Skyscript Astrology Forum

James_M wrote

paul and mark,

thanks for your response to me on the topic of uranus.

this hot and dry concept doesn't really hold any water for me.. you can take that a few ways, lol. mark - the argument you made caught my thought on this as well..

Like the pun about the hot+dry not holding any water!
The idea of qualities i.e. hot, cold, dry and wet are fundamental to much of traditional astrology. It is basically an Aristotlean idea but stoics also relied on this approach.

With variations you find this attempt to describe signs and planets in this way in Ptolemy, Valens, Galen and the Perso-Arabic astrologers. Are you saying you have a fundamental problem with this approach to the planets and signs in general or specifically just the attempt to attribute the quality of Uranus as hot +dry?

James_M wrote

Unfortunately with this neat trad system of planets ruling signs - every planet out to saturn gets to rule two signs of different nature.. the way this gets rationalized on some level is with the concept of sect.. mars rules aries and scorpio.. okay, no problem.. we will say that mars is a nocturnal planet as being a diurnal planet would be too much dryness and heat.. but we still get to have mars rule aries as that is what these astrologers of the past did. if one is unable to see the disconnect in some or all of this, then i can't help them ?

Sect is only a partial explanation. You also need to consider the traditional rulership system in terms of the signs aspectual relationship to the luminaries. This article by Deborah Houlding may be of help:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html

James_M wrote

frankly i don't think uranus is all that hot myself.. i think it is more cold and detached which i would associate with mercury or saturn myself.. sun and mars as planetary reps for uranus doesn't make much sense to me at all.

Ok, your clearly one in the gallery I have failed to convince! I?m sure there are many others out there reading this thread. But lets be realistic. Getting a consensus in the astrological community on just about anything is like trying to herd cats! Still, I was intrigued to read Lee Lehman's research that Geoffrey gave the link to earlier in the thread. She compared the words used for Uranus with traditional associations of the planets. It turned out the strongest connection was to the Sun and Mars!

James_M wrote

of course if everyone is saying the same thing - read hand, leeham and whoever - well then they must all be right of course, or the one side of the titanic is really tilted

..

I never suggested they were right. However, since many people hadn?t even heard of their views before its surely it is worthwhile to at least be aware of their ideas?

Personally, I find the modernist attribution of Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius illogical and unconvincing because it contradicts basic astrological principles. I guess we all have our different takes on which approach to astrology is steaming towards the icebergs??

James_M wrote

what horary astrology does with the modes might be fine for horary - cardinal is fast and fixed is slow - but i don't know that you can take that and apply it across the board for any attempt at understanding or making parallel to the nature of a planet. i suppose one can try..

Fair point. The modes are principally about signs not planets. I was suggesting an affinity with those signs.

James_M wrote

the chasm between these different schools of astrology become walls dividing, or opportunities for mavericks to find holes in them..

Any good mavericks in mind?

James_M wrote
i

think saturn is an important planet for a number of reasons. whether a person uses the energy and symbolism implied by saturn and chooses to look to the past only, or has something in them to consider looking to the future as well - it is hard if not impossible to get a clear read of that off an astrology chart. but, i think it matters. in the one - uranus probably acts like a dumb note - unpredictable and potentially unsettling when it does show up astrologically thru whatever predictive system one is relying on. in this sense - uranus also has the potential to be the awaken-er, or planet connected to new found freedom.. for someone who does keep an open mind to the future or the idea that they can't know everything and that their is room for the unknown to enter, uranus might be an easier energy to work with. i do think that uranus has something to do with breaking down barriers, but maybe it is going beyond barriers - man made - that keep people in their nice little prison cell that is oh so comfy and miserable at the same time.

I go along with all that I think.

James_M wrote

uranus seems to be more air then water, the way i think of the elements and what they mean in astrology... if it is fire, it is some type of very cool fire, as opposed to something hot. all the associations with computers, technology, science, astrology and all these connections imply 'order' which i don't get from mars or aries.. it has more affinity with saturn then it does with mars, if that is the choice i am given.. frankly - it is it's own energy and might capture some of both - caught in the middle in some symbolic way. does one make an association with astrology and uranus? i do.. what does astrology have to do with mars? every time i try to force myself or my ideas on others i am typically shunned, lol.. i suppose that is a reflection of my chart and air is definitely missing or largely absent in my chart

.

Very interesting. We have discussed planets, signs, qualities and modes but not elements! For lots of reasons I don?t like the attribution of astrology to Uranus. However, there have been whole threads devoted to that here in the past.

James_M wrote

i think it is the nature of Uranus to go beyond the structures and systems that also serve a purpose. at some point they no longer serve the purpose they were intended for and have outlived their usefulness. this is where the symbolism of uranus can take over in a positive sense if their is receptivity to it. it is also unsettling energy too in that it represents a departure from the past.

Yes. I agree.

James_M wrote

i did go back to examine some skyscript threads on this topic and happened to notice a thread from a few years ago where paul, mark and curtis had some similar things to say that they have repeated here.. i thought that was cool and i liked all that.

Repeating myself? Well I don't think my views on traditional vs modern rulerships have changed. However, I don?t think I have ever discussed Uranus on Skyscript in any detail before.

James_M wrote

this thought of rulership in astrology has always annoyed me.. perhaps it is my aries energy, or the uranus energy in my chart, or something else - but the concept of rulership is something that has never appealed to me - quite the opposite. sure, if a planet has an affinity for a sign - i can appreciate that. what i don't like is the rigidity around the concept of rulership. i suppose i go back to my approach to astrology as not putting much value in that.. this is something that might not have served me well over the years too.. i don't do horary and of course horary relies heavily on rulership concepts, not to mention what appears as a pretty stagnant attitude to house systems and etc.. okay - not to pick on horary. what appeals to others in the way they interface with astrology might not appeal to me and vice versa..

Sounds like a naturally rebellious streak in you James. Surely a reflection of all that Aries and/or Uranus! Its funny what annoys you is one of things I personally find most attractive in traditional astrology. If we are talking about an astrological herd mentality I would have thought much of modern astrology was even more guilty of an unreflective approach in terms of questioning its basic core principles.

James_M wrote

for me uranus does have an important place in my involvement in astrology. I can't imagine not including it in a chart, but i don't lean on it's position all that much. i have just had, or am having uranus over my sun for the past 1-2 years.. it is now moving away from what is still a 1 degree orb to my sun. if anything i would say it has helped in the individuation process. i realize it doesn't matter what others think on some level. the main thing is what i think and what i want to do and to get to it. astrology is a part of it too. i love seeing patterns and connections and i feel it offers me a certain type of freedom i wouldn't have otherwise.. is that uranus? i think it is, but for those that don't use astrology - it is not for me to convince them of the importance of this planet and it's role in astrology.
Thanks for sharing your experience of this transit.

James_M wrote

uranus and aries? - if it was a choice between giving it to aries or aquarius or even scorpio - it would go to aquarius as that is the sign that i think it has the most affinity with.

It goes without saying (but I will anyway!) that I don?t see Uranus that way. As far as I can see no one here has yet provided a logical argument for a strong affinity between Aquarius and Uranus. Any takers?

I'm not talking about natal chart examples. I mean a rational philosophical case being made to support this affinity based on the traditional understanding of Aquarius? I think I have marshalled several points here that support that view of Uranus and Aries. You might not accept my position but at least I have provided a rational case for it. As yet I haven't seen a coherent case made for a strong affinity between Uranus and Aquarius. So does this approach inevitably mean throwing out the traditional understanding of Aquarius for over 2000 years to be made to work?

Mark

Geoffrey wrote:

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/

Hi Geoffrey,

Its been a rather fast flowing thread so I am sorry I never thanked you properly for this link before. Lehman's article is a very interesting contribution to the discussion.

I wasn't aware of this piece before and its rather comforting to see Lehman's research supports the view I had already promoted that the meaning of Uranus in modern astrology seems to mostly derive from the traditional associations of Mars and the Sun.

Although, I do think one can make a case for a Mars-Mercury connection to Uranus instead.

Curtis Manwaring has a very interesting discussion on the significance of the outer planets on his website. It appears that Robert Schmidt sees all the outer planets as transcendant and supports an exclusively solar association for Uranus. Here is the discussion of Uranus from Curtis Manwaring:

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

Uranus: Uranus was discovered in 1781 at a time about midway between the American and French revolutions. The stifling power of Aristocracy was at an all time high in Europe and new ideas in philosophy were announced. Interestingly enough, Schmidt said that Kant's critique of pure reason was published within one month of the discovery date. Ben Franklin did his severe weather kite experiment at this time. Not long after, the power of electricity was harnessed and many new inventions came with the industrial age. It was a time of organized production and innovative ideas. For these reasons, Uranus is said to stand for things like revolutions, insurrections, explosions, electricity, invention, technology, breakthroughs, surprises and the higher mind. Rob Hand has conjectured that Uranus's energy is essentially hot and dry. Schmidt has said that Uranus represents the absolute idea and distorts the significations of human life by comparing the absolute ideal to the human reality.

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 reminiscent 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.

The fact that the outer planets can be schematized in these ways hints that they are transcendent and are somehow beyond normal everyday 1:1 signification or representation.

Mark

Yes, Geoffrey-- thanks for the link. A bit of an ad populum argument in Lehman's sampling, but I think that as traditional astrologers understand temperature and moisture, Uranus fits this definition.

James, I am not sure how you interpret charts, but I sure wouldn't want to relinquish my sign rulers. They are crucial in horary astrology, and incredibly helpful in natal chart interpretation. One of the best statements I found was from Karen Hamaker-Zondag's book, The House Connection: "The house over which a planet rules serves the purposes of the house in which that planet stands."

If a student asks about career choices, what is the planet ruling the MC and its own house situation? If she feel that she has no friends, where is the ruler of the 11th and what are its dynamics?

Depending on whether an Aquarius sun, for example, seems more Saturnian or Uranian, you can decide which of these two planets seems like the more powerful sign ruler; but often times the modern and traditional rulers give the same story.

Hi Mark. No, I don't know you at all! How could I possibly know that you have a MA or its subject matter? Hey, I practice astrology, not clairvoyance. Earlier you seemed dismissive of my citing the American Revolution. My feeling is that whatever one thinks of the US today, positively or negatively, the American Revolution set the tone both for the world's 3rd most populous country today, and also for many other nations who followed its pattern.

I hope you are clear that I never view Uranus as always occuring in a positive light. To quote Forrest again, every planet can operate as a "teacher" or "trickster." My positive remarks were intended as a corrective against the view (of some, not you, dear Mark) that Uranus is malefic, showing up only as unwanted disruption. We can agree that Robespierre was Not a Nice Man without disagreeing on the essentially Uranian nature of the French Revolution and his founding role within it.

Eek, Mark, Big Ouch for me that I neglected George Washington.

Mundane charts are tricky, because a major political event of past centuries seldom has a single moment of origin. Following on the work of Bill Sheeran, it probably makes more sense to look at a suite of charts. In the case of the US, these would minimally include the Declaration of Independence, the end of the Revolutionary War, and the ratification of the Constitution. Finding correct times for them is nearly impossible, and I am sceptical of rectification based upon the astrologers' pre-suppositions.

Maybe you've got a file of mundane charts to cite?

In terms of natal data, you noted that I gave the Rodden ratings. For the less-than-AA ratings, it is only the documentation form of the birth time that is in question: an AA means an observed birth certificate. You could have a valid clocked time from a family Bible, or somesuch, but she didn't count it as AA. In the case of Rosa Parks's "C" rating, I think she would show up as Uranian even with a DD or XX rating. I didn't use anyone (like Nelson Mandela) with a clearly rectified chart. Indians are one group who generally have accurate birth times because of the higher status in astrology in their country.

But more to the point, Mark, I was pretty clear before selecting those nativities that they wouldn't be good enough for you.

I think you are pretty clear about what I mean by modern astrology! Looking back on about 23 years worth of study, I think the early books by Steven Forrest (not his later ones) and by Robert Hand come the closest to what I try to practice. Hands' Planets in Youth, Horoscope Symbols, Planets in Transit, and Planets in Composite still hold up remarkably well.

I sometimes use the term neo-traditional astrology to distinguish traditional astrology today from what was practiced prior to the mid-19th century as well as from modern astrology. Because modern astrology is only partly distinguished by its inattention to the finer essential and accidental dignities. Some of us work with harmonics (aka minor aspects,) asteroids, and choice-centred astrology. I don't think the psychological astrology of today is the psychological astrology of the 1970s, but some of us try to stay abreast of recent findings about human behaviour without focusing on Jungian archetypes or even (shudder) Freudian interpretations.

I agree that you and I live in a world very different from the ones in which the historical traditional astrologers practiced. And this does affect chart interpretation. To cite one example, yes slavery does exist today, and human trafficking is a huge international problem. But this is nowhere near the meaning of slavery in ancient Rome or a Caribbean sugar plantation. And these changes in society affect the meaning of the 6th house.

Mark, I did miss the Farnell link. Thanks.

You wrote:

I think many of the attempts to update astrology in the late 19th and 20th century were premature, ill conceived and philosophically incoherent. Clearly, the medieval tradition was in need of some reformation but not at the cost of some of its founding principles.

I wonder if philosophical coherence is vastly over-rated. One could view the neo-platonism, stoicism, and Aristotelianism of traditional astrology as a bit of a patchwork.

Today in western industrialized countries, we live in a post-modern, post-structuralist world. Love it or hate it, post-modernism does offer a coherent philosophical system. (And no, I do not refer to an essay by Robert Hand that unfortunately uses the term post-modern in a completely different way; but rather, as the philosophical views of society promoted by Michel Foucault and his compatriots.)

Sticklers separate out post-modernism and post-structuralism, but they share a lot of commonality that has bearing on modern vs. traditional astrology.

Post-modernism literally means a condition after modernity. Modernity as an intellectual movement or period emphasized the virtues of science, technology, non-representational art, "modern" music, and so on.

We find a bit of both modernity and post-modernism in the early modern astrology. Dane Rudhyar, for example, seemed to feel that he was using scientific insights for his planetary cycles and a few of the more humanities-oriented psychologists of his day. But his work is post-modern in the sense of freely moving beyond "science" to give an almost eschatological vision of Man [sic] in his quest for spiritual self-improvement. (Recombining different elements is post-modernism's bricolage.)

The theosophical movement was one philosophical orientation of early astrology. Like it or dislike, it did offer its adherents a semi-coherent worldview. If your goal is personal spiritual evolution, then you don't need to noodle around with essential and accidental dignities, temperaments, Arabian parts, and all the rest of traditional astrology's methodological treasure-trove. You are not out to locate the missing cat, or cure a patient's imbalance of phlegm.

The oldstyle traditional astrology may have had some philosophical coherence (its disparate philosophical strands notwithstanding) but its rigid fatalism and highly structured techniques seemed out of place with the new Zeitgeist of the turn of the last century.

We also have to remember that Britain and the US had strict laws against fortune-telling during the early emergence of modern astrology. Evangeline Adams and Alan Leo were both tried on charges of fortune-telling. Combine a chilling effect on detailed predictive work with the prominence of the theosophophical movement, and a new hybrid astrology emerged.

Post-structuralism notes that knowledge is not discovered so much as created and invented. The process by which this happens is inextricably imbedded in human power-relations. If we think given categories and binaries are "real" and immutable, this is a good tip-off to invented structures at work. So let's look at how our categories and binaries become constructed in the first place, what sorts of further knowledge they privilege, and how social relations are involved.

Post-structuralists don't so much look for the "truth" (which is probably unknowable) but at how, historically, and socially a given belief system begins to take hold as "the truth"; and who gets privileged or disenfranchised by such decisions about "the truth".

We can plug-in the history of astrology here as much as we like.

But to return to "modern" astrology and its inattention to so many things that the traditionalists hold dear to their hearts, modernity and post-podernity had no investment in tradition. They didn't see traditions as objectively real. What type of astrology would you create if its treasured tenets were actually open to re-invention?

Under modernity as a political, scientific, and cultural movement, traditional world-views were dramatically changing. Who needs a monarch as head of state? What if God doesn't exist as the church defines Him? What if you could vote without owning property? Historical tradition was not a sufficiently good reason to continue to do something the same way as in the past, out of some fallacy ad antiquitatum.

Let us be clear. If traditional astrology had worked as brilliantly as some of its proponents claim, it is hard to understand why it virtually died out during the Enlightenment. Even the traditional astrologers themselves of past centuries were highly critical of many of their fellow-practitioners.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that looks at how we know the world. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that considers what the world is like in the first place.

Under modernity and post-modernity, these are changing. They are up for grabs.

Foucault's delineations of discourse as the blend of language plus practice seem especially relevant to astrology. If societal discourse dramatically changes, than astrology is apt to go along like the tail on a kite.

There's so much more here, but you get the idea.

Small wonder that Uranus rules astrology in modern astrology.

It goes without saying (but I will anyway!) that I don?t see Uranus that way. As far as I can see no one here has yet provided a logical argument for a strong affinity between Aquarius and Uranus. Any takers?

A cerebral detached sign, a cerebral detached planet.

A transpersonal sign, a transpersonal planet. Uranus being the 'collective mind''

Some of Tarnas's keywords/concepts for Uranus '' intellectual brilliance, cultural innovation, technological invention, experiment, creativity, and originality''.

this is in response to mark, but i'd first like to thank waybread for what she wrote in the sun feb 16 932pm post. thank you for articulating many ideas i'm in agreement with.

Mark wrote: Are you saying you have a fundamental problem with this approach to the planets and signs in general or specifically just the attempt to attribute the quality of Uranus as hot +dry?

i don't mind many of the symbolical ways that trad or modern astrology has tried to describe what it is they see in astrology.. i mostly meant i don't agree with the idea of uranus as hot and dry as i understand the use of those terms. dry - yes in so far as i think air is more dry then wet.. hot - no..

Mark wrote: Sect is only a partial explanation. You also need to consider the traditional rulership system in terms of the signs aspectual relationship to the luminaries. This article by Deborah Houlding may be of help:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html

thanks mark. i am familiar with all of that, but maybe someone else who is reading this who is not could benefit from it.. perhaps i could too by re- reading it!

Mark wrote: Ok, your clearly one in the gallery I have failed to convince! I?m sure there are many others out there reading this thread. But lets be realistic. Getting a consensus in the astrological community on just about anything is like trying to herd cats! Still, I was intrigued to read Lee Lehman's research that Geoffrey gave the link to earlier in the thread. She compared the words used for Uranus with traditional associations of the planets. It turned out the strongest connection was to the Sun and Mars!

i agree about trying to get consensus within the astro community. i read the article that geoffrey shared previous to my comments when he first posted it. thanks geoffrey.. i still don't put much into of anything into it. sorry!

Mark wrote: I never suggested they were right. However, since many people hadn?t even heard of their views before its surely it is worthwhile to at least be aware of their ideas?

i like being made aware of as many alternative ideas and ways of approaching astrology as possible, so yes - definitely it is worthwhile to be aware of others ideas.

Mark wrote:Personally, I find the modernist attribution of Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius illogical and unconvincing because it contradicts basic astrological principles. I guess we all have our different takes on which approach to astrology is steaming towards the icebergs??

i am not sure what basic astro principles you are referring to.. if by basic astro principles you are highlighting something that can't incorporate new ideas or planets, then i would say screw that.. if you are saying something else - please elaborate.. thanks.

Mark wrote:Any good mavericks in mind?

no one specifically.. anyone who doesn't feel the need to walk around in a straight jacket referring to themselves as a something or other when all it really says is 'i have a closed mind, so forget about trying to introduce a new idea or one that interferes with my neat little system of things'..

Mark wrote: Repeating myself? Well I don't think my views on traditional vs modern rulerships have changed. However, I don?t think I have ever discussed Uranus on Skyscript in any detail before.

here is the link i read that i was referring to. see comments on page 3 and on - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=30

Mark wrote:Sounds like a naturally rebellious streak in you James. Surely a reflection of all that Aries and/or Uranus! Its funny what annoys you is one of things I personally find most attractive in traditional astrology. If we are talking about an astrological herd mentality I would have thought much of modern astrology was even more guilty of an unreflective approach in terms of questioning its basic core principles.

everyone enters astrology from a different place. we can't all be the same which is what makes sharing our experiences or thoughts on them with others especially interesting if their is a sense of others listening!


James_M wrote

uranus and aries? - if it was a choice between giving it to aries or aquarius or even scorpio - it would go to aquarius as that is the sign that i think it has the most affinity with.

Mark wrote:It goes without saying (but I will anyway!) that I don?t see Uranus that way. As far as I can see no one here has yet provided a logical argument for a strong affinity between Aquarius and Uranus. Any takers?

I'm not talking about natal chart examples. I mean a rational philosophical case being made to support this affinity based on the traditional understanding of Aquarius? I think I have marshalled several points here that support that view of Uranus and Aries. You might not accept my position but at least I have provided a rational case for it. As yet I haven't seen a coherent case made for a strong affinity between Uranus and Aquarius. So does this approach inevitably mean throwing out the traditional understanding of Aquarius for over 2000 years to be made to work?
Mark

this was what i was looking forward to responding to in this post ( i see nixx has given a quick response already), but i am not sure now what you mean by 'the traditional understanding of aquarius.' is that a type of straight jacket i need to put on before i share some of my philosophical views on this? LOL! ps i think you mean 200, not 2000 years, unless i missed one of those hellenistic texts where they were discussing uranus way back when!!

mark,
in answer to your question which i was holding off on only in that these ideas might not fit into the 'traditional' hierarchy of meanings associated with aquarius - here are my ideas anyway.. i have held them for a long time.. i suppose this is astro-philosophy as i understand it, not bound by only traditional meanings for the signs.

i think of the movement of the planets thru the signs as a cycle that represents some type of growth. .. sometimes what is missing in one sign is captured in the following.. once a full cycle is complete regardless of whether it be a saturn return, or the sun on it's yearly cycle - all of these cycles imply the potential for gaining wisdom thru the experiences lived. without getting too caught up in where the cycle begins - it could begin anywhere, but i like the spring equinox as a starting point for this.. i am using the 12 tropical zodiac signs as my cycle template here.. the first 6 signs are more concerned with individual growth. the last 6 seem to be more caught up in individual growth thru interaction with others - relationships and integrating with society in the last part of the cycle. i know these are generalizations which can be tore apart, but it is a general concept i have held for a long time and an idea that i think holds a lot of merit in terms of the meanings of the 12 signs.

at the point after the individuation process reaches winter( tropical northern hemisphere thoughts here) and which i think saturn captures symbolically, they get short circuited on saturn via cap and aq, before going back down to jupiter with pisces - at least for trad astrology doctrine. instead of it being short circuited or going back to the inner planets, i see the humanitarian, group involvement ideas associated with aquarius as having the possibility of taking someone beyond the circle that goes back into the narrow self interests that typically describe the beginning of the cycle at aries.. instead aquarius is a spot for the release for the bonds of saturn to a more universal or spiritual basis for living and sense of identity. this is where the idea of a planet out beyond saturns sphere as being an appropriate possibility for those individuals receptive and ready to reach beyond the realm of saturn.. of course none of this is possible in an individual who has not fully embodied the maturity and positive characteristics that are some of saturns many strengths. without them, one is 'destined' to repeat the same cycles until they do reach a point of maturity and wisdom that give the freedom to live on a level beyond the small self implied by the planets only out to saturn..

i know this is a lot of words, but the juncture and turning point really is somewhere in this spot aquarius as i see it.. i think the symbolism fits perfectly from a philosophical pov to have uranus be the planet having a strong connection to the movement by sign that is implied by the planets ruling these signs up to capricorn.. perhaps it took me too many words to communicate my thoughts on this, but they are what i have pondered and held symbolically for a long time.. in a sense - there are 2 different systems - trad and modern - for good reason.. some are destined to remain in a more traditional system of things as they aren't ready for anything beyond that same system. others might be capable of reaching beyond that system and it would be uranus that would be a planet to symbolize those same folks..

now the idea of any connection with uranus and astrology is a really fascinating one for me.. aside from thinking of all the folks involved in astrology who i subjectively believe have a more accented uranus, astrology to me is really about the study of cycles - all sorts of cycles.. sure it is about more then this too, but if one is unable to recognize that one can only really consider this if they have thought about the nature of life and death and this natural cycle that we are all a part of, it means they haven't really reached an age (i am not talking years) where they have a certain ability to step back and see how we are all a part of this cyclic process.. i personally think the study of astrology is very much about understanding these cycles in a more philosophical way whereby the more we understand of them, the more detachment we are able to have on the ins and outs or ups and downs of living from day to day. some might say this is imagery or symbolism more in keeping with saturn then uranus, but saturn seems too pragmatic to want to get beyond a more nuts and bolts practical level with this realization then to seriously entertain what i think astrology suggests..

it is interesting to think of aries and the start of a new cycle as having something in common with the energy of uranus too, but not unless one has lived life and for this to happen, a certain level of maturity or experience must first happen.. the spontaneity of aries is not something coming from the energy of uranus as i see it.. uranus seems much more ideologically driven when it does intrude or adapt to a persons using the energy to the best of their abilities. uranus and aquarius makes much more sense to me symbolically then uranus and aries, but i can see some connection to aries, just not near as much as to aquarius.. that said - it isn't for everyone..

I found Farnell's vignette on the history of the association of Uranus with Aquarius to be fascinating, but not telling. She doesn't mention any type of research or astrologers' case files that might have subsequently convinced modern astrologers of the validity of the relationship. After all, the traditional planets picked up their meanings back when people worshipped them as gods and made animal sacrifices to them, so I don't know how much anybody wants to pursue the idea that dubious origins for planetary rulerships automatically invalidate them.

Thanks, James.

Mark, when you have a moment to get around to it, I would like to get your take on the postulated link between Aquarius, Uranus, scientists, inventors.

Even at the level of affiliation, Aries isn't a good match for the mental activity and fixity of purpose required of a ground-breaking scientist.

After you dismissed (I think) my group of Uranian political activists, it occured to me that most of us do not pull up charts in a statistical sense to substantiate a point. If we did, we would be conducting a rather challenging type of study with specific rules on things like sample size and data properties.

What we can get from a so-called convenience sample, however, are some archetypal examples. Perhaps nobody can say that the majority of scientists will show an Aquarian or Uranian emphasis. Frankly, to paraphrase historian of science Thomas Kuhn, most scientists' work is sufficiently ordinary that we wouldn't call it path-breaking. But we can point to extraordinary scientists whose research broke the mold of what was known, believed, or thought possible.

No astrological signature of which I am aware faithfully produces the identical result in 100% of nativities. But we can say that it is common in the charts of people known for the particular quality of interest.

It occurs to me, further, that unless we wish to involve houses or angles (or if the moon changed signs on a given birth date) that we're fine with dirty data, so long as we know the native's birth date.

So here's another convenience sample, of scientists whose work did change our understanding of the world.

Charles Darwin. sun in Aquarius (Rodden DD, but birthdate wouldn't change. Identical birth date as Abraham Lincoln.)

Alfred Wallace. (independently devolved the theory of natural selection, co-published in with Darwin.) Uranus conjunct sun (Rodden A)

Thomas Edison. sun, Mercury, Neptune in Aquarius. (Rodden ditto)

Max Planck. Mercury, Jupiter, Uranus conjunction (Rodden x)

Niels Bohr. Uranus conjunct sun, moon, Mercury (Rodden ditto)

Robert Boyle. sun in Aquarius (Rodden C)

Pierre Curie. sun conjunct Uranus (Rodden C) (Intriguingly, Marie Curie's chart is very Plutonian.)

Carl Linnaeus. Aquarius ascendant, moon. (Rodden A)

Alois Alzheimer. Uranus conjunct sun and ascendant (Rodden AA)

Louis Pasteur. Uranus conjunct sun-Venus- Mercury-Neptune (Rodden AA)

Werner Heisenberg. sun conjunct Uranus. (Rodden AA)

Johannes Kepler. Uranus conjunct Venus, Mercury, sun. (Rodden B)

Wilhelm R?ntgen. Uranus conjunct sun, Jupiter, Mercury. (Rodden C)

Tycho Brahe Ascendant, Jupiter, Venus, Pluto in Aquarius, Uranus conjunct moon. (Rodden AA)

Ray Kurzweil. computer engineer, notably for Google. sun in Aquarius trine Uranus. (Rodden A)

Uranus is also the modern ruler of aviation and space flight. Before we consider an Aries affiliation, think of all of the math, science, and engineering that went into these endeavours.

Wright brothers' first flight. sun conjunct Uranus in Sagittarius. (Rodden B)

launch of the Concorde. sun conjunct Mercury in Aquarius. (Rodden A)

Buzz Aldrin, moon walk astronaut. sun-Mercury in Aquarius sextile Uranus. (Rodden AA)

Neil Armstrong, moon walk astronaut. sun trine Uranus, Aquarius MC (Rodden AA)

NASA founding. sun conjunct Uranus. (Rodden DD)

first step on moon. Uranus conjunct Jupiter, Pluto, sextile sun-Mercury and Mars-Neptune.

waybread wrote: Mark, let's just be careful of promoting an argument on the grounds that somebody else agrees with you. (Fallacy ad populum.)

Right but I think we also shouldn't get carried away with arguments by the authority of tradition which are also fallacious. As I said before in response to "But modern astrologers have been using Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius for decades now, to good effect" - the same argument could apply to why the outers need any rulership at all, after all the traditional planets have stood the test of time. Perhaps this kind of thinking is fallacious in the same manner as an argument by agreement.

I think the crux of the matter is that the gulf between modern and traditional astrology is simply too wide .

I think it's only as wide as you wish it to be. As someone who uses both modern and traditional approaches at varying times, there really is no gulf for me at all. There are some things I use and something I don't use in both traditions. There is no real gulf at all for me. There is just a richer set of choices and ways of thinking about a problem or an approach, and my own preferences and 'style' can dictate which ones I like or find value with and which ones I do not.

There is no objective Modern Camp and Traditional Camp which are utterly divorced from one another and never the two shall meet. Though people do act and think like there is.

For example, I don't think many modern astrologers work with the qualities of hot, dry, cold, or moist. You could get a lot of traditional astrologers to agree that Uranus is hot and dry, but it wouldn't affect much of anything in modern practice.

But you do hear modern astrologers speak of the outer planets in terms of them being impersonal/transpersonal and that they coincide with powerful feelings/changes/events which are not always comfortable at the time of experiencing them. I have yet to see an astrologer look out for when Pluto was going to cross their Ascendant and how excited they are about this great news. Modern astrologers also recognise similar expectations when it comes to Saturn. Not many astrologers, or indeed any I have met, have thought "I can't wait for my transit of Saturn to my MC, my career is really going to get interesting".

So whether or not modern astrologers appropriate the phrase "malefic" the same is quality is there. Whether you want to chalk it down to extreme qualities or not is in many ways besides the point if, in practice, the same timbre emerges in the quality of how modern astrologers use it.

Obviously any horoscope will have multiple influences, not merely a single outer planet, and it is not possible to design a statistically legitimate study. No astrological signature works 100%.

Right, so we can ignore any question of being asked to 'prove' uranus in aries as well of course. However, like with any planet, we can still talk about the symoblic associations it has and whether those associations truly match with signs and so on.

It also means we can ignore looking at the charts of famous people like george washington right?

Another point that I don't buy is that using two domcile rulers is somehow too confusing. Good heavens. If traditional astrologers can happily juggle all of the micro-bytes of essential and accidental dignities, Arabian parts, Aristotelian "science", and their various predictive methods, they should have zero trouble adding in a second sign ruler.

I possibly missed where a main argument against modern rulerships is down to it being too confusing. Most traditional astrologers I speak to reject the outer planetary rulerships not because they find adding another planet far too confusing and simply cannot mentally cope with it, and rather because they reject the philosophical premise of the outers working with the philosophical premise of sign rulership as well as rejecting, in practice, that they work well as house rulers, dispositors etc.

Obviously any horoscope will have multiple influences, not merely a single outer planet, and it is not possible to design a statistically legitimate study. No astrological signature works 100%.

Waybread I find it a very contrary position to take where you recognise that when it comes to demonstrating Uranus and Aquarius you attest that no astrological signature works 100% and we cannot design a statistically legitimate study, and yet you still ask for: "evidence that Uranus works better ... ruling Aries than Aquarius."
I wonder what kind of study would convince you? What would be enough evidence for you? What would be needed to be provided for you to demonstrate it for you and presumably someone provided you with this evidence for Aquarius before you started using it as a ruler? Or not?

Nor is "sudden change" the only meaning of Uranus. If "sudden change" is one's sole view of Uranus, then I think we are missing out on its more social dimension.

No but it is one of the fundamental qualities of Uranus - social change and 'liberation' are in fact by products or consequences of that more central quality. Obviously you are counter-reacting by citing examples of, and focusing on, social change. But really social change is just an example of change by itself, social change is just one particular example of it. By associating Uranus with sudden change in general we can encapsulate several other things under that umbrella, social change being one. Uranus, for me, is also about accidents, where something is 'stop start' in its expression, where people are forced toward individualism or separation.

Social change is a great word with regards mundane astrology, or when a personal planet connects with Uranus but also connects with some chart (etc) greater than them or which they are an aggregate but we need not focus on social change entirely, when we can capture everything but summing up as change or sudden change in particular.

Of course not all sudden change is good. We tend to be biased in that we affiliate Uranus (or indeed our own thinking) with the 'sudden change' that worked. For example, perhaps not many tribes of native americans would rejoice at the 'sudden change' when the white men came calling. Perhaps not many Jews would rejoice at the sudden change in the second world war either.
Mark makes a similar point but let's look at the chart of the second world war:
http://bit.ly/1gb8zOP

Oh great, Uranus is on the MC - great social change and liberation? Hardly.
Social change, absolutely. Liberation? Not so much.

So I think we stay purer to the meaning of Uranus when we associate it what it is, sudden change, and put less focus on if we happen to be on the winning side of that sudden change.
I think Mark (and myself for that matter) would focus on 'sudden change' not because it is more convenient to that argument, but rather because it, in my view at least, better encapsulates the quality of Uranus without necessitating a "winner's" bias.

Really, for me, when I see Uranus in close aspect with a planet I think of excitability, of sweeping the rug under someone's feet, waking them up or shaking up stagnation, lighting a fire under someone, rejecting normative values placed upon them. But how that is expressed is less straightforward, I think we ought to hold off on value judging it as liberation - in some cases it will be, in some it will not.

I don't know what you make of the affiliation of Aquarius and Uranus with scientists, inventors, and electricity in modern astrology; but having worked around scientists and engineers for 30+ years during my career, their work isn't anything like Aries, so far as I can tell. It takes a lot of mental capacity and a lot of persistence: think fixed air. ..
We've talked a lot about political revolutions and Uranus, but not so much about this planet symbolizing breakthroughs in science and engineering. In modern astrology Uranus rules electricity.

Right but both Aquarius and Uranus can have an affiliation with science. In varying ways so does Mercury and Jupiter.

I do happen to see Aries as an innovative sign though in a way that I do not see Aquarius as. Aries has a creative quality that I think is lacking in Aquarius, and for me, Uranus in Aries really does indicate a sense of innovation and technological advancement.

What happened previous times Uranus was in Aries?
The first analog computer was invented, the first electron microscope, the electroencephalograph, the tape recorder, the first radio telescope, watt's steam-engine, FM radio, a practical radar system. There is a plethora of things invented which changed the way of life and set the course for greater technological development when Uranus has been in Aries.

It might take a lot of persistence and so on and no doubt the individual inventors have a great deal of this in their own charts, but in terms of mundane astrology we might be able to say that Uranus' transit through Aries does indeed coincide with great technological innovation and invention.

Of course as you attest in an earlier post, nobody can provide a study to statistically prove any of these correlations.

Maybe someone can produce some evidence that Uranus works better in this capacity ruling Aries than Aquarius.

As I said above, it is, perhaps, disingenuous to ask for this when you attest earlier that nobody can demonstrate these things statistically - so what kind of evidence would you need? What would convince you?
[/url]

waybread wrote: I hope you are clear that I never view Uranus as always occuring in a positive light. To quote Forrest again, every planet can operate as a "teacher" or "trickster." My positive remarks were intended as a corrective against the view (of some, not you, dear Mark) that Uranus is malefic, showing up only as unwanted disruption.

Waybread can I ask who has suggested that Uranus is malefic, showing up only as an unwanted disruption? I have skimmed most of the posts or read them in full, so I might have missed who made that argument here, unles you mean an argument made by others outside this community?

paul

i liked a lot of what you had to say in your post up above, in particular this part. i am in the same position as you in thinking the gulf is only as wide as people want to make it out to be. in fact, i think it will completely fall away over the course of the next 50 years, but maybe i am being too optimistic, but regardless - i liked many of your comments, especially these i have quoted below..

Paul wrote:

waybread wrote: I think the crux of the matter is that the gulf between modern and traditional astrology is simply too wide .

I think it's only as wide as you wish it to be. As someone who uses both modern and traditional approaches at varying times, there really is no gulf for me at all. There are some things I use and something I don't use in both traditions. There is no real gulf at all for me. There is just a richer set of choices and ways of thinking about a problem or an approach, and my own preferences and 'style' can dictate which ones I like or find value with and which ones I do not.

There is no objective Modern Camp and Traditional Camp which are utterly divorced from one another and never the two shall meet. Though people do act and think like there is.

waybread

hi waybread. i don't completely do away with the concept of rulership, so much as having more an affinity for thinking of this astro concept as another type of connection that can exist between signs and planets. i look at these connections, but i like to get info off the chart that doesn't hinge as much on that as others do perhaps. one reason for this is the number of different house systems where one can get different connections depending on what system they are using. it can get more skewed when the space between the ascendant and midheaven are closer in certain climates.

i thought karen hamaker-zondag's book you mention was a terrible book! i hated it, lol.. of course she mentions jb morin as the inspiration for this book of hers, but reading her verses morin is like reading pulp fiction next to a classic! i might have even read that book based on one of your comments at some point - last time i take a book suggestion from you - LOL!@ maybe i am being overly dramatic).... i appreciate your concern, but i am okay with less of a fixation on the antiquated concept of 'rulerships'.. i suppose this is a throw back to my strong early training in the work of those cosmobiologists with a focus more on aspects, midpoints and stuff like that, then relying only on ptolemiac aspects much after the importance of rulerships.. i guess i never let go of some of my early influences! cheers james

waybread wrote: James, I am not sure how you interpret charts, but I sure wouldn't want to relinquish my sign rulers. They are crucial in horary astrology, and incredibly helpful in natal chart interpretation. One of the best statements I found was from Karen Hamaker-Zondag's book, The House Connection: "The house over which a planet rules serves the purposes of the house in which that planet stands."

If a student asks about career choices, what is the planet ruling the MC and its own house situation? If she feel that she has no friends, where is the ruler of the 11th and what are its dynamics?

Sorry, Paul-- I don't get where you think yet another lengthy micro-critique of yet another of my posts (across 3 forums, folks) is taking us. I will try to reply to your points, but the trouble is that after I address your micro-point #15 or somesuch, and you reply with even finer divisions of my reply, we're into the zone of "you said/I said," which loses sight of the larger issues, here having to do with Uranus. I don't know the Latin name of the fallacy of arguing by killing off a debater by an avalanche of picky details, but I believe it to be ad nauseum.

Mark, I can hardly respond to Paul's posts without losing sight of Uranus, so please excuse me momentarily. I find this to be a fascinating thread topic, so I am with you on that one.

Paul wrote:

we also shouldn't get carried away with arguments by the authority of tradition which are also fallacious.

Who is "carried away"? We want to avoid the fallacy ad antiquitatem" but my argument is different, and based upon pragmatism. Ad antiquitatem means, "We've always done it this way," or "It's a tradition." Pragmatism means that it works well.

There is no objective Modern Camp and Traditional Camp which are utterly divorced from one another and never the two shall meet. Though people do act and think like there is.

From a post-structuralist perspective I agree with your first sentence. Equally from a post-structuralist perspective, once people agree on matters of representation, that agreement becomes their prevailing discourse. People create their own "realities" through their discourses.

But you do hear modern astrologers speak of the outer planets in terms of them being impersonal/transpersonal and that they coincide with powerful feelings/changes/events which are not always comfortable at the time of experiencing them. I have yet to see an astrologer look out for when Pluto was going to cross their Ascendant and how excited they are about this great news. Modern astrologers also recognise similar expectations when it comes to Saturn. Not many astrologers, or indeed any I have met, have thought "I can't wait for my transit of Saturn to my MC, my career is really going to get interesting".

This passage seems unrelated to what I wrote. You lead up to an inference that **some** modern astrologers actually believe in malefics even if they don't like to say so. I am not arguing on their behalf. Red herring.

What I did write cited Steven Forrest's view of planets as acting as "teachers" and"tricksters." I also said that this seems comparable to traditional astrology's delineations in which sometimes a benefic can have a negative effect; or a malefic, a positive effect.

Personally, I see Saturn as my greatest teacher. My life got a lot better around Pluto once I realized that I am all of the planets in my chart. They don't operate in an independent-dependent variable relationship, or cause-and-effect relationship, for me. I bring something to our interactions. If people become frightened by transits, maybe they should rethink their involvement with astrology.

So whether or not modern astrologers appropriate the phrase "malefic" the same is quality is there. Whether you want to chalk it down to extreme qualities or not is in many ways besides the point if, in practice, the same timbre emerges in the quality of how modern astrologers use it.

Perhaps you should bring some more modern astrologers into this discussion to speak for themselves. I cannot possibly represent all of modern astrology here, nor do I claim to. Or care to.

I have seen you use the analogy for the "malefic" Mars: fire can burn us, but it can also warm us. We have some say over which it will be.

Right, so we can ignore any question of being asked to 'prove' uranus in aries as well of course. However, like with any planet, we can still talk about the symoblic associations it has and whether those associations truly match with signs and so on.

It also means we can ignore looking at the charts of famous people like george washington right?

Astrology and "proof" in general are at arm's length. We can ask for or show some evidence. Which I tried to provide on several Uranus-Aquarius themes. George Washington fit in with a suite of examples gleaned from the Astro-DataBank.

So often in astrology we deal with patterns and archetypes. I don't mean archetypes here in a Jungian, Liz Greeneian sense, BTW. Famous people's entire lives and contributions are on display in a way that Joe Schmoe's life is not.

Most traditional astrologers I speak to reject the outer planetary rulerships ... because they reject the philosophical premise of the outers working with the philosophical premise of sign rulership as well as rejecting, in practice, that they work well as house rulers, dispositors etc.

The word "philosophy" has been used a lot on this thread as points scored for traditional astrology. Howbeit you (or Mark or Konrad) give a concise paragraph or two on what this philosophy actually is? Otherwise I am going to think it's a patchwork of philosophical ideas popular throughout traditional astrology's history. (And yes, I have Ben Dykes's book Traditional Astrology for Today as well as Campion's two-volume history and book on cosmology, if you want to use any of them as starting points.)

Waybread I find it a very contrary position to take where you recognise that when it comes to demonstrating Uranus and Aquarius you attest that no astrological signature works 100% and we cannot design a statistically legitimate study, and yet you still ask for: "evidence that Uranus works better ... ruling Aries than Aquarius."

Sorry, Paul-- there is nothing contradictory or nuanced about this. In academia there are many fields where "the truth" cannot be known. Take history. We cannot return to the past, but we can accumulate evidence about it, and from the evidence we draft a credible narrative about what happened. Ditto with a lot of geology and archaeology. Take law. We don't know whodunnit because there were no witnesses to the crime. The legal team collects evidence, hoping to demonstrate their case "beyond a reasonable doubt," or based upon "the preponderance of the evidence."

So where is your evidence for Uranus-Aries or much else that you've posted here?

I wonder what kind of study would convince you? What would be enough evidence for you? What would be needed to be provided for you to demonstrate it for you and presumably someone provided you with this evidence for Aquarius before you started using it as a ruler? Or not?

Sigh..... How about some evidence, Paul? I've not seen evidence here besides Uranus as an agent of disruption and some hot/dry hand-votes. You mentioned a bunch of innovations occurring when Uranus was in Aries. This is a modest sort of start. We would have to look at Uranus across the zodiac, however, in order to say that somehow Uranus performed better when it was in Aries.

To be continued.