zoidsoft wrote: I think it's important to expand ones vocabulary and understand that there are far more relationships between the planets and the signs than just "ruler" and "exaltation". When "ruler" is used by those coming from the modern perspective, it is important to realize that term had a different meaning historically that is very different from the way it is used now.

james_m wrote:curtis, how do you respond to those who claim that a previous system or way of doing astrology, referred to typically as traditional astrology, has a built in 'philosophical esthetic' that can't accept an outer planet, let alone the possibility of it having some ''affinity or rulership'' over what this same tradition defines? and speaking of perspective - we all have a modern perspective in spite of anyone's attempt to cloak themselves with an ideology or system that has long since died. anyone practicing traditional astrology today is either very good at fooling themselves if they think they are capable of letting go the 'modern' perspective that they are born into, or not being truthful with others to state they have something other then a modern perspective as i see it..

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.

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

With a rapidly increasing variety of approaches to astrology, the danger is that uniformity of judgement is becoming a thing of the past. Different schools advocate different techniques and, though it may be true that all rivers run to the same ocean, it is alarming when the 'feels right for me' method overruns established rules of delineation. The theory is that each new method opens up a further dimension of
interpretation; the reality is that they are often the source of confusion, creating too many options for what the symbolism could mean.

Two articles in this issue are of relevance here. Robert Zollers?s amusing account of his prediction for
the New York City Building Strike has a more serious message which should be drummed home to everyone seeking knowledge from the heavens. It is simply this - astrology should be based upon a study of astrology.* No other skill, no matter how admirable, will lead to the correct interpretation of a horoscope. It is worrying that many of us are being led into thinking otherwise.

The second article to offer food for thought is the explanation of traditional sign rulership. It seems deplorable that the reason for the distribution of planets to signs - which should really be taught at an elementary level to all students - has almost become forgotten. When we consider the reasoning and overlapping principles behind the original rulership scheme, we comprehend the sense of philosophical wholeness which underlines our study. Unfortunately, the inclusion of the outer planets has disturbed this harmony and balance. Now, in order to refine a scheme they see no logic in, some astrologers argue that relatively unimportant celestial bodies should be elevated to the same significance as the visible planets. Their hope is that one day we will have an even number of planets and signs. We should ask ourselves do we really need to do this?

One point to consider is that planetary rulership of the signs is entirely symbolic. We cannot measure its effects, or test its worth by observation. It works better in the divinatory side of astrology, which is unapologetic in its use of natural symbolism, than it does in those branches which focus upon psychological characterisation or statistics.

Of course, because it is symbolic, 'correct' sign-rulership is really whatever you strongly believe it to be. Anyone who experiences a personal, emotive flow in their astrology (as all good astrologers should) will respond to the symbolism of their own understanding. A conviction that Uranus rules Aquarius will bring results to reinforce that belief. The same for those who use Chiron as ruler of Virgo. It would be foolish to say that the traditional system is the only one which works, but it does have wonderful philosophical depth and a workable practicality which makes it worth preserving. Is it not damaging to discard established principles whenever science discovers another distant object in space?

Today, there is controversy and confusion over the definition of the word 'planet'. Questions have been raised regarding the validity of the term 'planet' for Pluto, while advancing technology draws our awareness to numerous previously unknown asteroids, dormant comets and unspecified objects orbiting our solar system. Whether or not they have astrological significance, there is no reason why we should destroy effective symbolism to include them in 'the scheme'.

Astrologers of old did not suffer from ignorance of what lay beyond their field of vision. In fact the basis of astrology is a universal understanding of shape, colour and form which placed great emphasis upon varying physical appearances. The way that a celestial body was perceived was the key to understanding its innate characteristics and influence. Bodies which were bright and luminous were beneficial and associated with power glory and strength. Those which were dim or vague symbolised weakness and poverty. Colours reflected qualities as, for example, Mars, 'the red planet? symbolises war and bloodshed. The way the heavens are recognised by human senses is obviously more pertinent to astrology than how they appear through a telescope and how they seem to revolve around the Earth is more relevant than whether they actually revolve around the Sun.

Our feeling is that if we are to use the dignity of rulership by sign, we are as well to perpetuate the system of Ptolemy. The outer planets move so slowly that allocating them to signs of dignity can do nothing to aid interpretation. From 1972 until 1984 Pluto traversed the sign of Libra. Since then it has moved slowly through Scorpio. Can we honestly say that in one period it has been stronger than the other? Such an impersonal planet needs a close aspectual contact to a sensitive area of a chart for its influence to be felt. The quality of Mars, on the other hand, is manifestly altered when moving from Libra to Scorpio, its ancient nocturnal home.

So much that is of value to traditional astrological practice has to be rejected by inserting the impersonal planets into the rulership scheme. Surely it is time to review the alterations we have made and adopt a policy of greater resistance against those who would introduce change purely for change's sake? D.H.

....The outer planets move so slowly that allocating them to signs of dignity can do nothing to aid interpretation. From 1972 until 1984 Pluto traversed the sign of Libra. Since then it has moved slowly through Scorpio. Can we honestly say that in one period it has been stronger than the other? Such an impersonal planet needs a close aspectual contact to a sensitive area of a chart for its influence to be felt. The quality of Mars, on the other hand, is manifestly altered when moving from Libra to Scorpio, its ancient nocturnal home.

Mark wrote:The most challenging question for me was posed above by Curtis. What is this association or affinity between an outer planet and a sign if it is not rulership? Brady has suggested it is something else. But what exactly is this association or affinity if it is not rulership? In a strictly traditional sense the term is perhaps meaningless.

I was simply questioning the logic of modern astrology that sees the linkage between Aquarius and Uranus as inseparable. I have definitely read a piece by you somewhere that discusses this but cannot locate those comments.