dimension, it is easier to use the visible planets to see visible "concrete" events. The outer planets reside in the invisible realms where spirituality has more potency than matter. Therefore the outers seem to me to represent the "why" question more directly because of their relative "detachment" from our world. The who, what, when and were by contrast are "visible" material concerns.

zoidsoft wrote:

Paul wrote: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?

Because these are the people who treat astrology as a "religion".

I don't think it's a "religion" view, but indeed as Paul suggests, laziness and ignorance. People copy others, very easy in the internet era. Furthermore I think that the power of software should not be underestimated. The possibility to get positions for thousands of asteroids in combination with the most bizarre technique, accessible to all, will undermine astrology and perhaps even erase it. So that if there will be a 'dark age' of astrology, it won't be the clergy and satiriists who chased astrology in its grave in the 1700s (according to Ketih Thomas) nor the scientists (of whom the most aren't interested in the subject) but the astrologers themselves that might erase astrology in future centuries. The subject simply will be too fantastical, to be taken seriously by serious people anymore.

zoidsoft wrote:Symbolically within the circle of rulerships, you have two domiciles of Saturn right next to each other and in the process of going from the lights to Saturn back to the lights again, this break between Solar and Lunar halves of the zodiac happens at 0 Aquarius.

Although I don?t claim to be right, I think that there might be some additional explanation. I touched the subject in an earlier thread on (supposed) origin of exaltations. Perhaps interesting to mention it again.

?The seven ?lights? in this order, Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn was one of several ideas of orders of planets. This one (moon being closest to earth) was called the ?Egyptian? order. There was also a version with Mercury and Venus swapped. The more known ?Chaldean? order was, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. (Jim Tester, ?A History of Western Astrology p.166). I believe that there are some links of the Egyptian (rulerships) order with some other ancient Greek thoughts. In Richard Hinckley Allen?s ?Star Names, Their Lore and Meaning?, Cancer ?according to Chaldean and Platonist philosophy, it was the supposed Gate of Men through which souls descended from heaven into human bodies p. 107. The opposed sign Capricornus was the ?Gate of the gods? through wich the souls returned after death, p.136.?

Added to this, in Babylonian times the equinoxes and solstices were in 15? and later 10? and 8? of the cardinal signs. So in following the above the middle of Cancer would be highest, and the middle of Capricorn the lowest. Moon rulership highest place and Saturn lowest place. Perhaps this preceded the use of a symmetrical ?lunar half?

Perhaps the concept of reincarnation (which also seemed to have been taught in ancient Europe) may be found in the ?lunar half? of the rulerships. Starting birth as Moon and dying as Saturn and later returning downwards to the more worldly levels of the Moon, like a Jacob?s ladder or the motion of the soul in Mithraism.

These are just some thoughts of mine but may give some plausible views.

zoidsoft wrote:I also have another general rule of thumb. The planets inside of Saturn (including Saturn) relate to changes happening more on the material realm and while they also have a spiritual dimension, it is easier to use the visible planets to see visible "concrete" events. The outer planets reside in the invisible realms where spirituality has more potency than matter. Therefore the outers seem to me to represent the "why" question more directly because of their relative "detachment" from our world. The who, what, when and were by contrast are "visible" material concerns.

There might be a little practical problem. Between Mars' and Jupiter's orbit there are also many invisible 'little planets', the asteroids, with Ceres the biggest (diameter almost 1000km). They are placed according to Titius-Bode law and interestingly there are orbits with resonance to Jupiter which usually are avoided by asteroids; the Kirkwood gaps, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkwood_gap .

Eddy wrote:I don't think it's a "religion" view, but indeed as Paul suggests, laziness and ignorance.

There's that too, but at NORWAC we all hold hands and face the 4 directions with an incantation at the end. There are some people who take it as a religion (maybe it is only an American phenomenon?). I'm not entirely against this except insofar as it closes the mind.

Eddy wrote:?The seven ?lights? in this order, Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn was one of several ideas of orders of planets. This one (moon being closest to earth) was called the ?Egyptian? order. There was also a version with Mercury and Venus swapped. The more known ?Chaldean? order was, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. (Jim Tester, ?A History of Western Astrology p.166). I believe that there are some links of the Egyptian (rulerships) order with some other ancient Greek thoughts. In Richard Hinckley Allen?s ?Star Names, Their Lore and Meaning?, Cancer ?according to Chaldean and Platonist philosophy, it was the supposed Gate of Men through which souls descended from heaven into human bodies p. 107. The opposed sign Capricornus was the ?Gate of the gods? through wich the souls returned after death, p.136.?

This fits the Thema Mundi where Cancer rising indicates birth and Capricorn is death.

Eddy wrote:There might be a little practical problem. Between Mars' and Jupiter's orbit there are also many invisible 'little planets', the asteroids, with Ceres the biggest (diameter almost 1000km). They are placed according to Titius-Bode law and interestingly there are orbits with resonance to Jupiter which usually are avoided by asteroids; the Kirkwood gaps, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkwood_gap .

Yes. I'm aware of this. Still the outers are cyclically multiples of Saturn. Inside the orbit of Saturn lies "hule" which is more of the realm of the Dyad and the concrete particular. I doubt that a world based upon "hule" can be made into an image of perfection (Nous).

By destroying the planet lying between Jupiter and Mars, it went from the visible to the invisible. What might that suggest about the predominating realm it now operates in? Of course the 3:1 ratio has a special place in sacred geometry...

Hello Curtis,

You will have to excuse my ignorance but I am finding some of your references a bit arcane. Perhaps you could clarify?

Zoidsoft wrote:

Inside the orbit of Saturn lies "hule" which is more of the realm of the Dyad and the concrete particular. I doubt that a world based upon "hule" can be made into an image of perfection (Nous).

Could you explain further what you mean here. What exactly is 'hule'?
Any articles or sources you can refer us to?

Zoidsoft wrote:

By destroying the planet lying between Jupiter and Mars, it went from the visible to the invisible. What might that suggest about the predominating realm it now operates in? Of course the 3:1 ratio has a special place in sacred geometry...

Again you have completely lost me here. Call me a shallow materialist but I understand astronomers have calculated the mass of all the objects in the asteroid belt, lying between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, as estimated to only be about 4% of the mass of our Moon. Hard to believe there was ever much of a fully formed planet there.

Mark

Eddy wrote:
Perhaps the concept of reincarnation (which also seemed to have been taught in ancient Europe)

As another side note to this discussion, reincarnation was definitely a belief of various European tribes and was definitely not imported in modern times. I have seen mention of it in several sources, unfortunately I do not recall all of them, but here is one of them:

"...Broadly speaking, indeed, most of those who were caught out in this way were souls who had come down from heaven and who were untrained in suffering as a result. The majority of those who had come up from the earth, on the other hand, having suffered themselves and seen others suffer, were in no rush to make their choices [of the next life they would take]...

Er said that the way in which the souls chose their lives was a sight worth seeing, since it was pitiful, funny, and surprising to watch. For the most part, their choice depended upon the character of their former life...

After all the souls had chosen their lives, they went forward to Lachesis in the same order in which they had made their choices, and she assigned to each the daemon it had chosen as guardian of its life and fulfiller of its choice...

Then, without turning around, they went from there under the throne of Necessity and, when all of them had passed through, they travelled to the Plain of Forgetfulness... And there, beside the River of Unheeding, whose water no vessel can hold, they camped, for night was coming on.

All of them had to drink a certain measure of this water, but those who weren't saved by reason drank more than that, and as each of them drank, he forgot everything and went to sleep. But around midnight there was a clap of thunder and an earthquake, and they were suddenly carried away from there, this way and that, up to their births, like shooting stars." - Republic X 619 d - 620 b by Plato

There were other references in Plato's writings and elsewhere, of the beliefs of the Greek (European) ancestors in reincarnation.

Hello Mark,

I have been a somewhat regular participant in NORWAC which happens in Seattle usually around Memorial Day.

See this for a definition of "hule":

http://books.google.com/books?id=pFEII6 ... &q&f=false

...I understand astronomers have calculated the mass of all the objects in the asteroid belt, lying between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, as estimated to only be about 4 % of the mass of our Moon. Hard to believe there was ever much of a fully formed planet there.

And maybe that was my point... not much in the way of hule there.

What is interesting about the ratio of 3:1 is that it is very close to the special number for the circumference of a circle known in mathematics as PI. It is as if the next circle (orbit) can only exist once you have gone "full circle" in the smaller ones.

And maybe that was my point... not much in the way of hule there.

Since the the standard model of cosmology relies implicitly on the bulk of the universe comprising 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' (which have never been empirically proven to exist) the physicists maybe have more common ground with mystical thought than they care to acknowledge.

Mark