Skyscript Astrology Forum

Mark

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

Greene, (Collective Feeling for Neptune and Collective Survival for Pluto), but she may have borrowed these from an earlier source?
These are her core associations or sources for the planets meaning(s)from (I?m assuming you don?t know/have?) ?The Art of Stealing Fire? :
Prometheus, Ouranos, Hebrew Yahweh, Bailey?s ? Group Soul?, ?Plan in the Mind of God?, Shelley?s Frankenstein, The Enlightenment, Pythagorean Numbers, Plato?s Ideal Forms, Ritual Magic, Bailey?s Seventh Ray, Muse Urania, Egyptian Goddess Nut, Hindu Brahman, Kabalistic Chokmah. Tarot Card -The Tower, American, French and Bolshevik Revolutions.
It seems to me the Thema Mundi (Semantic Geometry) is a Uranian construct, using Psychological semantics.

Uranus has nothing to do with the quality of consensus and collective action that characterizes Aquarius

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.

Greene: ?? Because the outer planets reflect movements within the collective psyche, in which we all share, Uranus is not concerned with individual development. It may even prove inimical to individual values and individual emotional needs. We should realise the collective nature of Uranus by the simple fact that the planet is the co ruler of the sign opposite the one which the Sun rules ? in company with Saturn it governs Aquarius, which is opposite Leo. This alone informs us that it symbolises the antithesis of individual expression (which is solar) because the individual is submerged in the group??.
So you and she may not be sharing a tight understanding of this planets functioning.

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.

But is Uranus all that physically active? In comparison to the Moon or Mars? In the Psychological schema Uranus is co ruling / ruling, a Masculine Air ? extroverted sign. FIRE/AIR signs are therefore focused on activities outside the self. All are more active than the EARTH/WATER signs. Aquarius is disposed to engage in group activities, talking with others in person, online, at meetings, etc the optimal scenario is to be involved in groups not one to one interactions. Intimacy and Aquarians, as you may know, is a disaster zone. Which brings in Uranus, as PA?s raise their eyebrows in this area of life especially when Uranus is in the 8th, or closely aspecting the Moon.

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

I think the rationale is Uranus is resistant to change from without, and once the ideology is in place it is hard to shift. Planets and modalities don?t always seem to be a tight fit. Venus ruling a Cardinal sign (Libra) springs to mind here. This planet could be seen as more fixed than cardinal, perhaps?

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

I probably shouldn?t have thrown in a few Tarnas keywords or qualified 'creativity' my bad, sloppy! Pioneers, Initiators is Aries/Mars. Philosophers, Explorers Sagittarius/Jupiter . As such I suspect this is where the schism lies between your musings and the Psychological approach and it is perhaps easier to fathom why you think Uranus could have a closer affinity to Aries than Aquarius. Violent social change would be Fire and Air, in that order, as they are Masculine/Extraverted.

These seem to be some of the Psychological Keywords for Uranus ? Reform, Innovation, Unpredictable, Disruptive, Liberation, Dissident, Eccentric, Progress, Genius, Perfection, ..........

Ultimately. I'm not sure it?s 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.

Uranus wouldn?t be obviously dysfunctional in a fire sign, and a right mess in a water sign.

I am surely not the first astrologer to notice that Uranus is often linked to right wing or extreme nationalist movements and politics.

Greene, ?? Uranus is associated with revolutions which are based on an ideology of one kind or another. ..........Don?t make the mistake of thinking that Uranus is politically always on the left, because the Uranus spirit can also pursue extremely right -wing political ideals....................................... But whether Uranus swings to the right or the left, it always carries an ideology , a vision of social perfection that declares ?We will get rid of all the inferior, dark, barbaric, elements in human nature and create a perfect society in which human beings are godlike, and without flaw??.
Some of which seems not that dissimilar to Deb?s article on Aquarius here and there? Re - Aquarians seeking a more civilised landscape to interact on or with.

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?

Greene ?? A person who we might describe as very Uranian may not be at all individual in the solar sense. There is often little awareness of personal values and personal identity. Uranus tends to view the world through a wide angled lens, and everyday life can easily be ignored or deemed unimportant. Such a person may be rebelling against existing structures or attitudes , or might reject a world view that seems past its sell by date, He or she may be in touch with progressive ideas and inspirations which are a long way ahead of their time. The Uranian person may be highly unconventional because of this, but unconventional does not mean individual.
.........He or she may be dominated or driven by a world view that is collective. It may be a revolutionary or transformative perspective on life but it is collective nevertheless, which is why Uranian ideas usually arrive in the person consciousness ,without having been distilled from, or tested against, personal experience?.

She has quite a lot to say about Hitler's rising Uranus and the German Psyche or Zeitgeist in this respect.

Paul

Right but we need to tread 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.

Outer planet meanings seem to be a combination of Orbital Paradigms, myth, world events (or some of) on discovery, what?s missing perhaps in the other, in this case, 7. Maybe other factors? It may be in time once a sign association/rulership is imagined meanings merge here and there.

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.

The way I look at it is when the family are rowing the Aquarian sits there and reads the paper or takes the paper to another room and seems relatively uninvolved or effected. Once you have seen this behaviour enough times, or think you have, then you start thinking s/he is somewhat 'detached' and the keyword fits, or Horoscopy might not be nonsense after all.

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?

Are you getting into the neurobiology of the postulated collective unconscious, or Jungian model of the Mind here and in turn Naturalist ?cellular level? Astrology.

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?

You might have to randomly sample a 1,000 noteworthy genius?s and/or innovators and look at the stats.
My post to Mark might address your questions better or some of them.

Paul - editing to fix quoations

james_m wrote: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!

You're ideas are too advanced for this crowd James. Perhaps dumb down a little if you want more interaction.

I do think Uranus rules Aquarius! Precisely because it works as a house cusp ruler, alongside Saturn-- it has technical value. I don't think (so far) that Virgo has a modern ruler, after spending a long time trying to work out Ceres as its hypothetical modern ruler. I just wasn't getting good results; and Chiron has many attributes that don't match up Virgo at all.

I am divided on this comment, posted by Deb:

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.

This statement suggests that ancient astrology operated as a form of sympathetic magic: a bright, shiny planet was associated with benefits, glory and strength. While I think this fits in well with a much broader meta-narrative, it doesn't always work astronomically.

We have to recall how much Graeco-Roman astrology and star lore was borrowed from the Babylonians.

The sun is the brightest and shiniest, yet anciently it could operate as a malelific: just too hot and dry. The planet Venus as the goddesses Inanna and Anat had a very blood-thirsty side.

The Greek nickname for Mercury was Stilbon, meaning "to gleam or glitter" yet because it appears to close to the horizon and often obscured by haze or the sun's after-glow it is one of the harder planets to observe.

Mars is not blood-red! If it were, we could never see it against the night sky. It is a sort of pale orange in colour, yet this word "orange" didn't enter western vocabularies until actual oranges were introduced from the East. Their word for orange was often "red-gold" or "yellow-red." Which doesn't sound too warlike. The ancient Greeks called the planet Mars Mesonynx ("midnight star") or Pyroeis, meaning "fire"--which is much close it its appearance than blood is. Some attributed it to Herakles, not the war god Ares.

(For more on Greek interpretations of the planets, see: www.theoi.com and google "planet Jupiter", &c.

Consequently, we have to look first at the gods worshipped in Antiquity, and then see how ancient people attributed their qualities to heavenly bodies.

For what it is worth, the planet Uranus actually does fit into the above scheme, however. It essentially rotates the sun on its side, not spinning like a top on its polar axis like the earth and other planets.

"Uranus is unique among the planets in the Solar System because of its axial tilt. While Earth is tilted at a mere 23.5 degrees, Uranus has rolled over completely sideways, with an axial tilt of 99-degrees. This has a significant impact on the planet?s seasons. The north pole of Uranus experiences 42 years of complete darkness, followed by 42 years of sunlight, where the Sun never dips below in the horizon."

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/19105/orbi ... z2tu2E1Ix4

To the extent that traditional astrologers developed a narrative about the planets based upon their appearance, quixotic Uranus fits in nicely.

Waybread wrote:

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

Waybread wrote:

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

Ouch! That is very harsh Waybread. Contrary to what you might imagine about me I wasn?t looking to pick holes in your position just for the sadistic pleasure of it.

My difficulty with a lot of the first chart examples you gave was simply that you cited Uranian contacts to angles when the chart was not AA or even A. This is a general issue I have with a lot of astrologers and by no means unique to you. If we are going to use nativities to support a particular view I think we need to raise the bar data wise. This applies to all astrologers. I don?t think my position is unfair or unrealistic.

As Martin Gansten has pointed out even a lot of even AA data is not totally accurate. In contrast I have no problem with using Uranian aspects to planets in DD charts.

Waybread wrote:

I think you are pretty clear about what I mean by modern astrology!

Yes. I just thought I would take the opportunity to set out my own position on why I think traditional techniques still have a relevance to modern astrology.

Waybread wrote:

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

I certainly agree Uranus seems to be an important player in the charts of many inventors and scientists. However, that is a very different issue from accepting it as ruler of Aquarius. I think its important we avoid cherry picking examples to fit a pre-conceived theory. I felt the particular elements of many charts you highlighted rather fell into that trap. For example you cited Charles Darwin as Sun Aquarius and left it at that!

I decided to look at a lot of famous scientists and inventors charts. Apart from Einstein and Kepler I hadn?t seen their data before and I was genuinely interested if any sign bias cropped up. Of course this is no major statistical analysis and you can dismiss the recurring trends I observed if you disagree. In any case these are the trends I especially noticed:

-Lots of examples of charts with a prominent Saturn influence ie ASC/Sun/Moon/Mercury in Aquarius + Capricorn or key personal planets/angle aspecting Saturn. The prominence of Capricorn doesn?t fit it into the modern outlook so well. However, if you think about it much of science is a very Saturnian in focus with its concentration on patient, pedantic observation and measurement. Michel Gauquelin?s research found that Saturn was statistically prominent in the births of scientists.

-Lots of examples of charts with a prominent Jupiter influence ie. ASC/Sun/Moon/ASC ruler/Mercury in Pisces or Sagittarius or key planet/angle aspecting Jupiter. Jupiter is traditionally an expansive and creative planet. Einstein is a good example of a more Jupiterian scientist.

-These factors are often combined with a key angle or planet in a Mercury ruled sign ie Gemini or Virgo or a key personal chart point aspecting mercury.

-I also note a lot of charts with Saturn and Jupiter in aspect.

-Frequent Uranian aspects to luminaries, Mercury or ASC/MC ruler

Yes Aquarius crops up a lot (as I would have expected for a Saturn ruled sign) but if anything Capricorn, Pisces, and Sagittarius come up as much if not more frequently.

Here are some famous scientists and inventors I have looked at:

Alexander Graham Bell (AA)
Pisces Rising
Sun Pisces
Mercury Pisces
Saturn Pisces
Neptune Pisces
Moon in Virgo
Moon-Merc opp (partile)

Albert Einstein (AA)
Sun + MC PISCES
ASC Cancer
Moon in Sagittarius
Jupiter- Uranus opp

Copernicus (AA)
Virgo rising
Mercury in Pisces
Sun (sect light) in Pisces
Moon + Jupiter in Sagittarius
Moon-Jup Conj


Niels Bohr (DD)
No Angles
Moon/Mercury/Sun in Libra
Moon-Uranus Conj
Moon-Mercury Conj
Mercury Sq Saturn
Moon Sq Saturn

Charles Darwin (DD)
ASC Sag (?)
Sun Aq
Moon Cap
Jupiter +Merc in Pisces
Saturn conj ASC
Neptune conj ASC
Mercury Uranus Sq
Mercury Pluto conj

Francis Galton (AA)
Sun Aquarius
Moon Sag
ASC Libra
Venus in Pisces
Mercury in Pisces
MC Cancer
Moon-Uranus Conj

Galileo (A)
ASC Leo
Sun is Pisces
Mercury in Pisces
Venus in Pisces
MC Taurus
Moon in Taurus
Saturn ?Jupiter Conj
Sun-Uranus Sq

Johannes Kepler (B)
ASC Gemini(?)
Moon in Gemini
Mercury in Capricorn
Sun in Capricorn
MC Aquarius(?)
Venus in Capricorn
Uranus in Capricorn
Mercury-Uranus Sq

Stephen Hawking (C)
No angles
Sun + Mercury in Capricorn
Moon in Virgo

Werner Heisenberg (AA)
ASC Scorpio
Mars in Capricorn
Mars- Saturn Conj
Moon-Mars Sq
Moon-Jupiter Sq
Moon-Saturn Sq
MC in Leo
Sun in Sagittarius
Uranus Conj Sun
Jupiter-Saturn Conj in Capricorn

Thomas Edison (DD)
No Angles
Moon in Sag
Sun in Aquarius
Mercury in Aquarius
Saturn in Pisces
Venus in Pisces

John Logie Baird (AA)
ASC Gemini
MC Virgo
Mercury in Leo Conj Saturn
Moon-Mercury Sq
Sun-Jupiter Sq

Tim Berners-Lee (x)
No Angles
Sun+Mercury in Gemini
Moon in Capricorn
Moon-Uranus opp

Louis Pasteur (AA)
Libra rising (Venus in Cap)
Leo MC (Sun in Capricorn)
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Neptune + Uranus In Capricorn
Sun Saturn Conj
Sun Merc Conj
Sun Saturn trine
Sun Neptune Conj
Sun Uranus Conj
Moon in Gemini

Max Born (C)
ASC AQ (?)
MC Sag (?)
Jupiter in Gemini
Sun, Moon, Merc, Venus, +Mars in Sagittarius
Merc-Sun Conj
Sun-Jupiter opp
Sun-Uranus Sq
Merc-Uranus Sq

Isaac Newton (C)
ASC Libra (?)
Venus in Aquarius
MC in Leo(?)
Sun Capricorn
Moon in Cancer
Mercury in Sagittarius
Mercury-Saturn Sq
Jupiter-Saturn Conj In Pisces
Jupiter-Uranus trine


James Watt (x)
No Angles
Sun-Capricorn
Moon Aries
Mercury-Capricorn
Venus + Mars in Sagittarius
Jupiter in Capricorn
Saturn in Taurus
Mercury-Saturn trine
Sun-Pluto Sq
Jupiter- Pluto Sq



I hope to update this list with more charts I have examined when I have time.

Waybread

I'm just going to take a few of your posts - ultimately I am content to agree to disagree with anything, but more for clarification than anything else, I will make a few comments.

If you're not familiar with the attributes of the Graeco-Roman god Apollon/Apollo....
Your statement that the sun symbolizes intellectual brilliance in some traditional astrologies seems a direct lineage from the god Apollo.

I am familiar waybread, but my point was not to suggest that there is no linking of the Sun to Apollo, and more to say that I am not making any especial case for doing so when I connect the Sun with intellect and with brilliance. We can appreciate and understand this connection, astrologically, without involving Apollo. So in answer to am I referring to Apollo, no, not directly, but instead to attributes of the Sun, which, for certain cultures or for those interested in particular myths, may be understood (for them) through Apollo. When I am posting I do not have Apollo in mind. Though it may help you (if you prefer thinking along the lines of connecting back to myth) to do so.

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.

I'm seeing intellect as something different here. It's worth pointing out of course that I am not Vettius Valens either, nor am I coming from an exclusively Hellenistic perspective or even one which presumes that my ideas can be found in Valens' material. Though again it may be more beneficial to you to recognise that some of these qualities are found in other places and you may understand them better from those places than from me. I appreciate you are trying to use valens as, perhaps, a reference point for something 'traditional' but I'm not sure that will always be helpful or useful as my ideas here are just that: my own ideas. Obviously some of them are inspired from older ideas of course, and valens may be useful in understanding some of them, but just be aware that I am not speaking from some rendition or presumption about what hellenistic astrologers would or wouldn't say, just what I am saying.

I see Mercury as distinctly different from the Sun when it comes to intellect. You will notice that Valens does not associate intellect with Mercury, but rather applications of thinking - which may not be quite the same thing, though I appreciate this distinction can be hard to describe.

Note that through Valens' writing (I am presuming he inspires you as you have quoted from him several times), that solar based relationships are described as intellectual - the Sun, Leo, the lot of spirit etc. are all related to Intellect. In this sense we might understand it better if we imagine that capital I. It would take too long to unpack, so I guess if this doesn't make sense we can just move on and skip over it. Sun is more akin to intellect and intelligence, for me, than Mercury, which is more akin to the application of reason and thinking.

You will find traits of the sun that have nothing to do with intellectual smarts..."Sudden change" and the nature of the sun seem miles apart.

Sure, but then I am not saying that Uranus = The Sun. Maybe that has not been communicated well? Remember also that I agree with Mark in that Uranus has the nature of the Sun as well as Mars. It's just that when we melt those down into an alloy (if we can use that analogy) I do think the quality of the metal we're left with does pertain to a sense of individuation and with sudden change, especially in a way that I can recognise from Aries as a sign.

Of course I am only trying to clarify my views here for you, you may understand where I am coming from more, or not. I am not looking for agreement or to convince you, keep in mind I started this discussion with an "agree to disagree" mindset. In fact this is far more than I thought I would post on this topic.

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.

Well you've certainly stated that it doesn't hold up. Bear in mind that I am not trying to leverage the detriments as the 'reason' why Aquarius 'cannot' be the sign with which Uranus has affinity, just trying to play with some analogies or some ways of thinking which may or may not help describe why I don't see the two as connected. For me, a lot of core Uranus qualities are related to what I perceive as core Sun (and yes, Mars) qualities and so I tend to think with connecting them to places which promote solar qualities and away from those which do not. You do not utilise detriments in your astrology, as I understand it, and so perhaps this is not going to either sit well or make sense. I am merely explaining my own thoughts on it, not trying to shape yours to match. I hope that makes sense.

If Bailey has become an authority for you

Not at all, in fact, in those handful of places where I actually feel I properly understand what she's saying I often disagree or am agnostic, however this is one of those times where I kind of understood what was going on.

Bear in mind I am not citing any 'authorities' here whatsoever. Who could be an authority when all I am providing is my own idea about Uranus and its affinity? Surely I am all the authority I can provide - ie, none?

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

I know Waybread, but I do not. It is not that my "mind was made up" and rather that I did not expect or have any desire to try to make anyone else's mind up either.
I don't really join discussions to persuade anyone of anything, I try to explain my own thinking on something, if I feel that it may be worthwhile or merely just a curiosity, but ultimately I am always content to shrug my shoulders and agree to disagree with others. Of course often times someone comes up with a great argument I had not thought of or who approaches something from an angle I had not considered. Check out Therese's link to the sidereal forum. I went from skeptic to converted in about two posts.

Mark, I didn't mean that you were super-picky. If I say you have high standards , does that sit better with you? My sample wouldn't have been good enough for me in any kind of serious pursuit of this topic.

One thing about horoscopes is that they may show us how a planet operates rather than how it operationalizes in terms of career, notoreity, or some other specific variable. This is specifically what a sign does: it shows us how or in what manner a planet operates. And this is harder to read off a chart, because we have to learn some biographical information about the native to get the "how" as well as the "what". We know that Kepler was an astronomer, for example, but the chart may be showing more about what he was like as a personality or man.

So I am not surprised that our results are not as strong as I would like. I have looked at a lot of scientists' charts, and Capricorn or Saturn are often prominent. (So is Neptune.) This is because of the nature of the scientific process, notably if it involves any type of invention (rendering something into concrete form) or the ability to work with deferred gratification, patience, persistence, and other Saturnine qualities.

Re: a chart showing "how" rather than "what": One of the most interesting charts I've looked at for a scientist belongs to Richard Dawkins. Unless you get into asteroids (which I did) you might not see the evolutionary biologist. But boy oh boy, can we see the critic of religion and New Age thinking! (Provided you use Neptune.) With Venus conjunct his sun, no doubt his colleagues find him a charismatic personality.

In fact, the more I think about science, the more I see Saturn and Uranus working in tandem, not as opponents, as they are often described.

1. Uranus delivers the new insight, the innovation, the instincts to push back some frontiers of knowledge.

2. Aquarius, as fixed air, delibers the mental staying-power.

2. Saturn then delivers the hard work, the ability to render the project into more concrete form.

(BTW, I am not making a "modern" or triumphalist case for science. I do have a decent understanding of how it works, from what I can gather.)

With the sample of Aquarians and Uranians I presented, mostly the houses were irrelevant, so we shouldn't be too concerned about something less than a Rodden AA rating in my samples. If someone has the sun in Aquarius or the sun conjunct Uranus no birth time whatsoever is fine, so long as we don't look for Aquarius rising, Uranus on the MC, or somesuch.

I would like to put my money where my mouth is, however, and show how Uranus works as a house cusp ruler. I've not mastered chart attachment here, but have a look at Buzz Aldrin's chart: the second man to walk on the moon in 1969. Here my focus is on Aquarius and aviation, and things futuristic. (Noting that the god Ouranos/Uranus had the primary meaning of the starry night sky.)

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Aldrin,_Buzz (Rodden AA)

The chart is in Placidus, but whole signs can be eyeballed rather reasily.

Aldrin has the sun-Mercury in Aquarius, sextiling Uranus (in Aries-- hey!!)

If you use whole signs, these planets move into the 9th house of long-distance travel, appropriatedly ruled by Uranus. Uranus is in the 11th house of hopes and wishes for the future. A beneficial house for a successful venture.

We could use Saturn as the Aquarian planets' ruler: the traditional ruler of Aquarius as well as the Placidus house cusp ruler of the 9th with Capricorn on the cusp. However, Saturn seems less appropriately placed in the 9th house for Aldrin's vocation. (It is domiciled and angular.) But Saturn's house cusp ruler in Placidus, Jupiter retrograde in detriment in the 12th doesn't seem to work so well.

Saturn in the 7th here seems to relate to troubled marriages: Aldrin was married and divorced 3 times.

He was also a bit of an inventor and innovator so far as space travel was concerned: a nice combo of Uranus/Aquarius working together with Saturn/Capricorn.

I can show more of these charts plus readings, if you would like. My main point being that Uranus does work as a house cusp ruler, which is one of the things both traditional and modern astrologers ask a sign-ruler to do.

I don't suppose any of the rest of you are Trekkies (TNG) here.... but "to boldly go where no one has gone before" isn't Saturn's voice-over. So much of the rest of the program is Aquarian, not Arian, but I digress.

Waybread wrote:

In fact, the more I think about science, the more I see Saturn and Uranus working in tandem, not as opponents, as they are often described.

Its been a long thread but I seem to recall James made a not dissimilar comment much earlier in the thread about considering Saturn and Uranus together in delineation.

This sparked an association in my mind back to Kim Farnell's article I have cited here a couple of times already.

Farnell discusses the astrologer Raphael:

In his Manual of Astrology, published 1828, Raphael clearly states that Aquarius is governed by Saturn. He does write on Uranus, saying that because it was so recently discovered, no-one had witnessed more than its half-cycle. Raphael said that in his own experience and that of others it is noticeable in its 'evil' and 'unfortunate' effects. He describes its nature as extremely frigid, cold, dry and devoid of any cheering influence. He likens it to Saturn and Mercury and states that there is reason to believe it has a special affinity with the air signs.

I wonder if this assumed link between Saturn and Uranus proposed by Raphael in terms of their similar malefic, dry nature and the airy nature of Uranus was a factor in Uranus being assigned rulership of Aquarius?

Mark

Mark, just a bit more on house cusp rulers. I am normally happy with Placidus or other quadrant house systems (most of which date from traditional astrology?s heyday) but you may feel differently. I am giving these charts a modern interpretation but I am very mindful of rulerships: house cusps, signs, and topics.

I. Gene Roddenberry (Rodden AA,) creator of the highly successful Star Trek series. Prior to becoming a script writer, Roddenberry was a military and commercial air pilot.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Roddenberry,_Gene

Here we see Aquarius as an empty house, but with Aquarius on the cusp of the 9th. Roddenberry was not Aquarian: but we cannot confuse the operation of this sign in the chart with sun-Aquarians. Saturn doesn?t seem much like science fiction to me, Uranus does.

But here we see moon conjunct Uranus in Pisces, with modern house ruler Uranus in the house of long distance travel. (I also think Neptune works fine as the modern ruler of Pisces, here on the MC. Neptune seems to have a strong affiliation with film and visionaries, both of which describe Roddenberry?s work.) If we use Saturn as ruling the 9th house, we find it in Virgo in the 4th house of home and paternal traditions. We can make something of its Jupiter conjunction, but Uranus seems a better fit.

II. Charles Lindbergh, famed aviator (Rodden AA). He was a Capricorn-Aquarius type, with the sun and Mars in Aquarius, and Saturn-Jupiter in Capricorn. He was also an inventor, which seems to fit an emphasis in these adjacent signs.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Lindbergh,_Charles

The sun rules his empty 9th house of long-distance travel, with its cusp in Aquarius. If we take Uranus as the Aquarius house ruler, we find it angular in the first house conjunct his moon, both in Sagittarius.

During his aviator heyday in the 1920s, Lindbergh was a real rock star for crossing the Atlantic. His reputation was later badly tarnished as a Nazi sympathizer, but in the 1950s he regained much of it back, and became known as a Pulitzer prize-winning author. With Virgo on the MC and Mercury in Pisces with Aquarius on the house cusp, perhaps we see someone experiencing reversals of reputation.

We could use Saturn as the Aquarius house cusp ruler, although I don?t think he was known for 2nd house matters. Apparently during Lindbergh?s glory days, he turned down a half-million dollar offer to star in films, suggesting a high-minded (Jupiter) approach to money.

In modern astrology the 2nd is the house of how one makes money, as well as one?s relative wealth or poverty. The 2nd is not only the house of one?s valuables, but also of what one values, or one?s values. Saturn here suggests something of his pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic views (Jews ruled by Saturn.)

III. Albert Einstein, the foremost scientist of the mid-20th century (Rodden AA). He doesn?t look very Aquarian on the surface, perhaps more of the visionary.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Einstein,_Albert

Einstein looks like a real Pisces-Aries kind of guy, but he spent much of his professional life in academia, so Aquarius on the cusp of the 9th house with Jupiter in Aquarius in the 9th seems suitable for a university physicist. The traditional ruler of Einstein?s MC, Jupiter is located in Aquarius in the 9th, so this works well.

If we use Saturn as the ruler of the 9th, it also works fairly well?he was known for his delayed mental and career development: Saturn conjunct Mercury in the 10th house of vocation and public image. If we use Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius, we find it in the second house. If we interpret it as the house of one?s values?or the house showing how one makes money?Uranus as the modern ruler of science fits works well here. Einstein was known for his innovative thinking, and pushing the frontiers of knowledge.

Some postcards from Hellenistic astrology.

Associating the sun with "intellect and brilliance" is not its most salient characteristic, if by "brilliance" we mean "intellectual brilliance." Or intellect in the metaphorical sense of the mind "shedding light" on something which is obscure. OK, brilliance, sure: in the sense of the sun shining brightly when we look outside, moreso in the northern hemisphere in August than in February. But then some of this hot/dry sort of brilliance gave the sun a semi-malefic character in Hellenistic astrology (Tetrabiblos I: 5, cf. also planets under the beams.)

"Intellect" is not a major keyword for the sun: these would be: kingship, authorities of various sorts, the judge (which is what ancient kings did, as per Solomon,) the father, ambition, and (less positively) arrogance.

I skimmed through the Hellenistic astrologers at my disposal plus Al Biruni too quickly, but really the only one I found who mentioned a sun-intellect connection was Valens, whom I cited above. It is fair to say that it wasn't his primary attribute for the sun. We might find more evidence for a sun-intellect connection perusing the extant authors' cookbooks, but I did take a more serious look at the cookbook in Firmicus Maternus (3:5) for the sun in aspect and in houses, and intellect just isn't there.

A sun-intellect connection does not appear in Avelar and Rebeiro's primer in traditional astrology, except perhaps in a metaphorical light-shedding sense.

The planet Mercury, in contrast, has a long association with intellectual matters, as does Jupiter in certain contexts.

Here are some definitions of "intellect" gleaned from the Internet:

"the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. with regard to abstract or academic matters"

"capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge, especially of a high or complex order; mental capacity."

So far, so good?!

The sun is domiciled in Leo, but the sun's major associations are with authority and fathers, not with intellect. The sign of Leo has many wonderful qualities, but it is not notably associated with intellectual matters.

The sun is in detriment in Aquarius, which is an air sign. The element of air relates to mental activity. Mental activity includes intellect. Uranus has been associated with science, sudden flashes of insight, and political ideologies.

From a traditional perspective, the sun in detriment in Aquarius makes sense using Ptolemy's tree of rulerships, as well as the climate of the Mediterranean region in which the Hellenistic astrologers lived.

From both a modern and traditional perspective, we would associate Aquarius with something other than kingship, the father, authority figures, or personal ambition. This works well with the concept of Aquarius as a social sign or a "human" sign.

The sun and Uranus share some characteristics in common. Most planetary pairs share traits in common. As a disruptive force, Uranus pairs with Mars. As a planet that activates and separates we can compare Uranus with Mars and the sun. Innovative ideas pair Uranus and Mercury. As a planet symbolizing liberation or science as a form of higher education, we can pair Uranus with Jupiter. And so on.

Astrological rulerships can be explained astronomically (cf. Ptolemy) but doing so creates a kind of astrological Rubic's Cube. We have hot, dry, manly Mars ruling a feminine water sign, Scorpio. We have Venus ruling both a cardinal air and a fixed earth sign. And so on. So we cannot make too much of a sign's cardinality or gender in matching it with a planet that shares these characteristics.

I conclude that the sun's detriment in Aquarius is not an argument against Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius; or an argument for a closer affinity for Uranus with Aries than with Aquarius.

waybread wrote:Some postcards from Hellenistic astrology.
...
I conclude that the sun's detriment in Aquarius is not an argument against Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius; or an argument for a closer affinity for Uranus with Aries than with Aquarius.

That's okay with me, I still hold to my views on that matter. The sun relates to the soul/spirit and to the intellect, in ways in which the Moon corresponds to the body etc. But that is fine if you disagree. I don't have enough time on my hands to go into it more, or for that matter the desire to. Feel free to consider it just my view, as I said in my last post. Ignore it at your leisure.

Hello Waybread,

I dont intend to engage in further discussion with you on the natal examples you have provided. You obviously perceive an indelible signature of Aquarius linked to Uranus while I simply dont. We clearly delineate charts very differently. I dont want this thread to end up like an astrological Punch and Judy show so I prefer to get back to the underlying philosophical issues rather than debate conflicting praxis.

I do think the debate you have been having with Paul about the planetary nature of Uranus is very relevant to the essence of our discussion.

I opened a thread about 4 years entitled 'The Sun in Traditional Astrology' which picks up many of the themes being discussed here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... e5665eb2d8

I think the Ptolemaic tradition with its naturalistic, aristotelian approach tended to sideline the Sun as a natural significator of the higher mind or creative spark.

It was of course Ptolemy's view that went on the dominate Perso-Arabic, Latin and renaissance astrology.

In Ptolemaic astrology the Sun becomes like the Director behind the camera but seldom in view. Nevertheless, Ptolemy suggests The Sun effectively dictates numerous key astrological factors:

1 The tropical zodiac.
2 The domicile rulerships in relationship to the seasons (according to Ptolemy)
3 The exaltations in relation to the seasons (according to Ptolemy)
4 Planetary Sect ie noctural or diurnal
5 The Phases of the planets in relation to the Sun
6 Days of equal daylight (ie declination of the Sun) give Antiscion or Solstice points for planets.
7 Planets equally distant from the Sun's Aries/Libra equinoctial axis are seen as connected through Contra-Antiscion. Such degrees are equal in ascensional time.
8 The position of the astrological Sun for Hyleg calculation
9 The position of the astrological Sun for calculating the lot of Fortune.

For Ptolemy the mind (or soul) was symbolically defined as the Moon (the instinctual mind) and Mercury (the rational mind). The notion of a spirit, nous or 'higher mind' seems to be largely missing in the Ptolemy's thinking from what I have been able to detect.

As you have observed Valens takes a very different approach to the Sun to Ptolemy. He states:

The all seeing Sun, then, being truly fire-like and the light of the mind, the organ of perception of the soul, is significant at a birth for kingly office, hegemony, mind, practical wisdom, outward form, motion, height of fortune, public, registration, action, popular, leadership, judgement, father, mastership, friendship, person of high repute, the honors of images, statues, and crowns of office, arch-priests of the fatherland ... of places. Of the parts of the body, it has authority over the head, sense-organs, right-eye, ribs, heart, respiratory or sensory motion, tendons. It also has authority over the essence of gold, of fruits of wheat and barley. It is of the diurnal sect, lemon-yellow, and sharp as for taste.
The Anthology, Vettius Valens. Book 1:1, translated by Robert Schmidt

In a nativity the all-seeing sun, nature?s fire and intellectual light, the organ of mental perception, indicates kingship, rule, intellect, intelligence, beauty, motion, loftiness of fortune, the ordinance of the gods, judgement, public reputation, action, authority over the masses, the father, the master, friendship, noble personages, honors consisting of pictures, statues, and garlands, high priesthoods, rule over one?s country and over other places. Of the parts of the body, the sun rules the head; of the sense organs, it rules the right eye; of the trunk, it rules the heart; of the spiritual (i.e. the perceptive) faculties, the nerves. Of materials, it rules gold; of fruits, it rules wheat and barley. It is of the day sect, yellowish, bitter in taste.
The Anthology, Vettius Valens Book 1:1, translated by Mark Riley

As I suggested in that old thread I believe that Valens represented a different approach to the Sun that became drowned out by the Aristotelian inspired world view of Ptolemy.

Valens seems to have been influenced by Stoic ideas and we see other indications of the higher mind or Nous being represented by the Sun in ancient astrology.

-The Sun finds its joy in the 9th house which symbolises the Gods/God and the higher mind.

-The Lot of Spirit which is identified with Sun in ancient astrology represents the spiritual and higher intellectual factors. Its interesting that the naturalistic Ptolemy drops all reference to the lot of Spirit.

-Indian astrology received its core horoscopic astrology from the hellenistic tradition. We find the noton of the astrological sun as a symbol for the soul ,Atman or higher mind in the 6th century Indian astrologer Varahamihira .

-When the aristotelian intellectual hegemony started to finally break down renaissance astrologers influenced by Neo-Platonist philosophy like Marsilio Ficino again restored the Sun to its role as the symbol for the higher mind and creative spark.

Actually, it never completely disappeared. Even in medieval astrology the Sun was often the symbol of divinity and the divine spark since in the monotheistic world view the Sun was a symbol for God as the divine king.

For example see this decription by Luis Ribeiro and Helena Avelar:

The Sun, the lord of the day, is masculine and its nature is moderately hot and dry. The Sun is the King of the stars, the greatest luminary. It is the giver of light, heat and life, a symbol of radiance, power and force. It represents the creative principle and is a symbol of the divine. It is also a symbol of sight since its light enlightens , revealing the truth. It represents dignity, nobility, and authority figures in general , the father in particular.

Its element is fire. But the fire of the Sun is moderate: it illuminates and warms in contrast with the fire symbolised by Mars , which destroys. Due to its qualities of moderation and light ,the Sun represents vital energy and spirit, the principle underlying all things. However, if the Sun is too close , it becomes excessive : its light blinds and its heat consumes.
The Heavenly Spheres: A Treatise on Traditional Astrology by Helena Avelar and Luis Ribeiro p32-33.

The move to a heliocentric world view obviously shifted the astrological focus on to the Sun. Ironically, the view of modern psychological astrology that the sun symbolizes the individuation process and our journey to our higher mind or The Self has an interesting parallel in ancient astrology.

Mark