Skyscript Astrology Forum

(continued, re: Paul's first long post to me of 17/2)

My Quote:
"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."

Paul replied:

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.

I think you are attempting to build up a case for Uranus based upon a single "more central quality." I do this myself in certain types of chart-readings. For example, Mars is to boys as Venus is to girls. But nobody is going to write a primer on Venus or Mars based upon a single quality! Why would we do something so out-of-keeping with 2000 years of astrology for the modern outer planets? I wouldn't.

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.

No, we cannot always focus on Uranus-- or any planet-- as a single quality in particular. But here is where Uranus plus Aquarius make a lot of sense. To the extent that we adopt "sudden change" as one of the attributes of Uranus, Aquarius is one of the more social signs. Aries is not.

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.

I have repeatedly indicated that neither Uranus nor Aquarius automatically confer extra Sunday School types of virtue. Think "Teachers" and "Tricksters". Eugene McCarthy in the US was one of my "trickster" examples, but if you got inside his head you could see his particular Uranian mission: fighting for democracy under threat from a monolithic godless communism-- as he construed it. Robespierre: father of the French Revolution, who became rather bloodthirsty about it. Arguably people like Rosa Parks or Charles Darwin exemplified the "teacher" side.

The link on WW II didn't come up. But if you were going with this example where I think you were going, I have to wonder how or why you missed my multiple clarifications about war. Wars can liberate some people and kill others.

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.

Again, no planet of which I am aware throughout the history of astrology is restricted to a single meaning. Why should you do this to Uranus?

Again, who is associating Uranus with "the winning side"? Or a "winner's bias"? History and political events are so much more complex than this.

If you re-read my post on post-modernism and post-structuralism, it might explain the representational problem with binaries more clearly. Binaries like "winners and losers" are created or invented, generally in the context of a power dynamic between groups of people.

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.

Well, fine if this works for you. I read Uranus this way only in certain contexts in the horoscope. Everybody has Uranus somewhere in the horoscope, and I don't exactly see "shaking up" occuring in each person's life. For one thing, people with Uranus opposite, say, the sun and some other planets in Taurus, would resist change mightily. Put differently, control and stability would be important to them to the point where they would suffer a lot to avoid even changes that they can see a very long way coming.

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.

So are you suggesting that I see Uranus only as liberation??? Check out Eugene McCarthy! But I say, if we see liberation in the horoscope, take a very Uranian chance and go for it.

There is a truism of modern astrology, that the more we own and incorporate planetary energies in our lives, the less likely they are to affect us negatively, both on a daily basis and when a major hard transit rolls up. So the more we choose and incorporate small Uranian moments of personal liberation, the less likely we are to be affected by it negatively.

We haven't exhausted the meanings of Uranus or Aquarius incidentally. Uranus in the individual life can manifest in small, novel ways: do something out-of-character. Drive or walk a different way to work. Re-arrange the furniture. If you normally wear black, put on something colourful. You've heard the expression, "Random acts of kindness." So do a couple. I see such activities as liberating, but in very small ways. Your Uranian milage will vary.

Taking on such activities, large and small, is a way of "owning" Uranus so that we are less likely to get T-boned by it when a major hard transit comes down our highway of life.

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.

In some way, most of the planets have an affiliation with science. I've looked at a lot of scientists' charts, and was surprised to see how often Neptune was a big player. Here I think Neptune functions as the visionary, who can make connections and perceive outcomes that ordinary people cannot.

I have also looked at the charts of a lot of "creative" people, and they truly are all over the map. If you can see more Uranus-Aries or what-have-you, in a chart, that's not problematic to me because you will find it once you look at other signs, as well. Again, everybody's got Uranus somewhere: some creative people are more Uranian, some more Venusian, and so on.

As noted above, we could probably go around the zodiac and list all kinds of inventions and innovations affiliated with Uranus in other signs.

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?

How about some evidence, Paul? What would it take to convince you that Aquarius is a better match? And if we're only talking "affiliation," should we unpack that one?

waybread wrote: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.

Waybread you are free to reply to whomever you wish, however I have no wish to discuss anything with you if you cannot do it with curtesy. I only know of one other forum that we post and in that one I have stopped replying to you for the same reason as this.

I am not so invested in this discussion. It will continue to be an interesting discussion without me responding to your obvious discourteous tone and desire to lampoon me for some imagined slight on some other forum. I just wanted to discuss Uranus, and I disagreed with some of your views, that's all. I don't care enough about them to have to suffer your discourteous tone though, I am not that attached or invested in them, nor do I care about 'selling' it to someone else.

james_m wrote: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.

Thank you James, I agree with you that the future of astrology in the merging of the 'traditional' and the 'modern - eventually it will all just be astrology with a wider host of techniques that we may employ. If you are optimistic with the 50 years then I am doubly so because I would have probably halved that. I think that when I look around at astrologers of my own generation (I am 28 ) they seem to be keen or at least open minded to more traditional approaches to astrology as well as still being influenced, directly or indirectly by certain modern and psychological approaches.

So I think that if this generation are the astrologers of tomorrow, then in twenty or thirty years we'll have an astrology that is more or less comfortable with both approaches, and the exception to the rule will be those who focus on only one approach. Certainly within fifty years, as you say. Maybe I'm just as blindly optimistic as you, but I think it seems reasonable to my eyes, especially with the current trend amongst younger astrologers that I am aware of.

Mark wrote:

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?

Nixx wrote:

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''.

Thanks Nixx,

That is really the kind of thing I was hoping to get.

In case it isn't obvious I haven't personally closed down the possibility of this affinity. I just haven't seen much of a rational case made for it before now.

Your short pithy post has actually, given me a lot more to consider than most of what I have seen on this topic here.

Cerebral ok. But if we are talking cerebral why not Gemini or Libra? Its interesting that Uranus was in Gemini when it was discovered in 1781.

Are you linking Uranus more broadly to the air element then?

Air needs to talk and communicate its thoughts so it is certainly associated with the mind. However, pure air is not associated with much action. Air just likes to talk and debate but have you ever tried to get a strongly air sign person to take action? Air is happy to play with ideas back and forth without any particular outcome.

It could be suggested that the apparently rapid change associated with Uranus fits an air sign.

But why a fixed sign? Surely a mutable or cardinal sign reflect this better?

And is Uranus purely about air? What about fire? Creativity, pioneers, initiators, philosophers, explorers. Lets also not forget the Uranus associuation with violent social change. Surely, there is a fire component inherent in all that too?

Ultimately. I'm not sure its ever that helpful to identify a planet with just one element. The traditional planets can have domicile or exaltation rulership in 2 or 3 signs by element.

I see the Aquarian association with social change as more about its Saturn rulership. As a diurnal, masculine sign Aquarius wants to externalise change while Capricorn is more interested in making individual social progress. The Sun is also weak in this sign ( detriment) so there is a natural inclination to focus more on the collective and ignore the individual. I see Aquarian detachment as again partly related to its role as a Saturn ruled sign.

For an excellent representation of a traditional view of Aquarius see this article by Deborah Houlding:

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

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

Interesting. Quite an attractive point that. Uranus may or may not be a transpersonal planet. However, Aquarius is certainly a human sign concerned more with the collective.

This argument that Uranus represents the 'collective mind' is intriguing What is your source for that?

My main difficulty here is why then does Uranus so often link in to mavericks, rebels and non-conformists who challenge the collective consensus? Or do you see it as some kind of cosmic catalyst initiating the change in human consciousness?

Mark

Nixx 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?

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''.

Right but we need to thread carefully here, we need to make sure that the associations of Uranus haven't been attributed precisely because of its modern rulership over Aquarius, and vice versa, that Aquarius' meaning hasn't been altered to suit Uranus.

For example, in 'my' astrology, all the fixed signs have an affiliation with the idea of attachment - attachment to power, ideology, desire, resources - they are all related to an attachment.

Now let's examine a fixed air sign, is this 'really' detached or is Aquarius actually quite attached to its ideologies and philosophies? Has Aquarius become noted for detachment precisely because of its affiliation with Uranus instead.

Cerebral, perhaps, but in what way do we link it as being both cerebral as well as something non-personal, what sense of a non-personal 'cerebrum'? Possibly this collective mind idea, well if so how does this directly relate to (and presumably either only to, or more strongly to) Aquarius specifically?

Tarnas links key words to Uranus, but in what sense are we identifying them with Aquarius. In fact, wouldn't a link to the Sun (such as its domicile or exaltation) be a more fitting association for "intellectual brilliance", and if not, perhaps mercury would be better suit it, or all the air signs as a whole. But surely the Sun, which has a traditional has an association with both brilliance and intellect, would be a more fitting connection than the one sign that actually the Sun finds itself in detriment?

Do we really associate fixity with innovation more than we do cardinality or mutability? Whilst we might associate air and fire, is there really anything about Aquarius that is innovative, or at least more innovative than other signs?

Originality and creativity? Again think of Aquarius in terms of it being fixed in its expression, relating to uniformity (the converse of creativity and uniqueness) and being, correspondingly, the detriment of the sun - the key indicator of originality and creativity.

I think instead what we see emerging is that Uranus and the Sun have some linking. Bailey says links them as being 'veiled' with one another, and the same for Moon and Neptune. Now I am not a big fan of Bailey, but I kind of see what she means here. Both the Sun and Uranus promote individualism and creativity bursts. So yes, these key words help us recognise some quality about Uranus, but actually when we think about them, do they really tell us anything about what signs relate to those key words, and if so, does the finger really point to the description of Aquarius prior to Uranus' affiliation with it?

In my view it doesn't, but perhaps others see it differently. It's certainly worth thinking along these lines though because actually when we think along them more and more I actually think it makes a more compelling case away from linking Uranus with Aquarius.

nixx - glad you chimed in to bonk these 2 air signs over the head with something they like. my touchy feeling approach hasn't done anything!

Paul, please don't play the aggrieved party with me. You don't have to respond to my posts, but if you wish to respond to them, I request the same courtesy from you that you require for yourself. I gave you the courtesy of responding politely to most ot your points. Our public exchanges are still posted at Astrologer's Community, despite your departure; as well as at Astrodienst.

Mark, it occurs to me that it would be helpful to take a deeper cut at Uranus; and subsequently to see if or why Aquarius is a decent fit. Let's move beyond ancient Greek science, Uranus as "sudden change" and our strong mutual agreement that wars and killing people are generally bad things. Wars can liberate some people, yet harm others. Got it.

"Sudden change" works well enough for certain circumstances and certain types of charts. Alice Portman www.aliceportman.com suggests that Uranus can actually be helpful in chart rectification, or in determining which house system works best for a certain natal chart. We might expect "sudden change" to occur as Uranus transits from one house to the next. Someone with natal Uranus in her 7th house might find that her relationships begin and end suddenly.

Disruption can be something as serious as a bomb dropping on your house, but most of our disruptions in peaceful societies are not of this magnitude. Having a new baby is very disruptive, and makes a real break from the past, but the majority of babies are welcome additions.

Logically, however, people do not live on a steady diet of "sudden change." If they did, then a volatile sort of life would become the new normal. In a field of relentless "sudden change" it becomes an everything-nothing proposition with nothing to differentiate change. Everyone has Uranus in his chart somewhere, but we don't assume, for the Average Joe, that some major segment of life undergoes unrelenting turmoil.

So "sudden change", whether disruptive or welcomed (like the unexpected check in the mail) is only one possible reading of Uranus.

Let's build on Nixx's comments.

Innovation, Novelty. Change involves a break from the past that preceded it. It symbolizes something new, or different. Novelty could be as trivial as the latest fad, or it could be as serious as a major scientific research project or technological inovation (like the Internet) of benefit to society.

Either way, there is a sense of moving into the future. I don't mean to glamourize science, but there is a way in which it actually does push the frontiers of knowledge.

Originality ought not to be confused with cardinal signs, or the qualities of hot and dry. Original research-- as it is practiced in the lab or library-- can take years or even decades of careful work. Darwin (sun Aquarian) got his ideas for natural selection as a young man, then spent years gathering enough evidence to substantiate it "beyond a shadow of a doubt." A novel idea without significant substantiation behind it remains a phantasm, because there is nothing behind it.

Liberation is potentially a positive outcome of Uranian change. Sometimes people have to fight for it ongoingly, but most of us living in functioning democracies take political liberation for granted.

I argued extensively above, that most political liberation movements have a strong ideological component. They require fixity of purpose. Otherwise you may just get a protest march that leads nowhere.

Although liberation movements may have a leader, who seems in hindsight to have master-minded the movement, actual histories of liberation movements point to multiple leaders, and a strong backing from supporters.

If the idea of liberation isn't kept constantly alive, then you may simply get a turnover of one dictator replaced by another. The czar gets replaced by Stalin. Egalitarianism has to be a foundational component of any liberation movement. It may be for one disenfranchised group, or it may be for society as a whole.

Similarly, individuals have to make a commitment to their personal liberation if it is contested but they wish to keep it. There is something Uranian about New Years resolutions, and something un-Uranian in people's failure to keep them.

Whether socially or individually, liberation is not a one-day wonder. It requires a commitment to manifest it ongoingly.

No doubt there is more to be said about Uranian qualities of change, originality, and so on, but we can start with these. In my next post, let's think about Uranus-sign affiliations.

On the sidereal forum I've posted what I believe to be the correct planetary rulership/exaltation scheme of the zodiac which includes the outer planet affinities. When this scheme is outlined in circular format, I don't see that it can be easily adjusted.

However, when we consider what has been observed about sign characteristics based on planetary affinity?as I see it?this scheme works only in the sidereal zodiac which is why I have posted my messages on the sidereal forum. The foundation of the scheme is the ancient division of the zodiac into solar and lunar halves. I have also added a philosophical note as to why the outer planets were only recently discovered. For anyone curious about this scheme, please refer to this link:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 6322#86322

(continued from my previous post)

To recap, here is a list of key words describing the Uranian archetype:

sudden change
innovation
novelty
future
originality
liberation
ideology
fixity of purpose
egalitarianism
commitment

Some definitions or synonyms
Affiliation: association, connection, alliance, alignment, attachment, relationship, &c

Domicile, sign ruler : king in his castle, man in his own house, special strength, capability. Further ,a sign or house cusp ruler is expected to work well in specific methods: as a significator in a horary chart, or as a house cusp ruler or lord in a natal chart.

Then we really have to unpack some of the complexity of signs. Since Antiquity, signs were not restricted to just elements and qualities. They were bicorporeal, crooked, straight, gendered, and assigned all sorts of human character traits.

To cite the Riley translation of Vettius Valens (2nd cent. CE), for example, the sign of Aries is "masculine, tropic, terrestrial, governing, fiery, free, upward-trending, semi-vocal, noble, changeable, procuratorial, public, civic, with few offspring, servile...the cause of rank, two-toned..unaspected and ecliptic...." associated with men who are "brilliant, distinguished, authoritarian, just, hard on offenders, free, governing, bold in thought, boastful, great-hearted restless, unstable haughty, inflated, intimidating, quickly changing, wealthy." The other signs are also given a long list of human character traits.

So we can't be too simplistic in contemplating a seriously meaningful sign affiliation for Uranus. A sign has meant so much more than just its element or modality for the past 2000 years. Nevertheless, I'll try to focus on some basics.

I take Paul's point, that we need to avoid circular reasoning in ascribing Uranian traits to Aquarius. Unfortunately, this is kind of how planet-sign affiliations have worked since ancient times. Valens has nasty things to say about Capricorn and Aquarius, which match his negative view of Saturn, for example.

We also have to acknowledge time-tested planet/sign affiliations that seem surficially contradictory. Mars: hot and dry, right? So why assign it to Scorpio, a feminine water sign? Why give Venus to a masculine air sign? Both Mars and Venus each rule one cardinal and one fixed sign, so there doesn't seem to be much about a planet's traits that affiliate with cardinality, fixity, or mutability.

Sure, we have Ptolemy's tree of planet-sign rulerships, which seem logical according to one template, but not according to others.

In a general way, we can say that fire indicates action and initiative, and air symbolizes mental, even intellectual work. Except when they don't. Jupiter is the philosopher and theologian, but his signs are in water and fire.

So maybe "sudden change" seems like a decent fit with firey, cardinal Aries; but this hardly exhausts the meaning of Uranus.

In terms of the character traits associated with the different signs today, I suggest that each of them has a particular relationship with time.

Aries? Here and now. Not known for advance planning or persistence.
Pisces? Time is simultaneous
Scorpio? Time is circular (think phoenix)
Capricorn? The past and its traditions.
Aquarius? The future

As I discussed in my previous posts, Uranian traits require a fair bit of fixity of purpose if they are to become more than a flash in the pan.

Originality may seem more Arian or cardinal, but original anything starts with an idea, and then it takes time and persistence to manifest it. Originality requires a grasp of the future, and a commitment to one's project.

New ideas and ideology are airy in nature.

fixity of purpose and commitment are fixed in nature.

Liberation and egalitarianism if they are to incubate and succeed over time, are both airy and fixed in nature. They also partake of Uranian change.

As I stressed above, any planet can have a positive or negative manifestation. We agree that "sudden change" is unwanted in the context of a bomb dropping on your roof. In this regard, cool, impersonal Aquarius is not a bad match for a planet that many people experience as uncomfortable.

So I think the Aquarian-Uranus affiliation is there, and stronger than a more simplified view of Aries-Uranus.

I would personally go a step further, to say that Aquarius does work as a modern ruler of Aquarius, still keeping Saturn as its traditional ruler.

Paul, you wrote:

... we need to make sure that the associations of Uranus haven't been attributed precisely because of its modern rulership over Aquarius, and vice versa, that Aquarius' meaning hasn't been altered to suit Uranus.

Don't you think this is what happened with the "original" rulerships, as well? The malefics and benefics go back to ancient Babylon, before our present-day signs were developed.

For example, in 'my' astrology, all the fixed signs have an affiliation with the idea of attachment - attachment to power, ideology, desire, resources - they are all related to an attachment.

Can you unpack this one? Any sign has an attachment to something, according to its nature. Capricorn has an attachment to the material and practical, for example.

Now let's examine a fixed air sign, is this 'really' detached or is Aquarius actually quite attached to its ideologies and philosophies? Has Aquarius become noted for detachment precisely because of its affiliation with Uranus instead.

Apples and oranges! Aquarius is emotionally detached. A touchy-feely water sign it isn't. If Aquarius cares about certain ideas it will attach to them. It may also criticize ideas it dislikes, and have no attachment to them. The republican has no attachment to the idea of monarchy.

Cerebral, perhaps, but in what way do we link it as being both cerebral as well as something non-personal, what sense of a non-personal 'cerebrum'? Possibly this collective mind idea, well if so how does this directly relate to (and presumably either only to, or more strongly to) Aquarius specifically?

Say what? Ideas can be pretty impersonal. Or someone can identify with them. The non-personal attributes of Aquarius refer to its more unemotional nature (compared to, say, a clingy Cancer or domineering Scorpio.)

Tarnas links key words to Uranus, but in what sense are we identifying them with Aquarius. In fact, wouldn't a link to the Sun (such as its domicile or exaltation) be a more fitting association for "intellectual brilliance", and if not, perhaps mercury would be better suit it, or all the air signs as a whole. But surely the Sun, which has a traditional has an association with both brilliance and intellect, would be a more fitting connection than the one sign that actually the Sun finds itself in detriment?

Can you unpack this one, as well? In my above post, I addressed ties between Uranus and Aquarius as a fixed air sign. By the sun's affiliation with intellect, are you referring to its association with the Graeco-Roman god Apollo? Note that Mercury rules both our routine thought processes as well as the hands. Through the latter, we get its close affiliation with Virgo.

Some early astrology related to the Mediterranean climate as much as to the solar rounds. The sun is at its epitome climatically in late July-August, which are hot and rainless. Its light seems dimmed and distant during the midst of the cool rainy season, epitomized by Aquarius.

Do we really associate fixity with innovation more than we do cardinality or mutability? Whilst we might associate air and fire, is there really anything about Aquarius that is innovative, or at least more innovative than other signs?

Astrology seems to work more with ideal types, rather than with statistical probabilities. Aries the soldier. Capricorn the business executive. Cancer the mother. Aquarian scientists and inventors like Darwin and Edison exemplify ideal types. Of course, none of these affiliations has worked out statistically, so far as I know. Science is a mental activity requiring a lot of persistence. So there's our affiliation with Aquarius.

As I explained above, a good idea isn't going to manifest itself in the laboratory without a lot of commitment and persistence.

Originality and creativity? Again think of Aquarius in terms of it being fixed in its expression, relating to uniformity (the converse of creativity and uniqueness) and being, correspondingly, the detriment of the sun - the key indicator of originality and creativity.

Paul, I suggest you let go of the unsubstantiated views that fixity equals uniformity, that originality is inconsistent with fixity, or that the sun in detriment means a lack of originality and creativity for Aquarius. You seem to be trying to develop a logical system, but its legs are pretty shaky.

The sun is hardly the only planet symbolizing creativity! Venus rules the fine arts. Mercury rules writing and the hands. Jupiter rules philosophy. The concepts of fixity and uniformity are simply on different wave-lengths. You could have uniformity with cardinality or mutability, as well.

I think instead what we see emerging is that Uranus and the Sun have some linking. Bailey says links them as being 'veiled' with one another, and the same for Moon and Neptune. Now I am not a big fan of Bailey, but I kind of see what she means here. Both the Sun and Uranus promote individualism and creativity bursts. So yes, these key words help us recognise some quality about Uranus, but actually when we think about them, do they really tell us anything about what signs relate to those key words, and if so, does the finger really point to the description of Aquarius prior to Uranus' affiliation with it?

Paul, you could pick any planetary pairs, and find areas where they share commonalities. Uranus and sun for individuality? Sure. Uranus and Mercury for rapid original thinking? Yup. Sun-Moon for parental images? Yes. And so on. If I understand your argument correctly, it is fallacious.

1. The sun and Uranus relate to individuality, and Bailey linked them.
2. The sun is in detriment in Aquarius.
3. Therefore Uranus does not affiliate with Aquarius.

In my view it doesn't, but perhaps others see it differently. It's certainly worth thinking along these lines though because actually when we think along them more and more I actually think it makes a more compelling case away from linking Uranus with Aquarius.

I don't think so.

waybread wrote:Paul, please don't play the aggrieved party with me. You don't have to respond to my posts, but if you wish to respond to them, I request the same courtesy from you that you require for yourself.

The curtesy I require would be that you do not turn posts about Uranus into a diatribe about me or your presumed behaviour of me. There is no need for it in order to discuss Uranus. If you do not wish to respond to the posts of mine, the style of which you employ yourself whilst being critical of me when I do the same (point by point analysis) then you do not need to. If you cannot reply to them without making any personal reference or remark about me or my character then try to refrain from posting at all.

I simply do not have the time or the energy to put up with personal remarks when the subject is about something else entirely.

Don't you think this is what happened with the "original" rulerships, as well? The malefics and benefics go back to ancient Babylon, before our present-day signs were developed.

Of course - but then I'm not the one making the argument that the way to discover the correct domicile assignation of a planet is to retrospectively examine the connections after the fact. Nixx was, indirectly, mentioning an argument which appears to however. I am merely highlighting why that is a circular reasoning. Nixx was explaining a reason why Uranus might well fit with Aquarius, and I am just warning about circular reasoning. After all if Uranus was associated with Aries all that time ago, then the same argument could be leveraged to 'demonstrate' that Uranus rules Aries - or any other sign.

Therefore my point isn't that this was never done before, but rather that this isn't a rationally sound way to determine rulership. Traditional rulership has an astronomical basis, and then other associations grew up around it. The reason, then, that Mars rules Aries (or Scorpio to use your example later) is for astronomical reasons, not because of sign-planet affinity.
But modern astrology does not recognise that pattern (see Pluto) and instead models its 'rulership' on affinity, not on the same astronomical principles that the traditional planets are modelled on.

I have no idea what recognition that the concept of malefic and benefic stretches to ancient civilisations has to do with the point I made.

Can you unpack this one? Any sign has an attachment to something, according to its nature. Capricorn has an attachment to the material and practical, for example.

I could, but I think I have unpacked it enough, perhaps attachment in the sense of preservation and stabilisation would make better sense? If not, so be it, I don't think I will unpack this anymore than I have.

Aquarius is emotionally detached. A touchy-feely water sign it isn't. If Aquarius cares about certain ideas it will attach to them.

Thank you for making my point so eloquently - let's remember that I am talking about intellectual attachment, and you agree that Aquarius attaches to its ideologies. This in contrast to the point that Nixx made that I referred to which wasn't that Uranus is emotionally detached, but rather that it is a 'cereberal detached' planet. Cereberal detachment with a sign recognised as being ideologically and intellectually attached? Doesn't gel with me. Maybe it does with you.

The non-personal attributes of Aquarius refer to its more unemotional nature (compared to, say, a clingy Cancer or domineering Scorpio.)

Right, and perhaps I wasn't obvious enough - when I spoke of fixed signs and attachment, I meant they attach to the symoblism of their element. Aquarius is not a water sign, therefore I am not arguing that it is emotionally attached (like a scorpio, as you say).

Can you unpack this one, as well? In my above post, I addressed ties between Uranus and Aquarius as a fixed air sign. By the sun's affiliation with intellect, are you referring to its association with the Graeco-Roman god Apollo?

I'm not sure what caused confusion here - I am not (explicitly) referring to Apollo, were I to be, I would have said Apollo - but instead to an ancient recognition of the sun as Intellect, sometimes as Divine Intellect, and also with its association of brilliance. Cultures may or may not attribute this to Apollo, you may better understand it by that association (I do not know) but it is not the focus of my point. My point was that intellect and brilliance are solar qualities, and it makes sense, to me, to attribute similar qualities (from Uranus) to Solar-like themes/places - and certainly not to places where Solar-like themes/qualities are said to operate poorly or be corrupted. We do not need to mention Apollo whatsoever to discuss that.

As I explained above, a good idea isn't going to manifest itself in the laboratory without a lot of commitment and persistence.

Well it depends if you really think Uranus rules Science - I don't. I happen to think it relates better to innovation and invention - and by proxy then to technology perhaps, more so than science. But that's just my view. If you think a pursuit requiring persistence and discipline are Uranus words then so be it. Or is it not that whenever we want something to be persistent with this discussion we can say "look, that's Aquarius" and the total opposite of that, disruption and innovation, we can say "look, that's Uranus". Really the point that I think is being made here is that actually those things are at cross purposes in terms of affiliation. Oh sure, we can take one field, and note it requires persistence and it can require innovation - but then we could do that for a whole host of things not related to Uranus, Science, or Aquarius.

Paul, I suggest you let go of the unsubstantiated views that fixity equals uniformity, that originality is inconsistent with fixity, or that the sun in detriment means a lack of originality and creativity for Aquarius. You seem to be trying to develop a logical system, but its legs are pretty shaky.

Actually what is shaky is your understanding of my point. I have never said that fixity equals uniformity etc. perhaps I am not communicating clearly enough. You misunderstood me. Aquarius as a sign is one I associate with uniformity rather than originality. It is the converse quality of the domicile of the Sun - original and creative. The bracketed part of my post refers to the creativity and uniqueness which I hoped, from context, would be understood as a reference to the sun, and that aquarius is fixed in that regards (as opposed to the qualities of Uranus). Apologies if this wasn't clear here. Perhaps I worded this poorly.

You may not like the idea of detriments (I know you do not from previous discussions) but it is part of my symbolic landscape and so I am happy to discuss these ideas without any need for 'substantiation' - something which we will be waiting a long time for with astrology.

The sun is hardly the only planet symbolizing creativity

No, but then mercury isn't the only planet symbolising the mind, and the Moon isn't the only planet symbolising emotions. However, the Sun is THE MAIN planet for symbolising creative spark.

Paul, you could pick any planetary pairs, and find areas where they share commonalities. Uranus and sun for individuality? Sure. Uranus and Mercury for rapid original thinking? Yup. Sun-Moon for parental images? Yes. And so on. If I understand your argument correctly, it is fallacious.

Right. You do not understand my argument correctly I guess - at least not in full. My point wasn't to link planets by some common theme. My point was in demonstrating that, what I feel are the 'main' or core or prime significations of the two planet's involved share commonality in a way that the Sun, and, say, Mercury do not. I was not, for example, linking the two by way of commonality of a theme - parents with Sun and Moon - and rather at its more essential and fundamental quality of signification as I understand it (and citing Bailey as a source, for comparison, with a similar view worded differently).

Hey, that's isn't in your symbolic landscape, or how you recognise the core quality of the planets? Great, it won't make sense to you and you are free to abandon the idea.

I don't think so.

No, but then there was never going to be any other way.

Therese Hamilton wrote:On the sidereal forum I've posted what I believe to be the correct planetary rulership/exaltation scheme of the zodiac which includes the outer planet affinities. When this scheme is outlined in circular format, I don't see that it can be easily adjusted.

However, when we consider what has been observed about sign characteristics based on planetary affinity?as I see it?this scheme works only in the sidereal zodiac which is why I have posted my messages on the sidereal forum. The foundation of the scheme is the ancient division of the zodiac into solar and lunar halves. I have also added a philosophical note as to why the outer planets were only recently discovered. For anyone curious about this scheme, please refer to this link:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 6322#86322

Thanks for the link Therese, however I don't find the logic you employ compelling at all. I will reply on that thread.


Edit
Thank you for your thoughts on this Therese, I find your arguments more compelling now you have explained the chart in further detail, though, as I say, the idea of it relating to sidereal only seems without basis.