Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:50 pm**

It seems to me that when it comes to astrological perspective, that some astrologers try to use the same perspective everywhere. I prefer to keep each perspective within the context from which it was formed. This is why I use Uranus as "ruler" of Aquarius for certain issues and Saturn for others (more notably the realm of the concrete particular). The modern perspective of rulership as "affinity" is where I see Uranus having considerable freedom to operate in Aries as if it was in it's own "element".

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.

Posted: **Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:41 pm**

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.

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..

Posted: **Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:18 pm**

The way I intuit Uranian energy is not as the red, flaming, consuming energy of Mars or even the Sun. I picture Uranian energy as more of a ?cool? blue energy, this even though it is certainly hot. Not the fiery flare of the Sun; more a blue streak of lightning. Or a spark of electricity. Ever seen a spark plug work? Kind of like that. It?s hot in that there is certainly energy there, but it?s not raging, consuming, or engulfing anything. It won?t in and of itself grow out of control like Mars? flame (which is what makes Mars ?malefic?). Although in the right setting of other things, a reaction can occur, one that grows, possibly out of control, for better or worse.

Uranian energy is thus catalytic. Condition A might be headed in a certain direction, but when it is in the right state, a bolt of Uranian energy will quickly change it to Condition B. I?m not sure there is fixity here: The sometimes persistent forces (social, in some examples given above) trending towards the turning point may be driven by non-Uranian energies. For instance, the willpower, vision, and diligence of the countless unremembered people working towards a particular social change could be Solar or Mars-related forces. Or Mercurial, or Venusian, etc. But that catalytic event, force, or person, or that last change in circumstances that shoves things inexorably forward, is Uranus at work. By forward I don?t mean towards a better place, just that there?s no going back.

Other than operating at this focused point of time, I have no idea if Uranian forces are responsible for some of the prior build-up, if any, or the posterior maintenance of the new status.

Maybe, as this catalyst, Uranus simply amplifies the beneficence or maleficence of aspecting planets or other chart factors with which it interacts. At the very least, if Uranus is a pure catalyst, this explains its above mentioned lack of contribution (being a ?dumb note?) in the chart if there is no substrate.

Maybe cold, Saturnine, and seemingly inert Aquarian conditions or temperaments more often provide the exact materials needed for some reaction to occur? Maybe that?s the affinity?

Posted: **Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:37 pm**

Have to confess that after so many months an interesting debate is taking place in 'Skyscript'.

Some of my thoughts and experiences.

The ancient system of one sign for Sun and One for Moon (luminaries=Nayyarain) and Two signs each for rest of the 5 planets (Khumsa Mutahayyara=Five Wanderers) was in fact a complete system for that time. No need was felt nor dual signs were given to planets because they thought that future generations would have to find and explore 5 additional planets.

It is also a fact that Humans as a species have evolved on the cultural and Moral grounds for the past 3,000 years.

The ancient systems though extremely simple and authoritative to use are inadequate to answer the problems of Humanity from 50 years from now.

So, yes we can with effort incorporate Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in our Traditional Astrologies without disturbing the original scheme of ruler ships.

Primarily I am a Traditional Astrologer, however, I was coaxed into studying Modern Astrology few years back at the behest of my very good friend. At that time we had experimentation with Modern predictive System (Progressions, returns etc etc). My experiments suggest that though on a theoretical basis 'Uranus' seems ought to have an affinity for Aquarius, however, it was not confirmed through experiments. On the other hand Uranus Transits are so obvious in Natal charts that it can not be ignored. Now, I use Uranus transits as to fine tune the Traditional Astrology findings however, with a difference that it has no apparent affinity with any sign.

The case for Uranus having affinity for the sign of Aries is much weaker. Ancients did not assign ruler ships on the basis of hot and cold. I have not seen anyone in this thread refuting waybread on a fine and valid logic. How can a Trans-personal and Social planet i.e Uranus has an affinity for a personal and asocial sign i.e Aries?

Posted: **Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:37 pm**

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..

Indeed, the bold is what Schmidt says about secondary intentionality and its insidious effect on our mental state. One can only do the best one can and verify through experience. I wouldn't say that it died because parts of it were preserved in the medieval and modern interpretations. But I've been working in the traditional field for over 20 years now. For nearly 20 years before that I was of the psychological school and my practice drastically changed during the period that Uranus and Neptune were conjunct my natal Saturn in Capricorn 3rd...

Posted: **Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:47 pm**

PS - Oh and saying that traditional astrology has a built in philosophical esthetic and therefore can't accept an outer planet doesn't invalidate a perspective or philosophy. It just means that it is defined for the parameters that are specified and returns undefined when the parameters go out of scope (to use programming terminology). That's why it's called a perspective, because it has predefined bounds and is only valid within those bounds. This is why I use traditional methods for the concrete particular, but when it comes to spiritual or hidden issues, I use modern psychological and evolutionary techniques (Steven Forrest in particular).

Posted: **Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:57 pm**

Mark, thanks again for initiating a really interesting thread. Obviously participants feel passionate about the topic, or we wouldn't be here.

Curtis, I agree that the meaning of rulerships has changed over time.

Paul, to continue with my feedback on your recent post to me, according to your own style of interaction:

I wrote:

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?

You wrote:

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.

If you're not familiar with the attributes of the Graeco-Roman god Apollon/Apollo.... he was assocated with various sorts of intellectual brilliance, such as prophecy and higher learning. You may associate him with the sun god of Greek mythology, which he became later in his mythological career. http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/Apollon.html Your statement that the sun symbolizes intellectual brilliance in some traditional astrologies seems a direct lineage from the god Apollo.

So far as intellectual matters go, the sun shares them with Mercury in Hellenistic astrology. To Valens, book I, the sun indicates "nature's fire and intellectual light. the organ of mental perception" ruling the head. To Valens, Mercury "indicates education, letters, disputation, reasoning....It is the bestower of forethought and intelligence" as well as reasoning. I don't see a huge difference.

Then you could go through Valens's entire list of planetary attributes and find all kinds of overlap and internal contradictions. You will find traits of the sun that have nothing to do with intellectual smarts, like good fortune, high priesthoods, and kingship. (Suggesting that whatever strengths Valens had as an astrologer, his work involved a lot of compilation and minimal editing of contradictory material from different sources.)

Today, we could identify all kinds of ways in which Uranus doesn't act like the sun at all, but more like another planet such as Mars or Mercury. "Sudden change" and the nature of the sun seem miles apart. (Shall we insert some astronomy here?)

So it's no good arguing that because the sun is in detriment in air sign Aquarius, and you link the sun and mental activity (while not considering many other attributes of the planets,) we shouldn't affiliate Uranus with Aquarius.

I wrote:

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

Paul wrote:

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.

I think you scrambled my points. Science is highly consistent with the quality of fixed air. Science is a mental activity that takes a lot of staying-power (keyword persistence) to complete a body of research.

The connection between science with Uranus, however, is that science is in the business of pushing mental frontiers. This relates to the keyword innovation.

Science=innovation plus intellectual persistence. (Put 'em together, and what have you got???)

I wrote:

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.

Possibly. If you associate Aquarius with "uniformity rather than originality" I wonder if you are turning planets' qualities (cardinal, fixed, mutable) into a Procrustean Bed for poor old Aquarius. These are not the be-all and end-all for signs! As I indicated above, signs have always had lists of character traits that seemingly have nothing to do with their qualities and elements.

I wonder if the sun is the only sign you associate with creativity. The sun has no monopology on creativity. Venus rules the fine arts. Mercury rules all kinds of creative pursuits. To quote Valens again, Gemini is associated with "those working in...letters, poets, music-lovers" while Sagittarius mysteriously manages to produce men who are "noble" and "kingly" even though the sun has no strong affiliation with these signs.

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.

Now who is personalizing the debate? Let's discuss the traditional detriments, by all means. I have just shown that your "sun:intellect/creativity" as "Aquarius: the opposite" doesn't hold up. Are you implying that Leo is a paragon of intellectual activity? Valens says men born under this sign are "intellectual" yet "inflated with their lofty thoughts"! And intellect is hardly the principal trait of Leo.

I wrote:

The sun is hardly the only planet symbolizing creativity.

Paul wrote:

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.

Your first sentence is precisely my point. Your second sentence is a value judgment. This cherry-picking seems very a priori. If you were to focus upon the kingship dimension of the sun in Leo, you would see a more socially conscious Aquarius, with whom the Uranus keyword liberation is a much better fit.

I wrote:

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).

I understand what you wrote. Perhaps I can be excused for not understanding what you did not write. I have shown that your "core or prime significations" are cherry-picked to bolster your argument. And that astrology has never worked by restricting itself to just two or three diagnostics. If Bailey has become an authority for you

..... well, I'll leave it there. Otherwise I will wonder what you make of Vulcan.

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.

My symbolic landscape includes what you wrote. Does the reverse apply?

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

Really? I always hope to persuade people. You are not saying that your mind was made up long before this thread started??

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:10 am**

thanks curtis,

in reference to the philosophy or perspective - i was commenting on what i recall someone saying (without finding the comment to quote), that they didn't want to incorporate an outer planet as it didn't or wouldn't fit the arrangement they had (or the more sophisticated philosophical basis it was built on) within the traditional system.. it would throw off the basis for much of what they believed in, or relied upon.

this really goes into my own idea of astrology being more of an art as opposed to a science.. depending on how one uses the different ideas they've been exposed to, one will use what works the best for them to greater understanding thru astrology.. if someone opts to use or not uranus - that is up to them! to me it is not the same as saying the mona lisa is fine the way it is and someone just decided to paint a little extra onto it! although, perhaps that is how some more traditional types view this.. painting on top of the mosa lisa - sacrilege!

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:45 am**

You are right in what you say James. I haven?t felt inclined to comment in this thread, but had reason to drag out an old copy of the Traditional Astrologer magazine today, and see that around this time 20 years ago I was basing my editorial on this issue, and said something very similar my self. However, 20 years ago, a more traditional practice of astrology was very much against the norm, and to try to promote awareness of traditional principles was seen as controversial and challenging. Very few astrologers, at that time, used the traditional rulership scheme, or understood that it was a scheme, which held an underlying logic (since hardly any of the mainstream astrology schools used it or taught it). So what motivated me to write the editorial was the ? then current ? argument to have Chiron recognised as the ruler of Virgo; the reason being that some planets have more than one sign to rule and it didn?t seem fair that others just have one. I would probably omit or alter a couple of comments now, but generally my views haven?t changed a great deal. For the record, this is what I wrote, under the title ?Invasion of the outer planets?:

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.

*With regard to Zoller?s article, it concerned a correct prediction he made about an strike, which contradicted the majority opinion of a group of astrologers, who were factoring in non-astrological reasoning. It?s a good example of Robert Zoller?s influence at a time when he was a rogue arrow, flying in a different direction to everyone else. I enjoyed reading it again, so I?m going to work on it and hopefully add it to the site very soon.

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:29 pm**

Thanks for those comments Deb

I want to make clear my purpose in opening this thread was definitely not to propose that Uranus 'rules' Aries rather than Aquarius! I dont think it rules anything.

As I said in my opening comments I am perfectly content with the traditional rulership system.

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.

Deb wrote:

....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.

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? Bernadette Brady has suggested it is something else. But what exactly is this association or affinity if it is not rulership? Brady has left us rather high and dry on where we are supposed to take this idea. In a strictly traditional sense the term is probably meaningless.

However, I think Robert Hand's attempt to typify the outers in terms of Aristotlean/Ptolemaic qualities is an intriguing and innovative approach. It gives us a way of examining a possible affinity between an outer planet and a sign in terms of an intrinsic quality without implying any kind of rulership relationship.

Other traditional approaches we might apply are describe an outer in terms of composite characteristics they share with the traditional planets. This actually, mirrors Ptolemy's approach to fixed stars. The main argument against this approach is that the stars often acquired their planetary associations from their colour and visual appearance. Something not possible for invisible points like the outer planets. Still, even invisible points like the north and south node have planetary associations in traditional astrology.

Traditional astrologers willing to work with outer planets need to acknowledge them as a distinctive astrological category rather than just another version of fixed stars, nodes or lots.

For those working with traditional rulerships there seem to be various possible options in regards the outer planets. Firstly, to ignore them entirely. Secondly, to treat them like fixed stars in the sense that they have no rulership or dispositors. Their slow moving character means their essential nature is unchanged by sign. Hence, they only assume astrological significance when in aspectual relationship with pivotal personal planet or an angle. A third option is the treat outer planets like invisible points such as nodes and lots. In contrast to fixed stars these are changed in influence depending on dispositor of the sign they are located in.

My approach to this issue isn't monolithic. It varies depending on the branch of astrology I am doing. In practical terms I probably adopt the second approach for horary, electional or natal work. However, much of my interest in this area relates to mundane astrology. In mundane terms I am currently researching the historical significance of the third approach.

In essence I believe the outers gain in astrological significance as the time scale of the astrology increases. They are probably, least important for horary or electional issues, intermediate for natal, and most significant for analysing mundane cycles. Astrologers used to talk about these planets as 'generational' when I first studied astrology in the early 1980s. In some senses I think that term or 'transpersonal' is quite helpful to keep in mind.

Mark

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:18 pm**

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.

Not me. That was Lee Lehman, PhD. I was just relaying what she said. But I think it reasonable given that there are so many different relationships between the planets and the signs, such as oikodespotes, stoichion, hoirion, hupsoma, despotes, etc... "Ruler" is a blanket statement that blurs these distinctions between planetary functions. For in some cases it listens to and acts as host, in others it calls to witness, in others it sets a standard, in other cases it testifies, etc...

Posted: **Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:37 pm**

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.

I don't know. I can't remember anything, but there was a long discussion about outer-planet rulerships years ago, which is linked to in the article by Kim Farnell, you've mentioned a couple of times. Maybe something in there - too long for me to read today.

I don't think this issue should drive a wedge between astrologers, but do believe it would be much better if all new students of astrology were taught the traditional rulership scheme from the start of their studies. Maybe we are getting closer to that now that appreciation for traditional techniques has become more widespread. Once a symbolic association has been made in the mind, it is impossible to forget or not recognise its awakened meaning. I suspect that's the reason why some astrologers change their approach when changing their astrological perspective (from one type of query to another, or from one branch of astrology to another). Old habits die hard, but I don't see that as necessary at all, if we develop our practice from understanding traditional principles from the start. My judgement of any type of astrological chart remains essentially the same and works very well (it would be hubris to say its perfect; but the truth is, there is absolutely nothing that I feel needs to be changed or refined in any way. I'm confident in my understanding of what I'm doing, and that what I'm doing does what I need it to; and I am not limiting it to concrete, objective matters, or excluding psychological or spiritual matters). It is heavily informed by traditional theory, but incorporates additions comfortably. For example, I use the outer planets, but don't recognise any notion of them being rulers, or being able to receive, or commit. It doesn't make sense, when the word dispositor is supposed to mean the final authority. Can we have two final authorities? I think not.

I also don't believe that anyone can get far in their understanding or employment of traditonal principles if they use the outers instead of the traditional rulers - there are too many reasons why the five planets need to have two signs each, to recognise diurnal and nocturnal modes of expression.

When I use the word traditonal for astrology, I don't mean something old, outdated or historical, but something strong and powerful, which has gained strength and collective investment over many centuries, and which continues to be valid in the present and develop in the future. So I am not against innovation, because astrology continually evolves in my opionion, and shapes itself to the values of its time, but I don't like to see something being innovated when it requires something that is firmly established, and not broken, to be broken in order to be fixed.

So on the one hand, my feeling is that - ultimately, astrology is what the practitioner makes of it, so each to their own; but on the other, I feel that principles maintain strength through collective recognition, and every time we fragment, we weaken part of ourselves as a community, along with the theoretical principles that bind us together - this is a criticism that skeptics love to throw at the subject as a whole: that astrology has no integrated theory, and is now a diverse mish-mash of alternate teachings which conflict with each other, and even astrologers can't agree on their own principles. So underneath my recognition that everyone's view is individually valid, I worry about the impact that lack of strong collaborative agreement has on our community. The words of Tevye ring in my ears "one little time you pull out the prop, and where does it stop? where does it stop? ..." (Uranus squares my Sun in Taurus, so I guess I'm programmed to rebel against change )

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Is Uranus Associated with Aries?