Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello folks,

This is really aimed at an earlier post of Tom's.

In particular:

I`ve never been taken with the idea that newly discovered planets reflect the times in which they were discoveredand therefore "rule" those things prominent at that time. the problem is exactly what Skippy pointed out: there are other parts of the world besides the USA and Western Europe. Furthermore, it is a selective attitude. Neptune was discovered at the time of the first "total" wars, the Crimean war and the American Civil War, plus it was discovered about the time of the first WMD, the Gattling Gn. Yet, no one associates Neptune with war or warefare. So why does anesthesia make Neptune the ruler of drugs, but modern warfare still gets Mars?

I'm not seeking to discuss the bigger issue of whether its legitimate or not to approach the symbolism of newly discovered planets this way. I know Frawley is quite hilarious in his parody of such notions in his book The Real astrology. Still it seems to me if we are going to look at history in this discussion lets stick to the right period ie immediately around the discovery of Neptune. Otherwise where do we draw the line ( not something Neptune will help with!)

I have a few observations around the time of the discovery of Neptune. I have no idea what other astrologers have argued here but these seem important points to me associated with this period. I would suggest the examples Tom is using are a little late ie the mid 1860's. I therefore don't see examples such as the Civil War or Gattling Gun as that relevant here.

More appropriate examples I think are the major wars and political events immediately preceding, co-inciding and immediately following the discovery of Neptune in 1846. These are the Opium War between Britain and China 1839-42 ,the Mexican-American war of 1846-48 and the year of Revolution across Europe 1848. I have also looked at the rise of Marxism , Darwinism and the birth of the Bahai faith that all stem from this period. I have left some of the other historical examples out e.g Spiritualism to give space for other stuff.

In the Anglo-Chinese War usually known as the Opium war British military power compelled the Chinese government to accept the importation of opium into their country. They also enforced a series of other humiliating concessions on the Chinese. A nice twist on the contemporary 'war on drugs'. What more Neptunian theme could you fight a war over?


The Mexican-American war 1846-1848 was obstensibly about securing the freedom of the newly independent Texas. However, in reality the USA also wanted to expand its territory into the west. Military success for the US led to Mexico being forced to sell off territory in the west that would later become American states e.g. California, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah . Underlying this war was the idea of "Manifest Destiny"; the belief that America had a God-given right, or destiny, to expand the country's borders from 'sea to shining sea'. So we have themes of religion, the sea and boundary issues...good Neptunian stuff don't you think?

In Europe 1848 was the year of revolution when a series of uprisings took place all over the continent against the restrictions of the post-Napoleonic regimes. Russia and Britain were the only major powers that the revolutionary movements did not effect. Those taking part were often motivated by utopian socialist , nationalist and liberal ideals but the revolutions were marked by total impracticality about the realities of seizing power. It was also in 1848 that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published the Communist manifesto. All the revolutions had ultimately failed by 1852 with the restoration of either dictatorship or the reestablishment of conservative rule. These developments are probably why Neptune is often associated with left wing politics.

In the scientific realm this era is marked by the publication of Darwin's momentous Origin of the Species in 1859. However, Darwin actually developed his theory in 1838. The concept of a commonality to all life seems very Neptunian to me.

Outside Europe and North America what was happening the Islamic world? Quite a lot actually. Nothing less than the first faith to totally
break away from Islam since the time of Muhammed. This would bring about the rise of a new world religion: Ba'haism.

In Iran in 1844 Siyyid `Al?-Muhammad declared his mission to Mull? Husayn; he claims to be the B?b of the Imam; the first disciples start missionary work throughout Persia. The 'Bab' continued his preaching mission throughout the rest of the 1840's up to his execution by the Persian authorities in 1850. Despite heavy persecution and much loss of life his followers go on to create what we know as the Bahai faith today.

Looking at the period leading up the Neptune's discovery the tale is hardly a straightforward one with loads of muddle and confusion between whether we should give the credit to an Englishman, Frenchman or German. I will not state the obvious here...

Of course this is a game that can be played back and forward. Still, the historical associations in this period can be found. Like all evidence though its a question of what you choose to select and exclude from consideration.

Hi Skippy,

It is funny you should pick on homoeopathy to bolster your argument because I often think of using it to bolster the traditional line. I completed a degree in homoeopathy many years ago. Like astrology, there is a divide between those who practise classical homoeopathy and those who we often snidely called 'mixopaths'. The situation in the homoeopathic community is very similar to that of the astrological community and the argument just as fierce. There is a great divide between those who follow the traditional teachings and those who try to ?modernise? it without any understanding of the principles involved. I am very much on the side of Classical homoeopathy in the same way as I am a Classical astrologer. Classical homoeopaths follow the rules of Samuel Hahnemann who developed homoeopathy in the 1790?s. The 'mixopaths' are those who will disregard the rules and create something different.

It is the same with astrology and the use of the outer planets in natal charts. We don?t have the thousands of years of experience that we have for the traditional planets. We have no idea how Pluto operates in Capricorn in a natal chart but there are books telling us how it does. We know how Mars operates in Capricorn because of the long history of this experience. I don?t completely object to the use of the outer planets. There are times when I take note of them. But the main reason I object to the use of the outer planets in the way that they are being used is because of the lack of deep understanding we have and the way that the planets are being personalised in a natal chart. The one time I do use the outer planets is in mundane astrology. I believe they can be quite effective and teach us a lot about cycles. It is possible to look back through history to trace the last few times Uranus was in Aquarius, for example, and try to ascertain how it might have contributed to the cycles of the time. But this is the mundane, not the personal.

Besides all of this, I have a perfectly good reason for ignoring Pluto. It is entering my 12th house any day now and I have four traditional planets in my 12th house. If I ignore it, it can?t hurt me.

yes I did ignore it Sue and it comes right up in your face and holds a knife with the express intention of sticking it right there in your heart. That my learned friend is quite another matter. Now I could just say oh well life is eternal I'll come back and haunt you, it'll be far much more fun but to me that is akin to just being weak and committing suicide. Why else is mars in the religion of the ancients eh?

Zeus was ALWAYS more powerful than PLUTO the problem was that Zeus too had his weaknesses and Pluto being divinely Machievellian will always try to capitalize on your weakness. He loves nothing more than fear.

He also loves nothing more than hatred too. Loves it. If you read your Organom and understood it (which means you are really really learned) you will know that you get what you give. You echo sentiments of feeling 'the others' as mixies and cast down on them in snide fashion. Hmm. Well that goes some way to explain why alot of the Classical homeopaths were no good at their art and by that I'm not attacking their knowledge of their subject but more their ability to affect a healing in their patients. Knowing your Organom you would know why that was.

You see in my day, I had no idea that Rob Hand was a modern astrologer I just know him as Rob, Jonathan as Jonathan, Charles as Charles, (Harvey)Mike as Mike and so on. After a hiatus in astrology it seems it has become fashionable to start labelling some of our great astrologers either as modern theosophists or traditionalists so 'I' must fit into one of these camps or else. Well it might be true of this site but it's not true of everyone on it or the fraternity as a whole. Whilst I cannot do anything about the fact that I have black skin and people will judge me on that and possibly given half the chance execute me for it. I'm darn as hell going to have someone start executing me for my ideas. For you see, I can't change the colour of my skin but I am at perfect liberty to change my ideas if and when I please but unfortunately some would also execute you for that.

Alice Bailey:
It has been suggested to me that the above is an anti semite. I guess they are referring to an ill thought out quote always misrepresented but had she not said it it could not be mis-represented. Not least because she purported it to come from some divine being. For someone who devoted her life to spirtual evolution and peace it is laughable that she is now being quoted as an anti-semite. However, this is precisely what happens to people who think that their way is the only way and what they say is right either through some notion of history or tradition or through, in her case, channelling some divine being. It was nothing more than her own dualistic unconsciousness wrestling with the atrocities at the very time and certainly not anything divinely lead. To me it is obvious she became so duped by her own adulation and talent that she forgot there's always PLUTO lurking waiting to undermine you and given she wasn't really an astrologer she should have known that.

Any skilled medium or channeller knows that one always must be mindful of the MIND and what is mind and what is spirit for they can be one and the same but they are entirely different. For this reason even the best medium only gets it right 75% of the time and will admit that. As for the skeptics in the argument well Hitler was a skeptic revivalist and look where that got us.

My guess and it is only a guess I have been to more than my fair share of lectures by astrologers re her works is they allude to her because of her referencing to archetypes but most of the time I came out of them scratching my head - for what it's worth. I'm not going to be clever and name names as they may have well moved on since then - as is their right.

Here's mine: "Supposing you're trying to find out how a cat works - you take that cat apart to see how it works, what you've got in your hands is a non-working cat." Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide.

You're almost as naughty as I am, Kim Farnell. You will confuse the likes of skippy. This is not "a cat" or even "an astrologer's cat", but Schr?dinger's cat, for those who don't know the book. So here we have a joke about a joke about a joke - and they're all philosophical. Lovely to see post-modernism so alive and rosy in a traditionalist's watering hole. Don't you just love this forum?

"snit /snIt/ n. N. Amer. slang.M20. [Origin unkn.] A state of agitation; a fit of rage; a bad temper, a sulk. Chiefly in in a snit.
snitty a. bad-tempered, sulky. L20." -- New Shorter Oxford ENGLISH dictionary.

Seems to me a fitting choice of word in the context, even if it is imported americana.

people should be willing to have their assumptions about astrology challenged without taking it as a personal rebuke. Surely, debate and discussion is the essence of good philosophy?

A major part of philosophy is exposing the (underlying, often unstated and unconscious) assumptions in a position, since philosophers have avowed to win arguments only by showing that conclusions are validly inferred from true premises - and not by shooting the opposition, maligning their character (their qualifications, their mothers, their religion, their education, their rationality - lots of ways to do this - etc), preventing them expressing their views, insisting that they are right because Abracadabrus said something like that in the Nth century, pretending they don't understand the answers, ignoring the questions, proclaiming an exclusive mystical connection to the fountain-head of truth (funny how this grows in direct proportion to invested Authority) -- philosophers have seen it all before. The response, worth noting by astrologers because it is so well documented for "scientists", is to get the answers for themselves and then do a "logical reconstruction" of what it is that scientists (astrologers) do - which may or may not look like anything that scientists (astrologers) actually do.

Of course, maybe you didn't mean philosophy in that broad sense, but the sense of a (narrow, private) debate entirely amongst astrologers, e.g. to sort out the minutiae of what Abracadabrus really meant, engaged in for the purpose of ensuring professional unity, ideological conformity, etc, rather than for the truth.

I am at least as interested in the first as the second (in astrologic as in astrology), but it's all grist for the mill.

Re Bailey

referencing to archetypes

I do not recall this as a common Bailey word, if at all. Equally, the term is so broad that even secondary school kids can bandy it about. In specific reference, it is from Jungian psychology. The connections between Bailey's concept of mind and Jung's are tenuous enough to be accidental - quite apart from the different places they are coming from - and going to. The portmanteau label of "psychological astrology" is neither good enough for the purpose of discussing its merits or demerits, and ignores the fact that ancient, traditional, and medieval peoples also had their own quite specific conceptions of "mind" (including/excluding spirit, soul, and other faculties). Obviously what many object to is the "blood and guts" approach of psychoanalysis spilling out into the astrologer's clean-room. But that is just one conception of the Mind.

Although an outer planet aspect or transit can resonate when I'm doing a chart, the same information appears through more traditional approaches

One of the more cogent arguments against the outers, especially when arrived at empirically. My question would be this. When the outers denote different objects to the inner planets, and have different astrological conotations, in what sense does "the same information" appear? It would seem you are not interested in the different information which might (or does, or would be expected to) appear, but in some abstraction or paraphrasing of the raw astrological properties of an outer planet in a particular chart, which allows you to compare the placement of the outer with the placement of an inner, i.e. compare different things and arrive at the view that they are saying the same thing, so to speak. People talk about computers storing "information", but in fact they are storing only data. Is this analogy appropriate to what you mean?

I`ve never been taken with the idea that newly discovered planets reflect the times in which they were discovered and therefore "rule" those things prominent at that time.

It's one thing to attack this notion on the grounds that the wrong "prominent" things have been identified, and quite another to attack the principle behind it. Said principle being along the lines of "each moment contains the full actuality of events pertaining to it which will be unfolded in due course", or some such similar. Which could be thought of applying to most horoscopes cast. Of course, supporters of the principle might point to DNA, but the counterargument, which seems backward applicable to astrology, is that the DNA/chart describes only some things about the future history of the object in question, and that leaves plenty of room for "free will" (as well as for "providence", "damascene conversions", etc).

I think we have to admit there has been some interaction between this approach to the outer planets (I suppose it is strictly the specialism of mundane astrology) and personal (natal) astrology. This is interesting, as astrology is here trying to connect society and the individual in a way which the sciences of sociology and psychology seem to fail to do. (A scientific result, derived from statistical analysis of a group of people, would seem to be applicable only to other groups, and not to specific individuals - no matter what government policy is.) That an outer planet can be described of "generational effect" is not ridiculous (even if unhelpful), since a society is shaped by the acts of individuals from approximately the same age-group where they have access to, or can shape, power and influence. Yet the causes identified by sociologists seem different to those used by psychologists in explaining behaviour. It is in the attempt to bridge this gap that explanations have been made in terms of semiotics, for instance. Other explanations, from elsewhere, have relied on things like "collective unconscious" (Jung), "zeitgeist" (Hegel), "the Hive mind" (???), and (ho, what!) even Bailey has her own explanation (which shall herein remain veiled. Mercifully).

sound familiar anyone...

This is the line of mind or intelligence, of knowledge and of science. It is the line of abstract mind, and of archetypal ideas. The man broods not so much upon the Law, not so much upon the Life, as upon the effects of both in manifestation, and upon the reason why. The man on this fivefold line ever asks why, and how, and whence, and seeks to synthesize, to comprehend and to make the archetypes and ideals facts in manifestation. He broods on the ideals as he senses them; he aims at contacting the Universal Mind, at wresting its secrets from it, and giving them expression. It is the line of business organization, the line also in which the artists, musicians, scientists and the workers of the world have their place. The Spirits of Love and Activity pass much time in each of its five departments before passing on to the lines of love and of power.
LETTERS ON OCCULT MEDIATION
Djwhal (light) Khul (family) a Tibetan philosopher who lived in northern India, hence the references to astrology in many sittings - presumably, channelled through the medium, Alice Bailey
However, it is interesting to note the same astrological philosopher reckons there is a planet near mercury named Vulcan. Now in 1859, Le Verrier an enthusiastic star gazer spotted this planet and told his mate an astronomer who agreed there was indeed something there. Others said nah just some flying rocks. Later this was repudiated and set forth the path for Einsteins theory of relativity.

Seems to me a fitting choice of word in the context, even if it is imported americana.

Re-imported perhaps. Snit(e) is an old English variant of snipe "A Snite; so called, because she wags her taile verie much." Cotgrave 1611.

One of the more cogent arguments against the outers, especially when arrived at empirically. My question would be this. When the outers denote different objects to the inner planets, and have different astrological conotations, in what sense does "the same information" appear?

I never said that the outers denote different objects or that they have different connotations. In which case, without veering into a wild semantic exercise, I'll make an example. In modern terms Neptune=drugs. In traditional terms Mars=drugs. A prominent/triggered Neptune often persuades a subset of astrologers to go "Ooh, it's a drug thingy." Which it may well be. But at the same time there's a debilitated Mars. So I'd have got there with the Mars anyway. This is deliberately specific because I've seen it again and again with drug related issues.

If we have to juggle our associations and say that the outers DO have differing connotations, there's still more than one way to skin a cat.

It would seem you are not interested in the different information which might (or does, or would be expected to) appear, but in some abstraction or paraphrasing of the raw astrological properties of an outer planet in a particular chart, which allows you to compare the placement of the outer with the placement of an inner, i.e. compare different things and arrive at the view that they are saying the same thing, so to speak. People talk about computers storing "information", but in fact they are storing only data. Is this analogy appropriate to what you mean?

Lack of interest is not an accusation I receive regularly, so it's interesting.
No, not an abstraction etc. I don't try to compare outer/inner placements as a mental exercise. I look at the chart and have found that the meanings that are associated with outer planet combinations lie in the chart already through the inner planets, so long as they're allowed their full range of "original" associations and rulerships. That may be close to what you said, but that sentence above was lacking in punctuation so I got a little lost in it. So to speak.

Kim

Hello Coder,

Of course, maybe you didn't mean philosophy in that broad sense, but the sense of a (narrow, private) debate entirely amongst astrologers, e.g. to sort out the minutiae of what Abracadabrus really meant, engaged in for the purpose of ensuring professional unity, ideological conformity, etc, rather than for the truth.

Well its quite undeniable that this thread is a debate just amongst
astrologers and serious students.

However, the rest of your comments must be humour. '' professional unity' 'ideological conformity'? Such a cunnning plan in astrology is surely doomed to failure!

As for the truth,yes I'm for that, I just don't think anyone has a monopoly of it. Moreover, I don't believe astrology necessarily offers any deeper level of truth.

How far an astrological practitioner can journey towards 'truth' is for me more a question of consciousness than knowledge.

By the way if you are going to extract quotes from my posts like this can
you please have the courtesy to attribute me by name.

Thanks

Mark

[quote="Coder.

A major part of philosophy is exposing the (underlying, often unstated and unconscious) assumptions in a position, since philosophers have avowed to win arguments only by showing that conclusions are validly inferred from true premises - and not by shooting the opposition, maligning their character (their qualifications, their mothers, their religion, their education, their rationality - lots of ways to do this - etc), preventing them expressing their views, insisting that they are right because Abracadabrus said something like that in the Nth century, pretending they don't understand the answers, ignoring the questions, proclaiming an exclusive mystical connection to the fountain-head of truth (funny how this grows in direct proportion to invested Authority) -- philosophers have seen it all before. The response, worth noting by astrologers because it is so well documented for "scientists", is to get the answers for themselves and then do a "logical reconstruction" of what it is that scientists (astrologers) do - which may or may not look like anything that scientists (astrologers) actually do.

Of course, maybe you didn't mean philosophy in that broad sense, but the sense of a (narrow, private) debate entirely amongst astrologers, e.g. to sort out the minutiae of what Abracadabrus really meant, engaged in for the purpose of ensuring professional unity, ideological conformity, etc, rather than for the truth.

[/quote]

yes a Damascene moment indeed....
Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

Dear Mark

I like how you have rectified mundane astrological history to observe what happened at the last neptune return and our discovery of it. I was thinking of doing rectifying the last Pluto return in Capricorn. Wasn't Abe Lincoln a big guy on the planet when that was. I can't be sure I'm too busy researcing the charts of screamers like Aretha Franklin in my spare time.

Very pleased to see that, contrary to what has been expressed, the demise of the outers is greatly exaggerated.

MarkC wrote:

I don't believe astrology necessarily offers any deeper level of truth.

Deeper than ...? At http://skyscript.co.uk/farnell.html Garry Philipson wrote:

All references to 'astrology' here specifically concern astrology's capacity to disclose information which would be difficult or impossible to obtain otherwise.

"Deep truth" is a trope. You cannot hide behind a trope. Nobody can. Not scientists. Not an astrologer. Philosophers will hunt you in search of Justification, with their long sentences, their sub-clauses that seem to go on for eternity, with their carefully honed punctuation, not too little to deny the sense, not too much to get in the way of the words, and they will tear at the veils of trope and metaphor and figurative language in general with their questions, for their motto is "If you can't state it literally in plain language, you have nothing to state". They might start by asking: can you share with us an example of a such a "deeper truth"?

As to your surprise about the function of debate in establishing "ideological conformity", is it too hard to imagine the Heir Apparent, knowing his interests and predilections, in due course enthroned, with the Royal Prerogative to institute by Charter a Royal Society of Astrologers should he be so inclined? Perhaps even for no more appealing reason than to give his sundry critics the royal salute?

Kim Farnell wrote:

Snit(e) is an old English variant of snipe "A Snite; so called, because she wags her taile verie much." Cotgrave 1611.

Would this be your take on the tale of a tail? For snipes don't have much of one, and besides I have Cotgrave 1611 in front of me and see no entry for either word in the main section, nor the errata. Prithee lady wherefore doth it be? Or dost thou simplie wag thine for a wager? Flatterie will not deceiveth, forsooth.

Your example of Neptune and Mars is coy; it would be nice to know how the particular debility of Mars points to drugs, rather than say ill health, or weak constitution, or accident (Uranus?), or difficulties at birth (Pluto?). However your method seems clear enough: you distribute the set of astrological connotations over a different set of planets. But the issue must arise of how to adapt your connotations to deal with (skippy's point) new social and technological developments. Should airplanes for instance be associated with Jupiter or Mercury, or perhaps Mars is an option (forged from metals), or even Venus (aerodynamic elegance)? The example is not important; it's the rationale (the criterion of assignment) I'm seeking.

Herewith.bonus.punctuation.gratis.yummy.

Would this be your take on the tale of a tail? <snip>

I'd digress too much if I answered properly. I referenced via Patterweb. It's real.

Your example of Neptune and Mars is coy; it would be nice to know how the particular debility of Mars points to drugs...

You're assuming that drugs are always A Bad Thing. I wrote about Mars and drugs in the last issue of the Lodge Quarterly and lectured on it (and sex and chocolate) at the AA conference two years ago. If you want the article whatever, you're welcome to it.

rather than say ill health, or weak constitution, or accident (Uranus?), or difficulties at birth (Pluto?).

You're reading drug problems and abuse where they weren't mentioned. I don't believe that a chart gives value judgments that way, people do.

But the issue must arise of how to adapt your connotations to deal with (skippy's point) new social and technological developments. Should airplanes for instance be associated with Jupiter or Mercury, or perhaps Mars is an option (forged from metals), or even Venus (aerodynamic elegance)? The example is not important; it's the rationale (the criterion of assignment) I'm seeking.

What is an airplane? A large container for people to enter into in order to travel a long distance. Like a ship, in fact. (Ships themselves have advanced with technology, but no-one wanted to allocate a new planet each time.) This advancement of technology is still centered upon a large container to ferry people on long journeys. I don't see why anything needs to be adapted here. Now if you were talking of truly new technology, e.g. the use of nuclear power, then I'd be more tempted to be flexible. Even then, that view is probably more due to my being taught modern astrology, as when all is said and done, nuclear power is still a fuel source.


Kim

Kim Farnell wrote:

I'd digress too much if I answered properly.

I don't see why. Perhaps you simply meant to refer to the Sherwood additions of 1632 instead? Perhaps not. But to get back to the thread topic of the outer planets:

You're assuming that drugs are always A Bad Thing.

You're reading drug problems and abuse where they weren't mentioned.

Nothing I've written states or implies this. You haven't psyched me correctly either.

Regarding your example of Neptune and Mars, I still think it would be useful to know how the particular debility of Mars points you to inferring drugs, rather than say ill health, or weak constitution, or accident (Uranus?), or difficulties at birth (Pluto?). In the absemce of that I can only guess at your processes. Perhaps you consider these alternative connotations of mine astrologically incorrect or inappropriate? Or perhaps you are simply connecting debilitated Mars with some corresponding feature(s) of the natives desire-nature? But to answer that you really would look like you were passing value-judgements on the native, since at the very least you would have to say they were unusual (debilitated? perverse?) in some way. You can always PM me if you think the PC thought-police might damage your professional reputation.

The other problem with your example is that so many people take drugs, therapeuticallly and/or recreationally, and the definition of "drug" may be drawn in different ways to suit the context, that the Sceptic (yes, he, i'm afraid) might say you could hardly go wrong making the association with drugs.

Fundamentally, my contention is that the outers are astrologically useful, and provide addition information to the traditional planets (and modi operandi). I would be interested to make the case for Pluto using your private data mentioned in your skyscript interview (anonymised, naturally), even though any results could be challenged by Sceptics (of dear, him again) on the grounds of statistical bias (self-selection).

Instead, consider the aspect of Jupiter conjoining Neptune, and the following characteristics I have observed from real life associated with it. Nothing in the list should be startling, as they are all entailed by the astrologically conventional meanings of these planets.

1. Cocktails as a hobby
2. Film buff
3. Loves the idea of academia
4. Musical tastes broad, but exclude rock; include "The Lark Ascending",
drunk-under-the-table-and-dreaming stuff
5. Cultivates a contemporary glamorous appearance
6. Socially idealistic in an ideational, aspirational way
7. Preferred new age self-therapy: essential oils

My question to traditional aftrologers (sic): which of these can you infer by ignoring Neptune?