Pluto is jumping forward and afterward in more than year my Moon. I believe if it itsn"t planet than some things in our life can not be so very bad when this planet is crossing natal planets.

Andres

Andres wrote:Pluto is jumping forward and afterward in more than year my Moon. I believe if it itsn"t planet than some things in our life can not be so very bad when this planet is crossing natal planets.

Andres

I'm no expert but I believe Pluto affects us.

My sun conjuncts pluto and my dad died the day I was born.
When I was two it hit my sun again during a retrograde hit and I nearly died.

Then when it squared my moon I experienced death again ! my grandmother died, I got divorced, moved houses several times, changed jobs...death and " death" AGAIN.

If its not pluto what the hell is it ?

I am sure it is Pluto SunPluto.
So I also see my period when I was been very much sick, that Pluto on that time conjucted Mars. I have also been on high risk operation on head when Pluto just came into Scorpio.

Now I waiting for more fight with my ex wife and it can be that some manipulative woman will come to my life. Just good to know about position of Pluto these months and years.

Andres

Oh my am I sorry I missed out on this discussion. There seems to have been quite a party! I don't really know where to start but when it comes to drinks, I might as well try to get into little bit of everything all at once!

Eris (Xena) it could be argued is equally elliptic as Pluto. Neptune doesn't fit into the definition of Bode's law (just to add to the confusion) and Uranus is upside down!

Really, anything that orbits the Sun or enters the Sun's gravity field, or the boundaries of the Solar system, must in some way be related to or relate to the Sun or the Solar system. Al H. Morrison (CAO TIMES) and Zane Stein (Chiron) were some 25 years ago working with the meaning of 'orbit' crossers - which by the way is one of the important virutes of comets (which are only small balls of ice!) That what was once far away is now close up! The question in this case is how you deal with having something stuck right under your nose that you are used to having at a distance.

I feel quite comfortable adding Chiron to my natal charts. The glyph given Chiron was the result of a democratic prosess amoung astrologers and voted upon at the CAO General Convention at San Diego CA on August 18. 1978.

Every astrologer should really try to get to see some of these objects in telescopes. It really puts the experience of astrology into a 'new' (hands on) perspective.

Slightly beside the topic, but some of the contemporary research done by Morrison in the 80's on the asteroids America, Amor, Apollo, Atlantis, Bacchus, Eros, Hidalgo, Icarus, Lilith, Pandora, Psyche, Sappho, Toro and Urania is really quite fascinating.

The present discussion is not about asteroids - for or against, but some of these perspectives do shed light on what is required to give meaning in an astrological chart and also the limitations that these interpretations or meanings should be given.

I think that 'A Planet is like a Landmark'. Pluto was a landmark in its time. We could sit back quite comfortably and wait another 70 years for astronomers to reach yet another definition of the planets and the solar system. And unless we have to integrate dark matter into our birthcharts then maybe everyone will be happy!

Andrew J. Bevan wrote:The present discussion is not about asteroids - for or against, but some of these perspectives do shed light on what is required to give meaning in an astrological chart and also the limitations that these interpretations or meanings should be given.

I think you just nailed what is the heart of the matter: that the problems one faces when dealing with new planets or new objects SHED LIGHT on many important astrological issues that are not directly related to them, such as:

- how is the meaning of a planet constructed?
- what are the traditional paradigms that these objects break? (e.g., rulership schemes, 7-10 planets charts vs 60-600 planets "charts", etc.)
- what new resources are needed to deal with these problems?
- what to include and what to exclude from a chart or from analysis?
- what are the most common prejudices against their use (or even their study), and what these prejudices tell about astrology and about astrologers?

I like to say that all this is equivalent to "leaving astrology naked", showing what it is made of.

Juan

aquirata wrote:Juan,
You describe a structured approach to research, which is very commendable. Few people take the time and make the effort to go through all that trouble.
It caught my attention that you don't consider size to be a factor. Surely this will be very difficult to justify in light of the myriad celestial bodies one is faced with when there is no cut-off point. One cannot deny that the Sun and Moon influence our lives much more than e.g. Pluto does. I would also submit that the five other ancient planets will outweigh the evidence of any other planet, dwarf planet, asteroid or what have you, given equivalent circumstances.

The large numbers is a question of selection criteria, of methodology. The luminaries mean one thing, the planets another, and their distance is interpreted in terms of meaning not in terms of "influence". I don't think that the idea that Astrology has to do with physical influence in relation to distance and physical size has any ground.

On the methodology itself, I see three potential roadblocks. Selection of the most significant moment will be open to interpretation, so you will have to work extra hard to make the definitions and methodology as unambiguous as possible.

"selecting the most significant moment" is what astrologers do all the time, and it is a matter of choosing the time for which to make the radix (e.g. the time of birth, the start of an event...). Nothing new is required here.

Moreover, you will need to collect and analyze not just hundreds but thousands of cases in order to make your results statistically significant.

It is quite the opposite. Except for the weighting technique, this is standard qualitative methodology applied in many fields, particularly the social sciences. We are dealing with meanings, not with measurable forces. It is a method designed to work with a small number of cases, from which the characteristics of the planet can be figured out through analytic induction, theoretical sampling, content analysis, etc.

And finally, you will need to avoid selection bias; in other words, the charts selected will have certain configurations in terms of planets, aspects, signs, houses, etc.

The selection is done through the weighting technique I outlined. There is no selection bias in the chart itself, since the methodology is designed to avoid it. There is a bias however when choosing the population in which the required cases are going to be found: the cases chosen must be sufficiently documented, otherwise they will be useless, and this limitation can be interpreted as a "bias".

Of course, there will be bias at the time of interpreting the results, building the planet keywords, etc.

You will need to be able to prove that the distribution of these configurations is 'random', i.e. they do not affect the result

Not when you are using qualitative methods and a very small population.

Your comment makes me wonder: why do astrologers assume that the only valid way of doing research in Astrology is using statistical methods?

Juan

Astronomer's have a re-think.
Here is the latest from the New Scientist:

'It will all come down to psychology, says Jack Lissauer of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.'

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... r-all.html

This is funny!

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/cultu ... amn-it.php