Skyscript Astrology Forum

I don't know where to put a topic of "research planets" exactly. Philosophy is as close to a catch-all as I could see.

Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea have been placed in a special sub-category called "Plutoids"

Haumea(136108) was discovered December 28, 2004 by a team led by Michael Brown. It had at first been given the nickname "Santa" because it was discovered just after Christmas. She has two moons: Hi'iaka and Namaka.

I know some researchers like the conjunction with the Sun or Moon as a place to begin study. Since transut Haumea has stationed conjunct my Sun for January, I'll mention it.

Date | Haumea |
----------------------------
01 Jan 2013 | 20 li 30 |
07 Jan 2013 | 20 li 32 |
13 Jan 2013 | 20 li 33 |
19 Jan 2013 | 20 li 34 Rx |
25 Jan 2013 | 20 li 33 Rx |

Counting precession, that's pretty exact on my Sun at 20 li 02

http://www.zanestein.com/keywords.html#Haumea
I think I'm actually beginning to experience some "behavioural conquests."
Not quite the embodiment of willpower or anything, but it does take "adaptive strategy" and some willpower. If I keep it up, it would indeed be a breakthrough, it's not like I havn't attempted to improve things before, but I the meaning of adaptive strategy comes into play. If for example I'd like to be tired a normal bedtime I should limit my caffeine intake, but then if I don't have any when I wake up and go to the 7/11 later, like 2pm to avoid a headache, that's going to screw up the time I get tired. For someone like me, who has experienced a lifecycle that basically involved living a sleep/wake cycle that probably averages 25-26 hours each for several years now, just waking up in the morning 30 times in a row would amount to the beginning of a breakthrough. It could fix my whole life in almost no time.

Edit: the 1st station lasted for the month of january


1 Haumea
2 Makemake

http://www.zanestein.com/keywords.html#Makemake
Serving one's Family, Tribe, Nation etc, seeing everything in relation to something in particular, obsessional devotion, refusal to consider the independant value of what is beyond one's own narrow focus, powerful ability to devote oneself to the utmost towards something valuable, strong caring ability; ultimately narrowness of focus which permits extreme talent in a particular area at the expense of neglecting other areas.

I didn't notice Makemake on the 1st pass, apparently exact on my birthday?

I suppose I noticed that I been astrology-ing without stopping to play games. Then the following makes a bit of sense.

Serving one's Family, Tribe, Nation - some of this
obsessional devotion - this
powerful ability to devote oneself to the utmost towards something valuable - this
narrowness of focus which permits extreme talent in a particular area at the expense of neglecting other areas. - this

hi ariondys,

how much do you think distance removed from the ecliptic matters with these distant bodies? my understanding is being on the ecliptic is an important element to astrology.

how important do you think fixed stars are? how do they compare with makemake or haumea for example?

some astrologers claim fixed stars are important and some don't, or don't use them.. many of the astrologers here at skyscript are primarily focused on traditional astrology with planets out to saturn. you might not get a lot of interest on this topic here at skyscript!!! i do think this is a philosophical issue too!

"Both Makemake and Haumea are currently far from the ecliptic?the angular distance is almost 29?. Makemake is approaching its 2033 aphelion,[13] while Haumea passed its aphelion in early 1992.[27]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makemake_% ... _planet%29

james_m wrote: how much do you think distance removed from the ecliptic matters with these distant bodies? my understanding is being on the ecliptic is an important element to astrology.

these distant bodies will have unusual properties of orbit due to often not being very circular(eccentricity) or near the ecliptic(inclination). They will travel on their own ecliptics, passing the ecliptic plane at their planetory nodes.
http://www.kentauren.info/cgi-bin/astor ... ame=haumea

http://www.lunarplanner.com/asteroids-d ... aumea.html
There are four points of primary significance in a planet's orbit: the planet's perihelion (the location in a planet's orbit when it is closest to the Sun); its aphelion (the location in a planet's orbit when it is furthest from the Sun); a planet's ascending node (also called the north node - the location in a planet's orbit when it crosses from south to north of Earth's ecliptic plane); and a planet's descending node (also called the south node - the location in a planet's orbit when it crosses from north to south of Earth's ecliptic plane). These four points compose a planet's "orbital cross."

The perihelion-aphelion axis reveals more of the general nature and role of planet, where as the nodal axis reveals more about how a planet is interacting with Earth.

james_m wrote: how important do you think fixed stars are? how do they compare with makemake or haumea for example?

I don't know about importance exactly, they are fixed to some extent, and thus operate completely different from a dwarf planet which is going to be transitting and should operate just like pluto.
The stars connect to the chart through planets by being in parans with them.

james_m wrote: some astrologers claim fixed stars are important and some don't, or don't use them.. many of the astrologers here at skyscript are primarily focused on traditional astrology with planets out to saturn. you might not get a lot of interest on this topic here at skyscript!!! i do think this is a philosophical issue too!

importance would be a matter of personal preference, as would using them. It's another step. So many things to consider, so little time. They certainly seem to have ability to impart information though, and I like that. From what I can see it's a couple of books by Bernadette Brady. And grappling with a way to compute them. Solar Fire will do it badly. I would think they would seem to be a wonderful addition for an astrologer who only wants to use visible planets because star are visible too.

It is a nice forum, I can post images. can't do that at where centaur astrologers are hanging out at yahoo forums. the midpoint forums there died. Can't imagine a better place.

Newton had makemake opposing the sun. The word focus has been used, but you have to really LOVE what you're doing to focus. ANd focusing takes time. Gates and Jobs (1955) have it conjunct uranus, jobs has jupiter there too. Myths don't work with Makemake. It's all about love. Loving what you are doing.

Jim

Ariondys wrote:

Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea have been placed in a special sub-category called "Plutoids"

Very interesting topic. The issue of how we respond to these new bodies is an intriguing one. Although might I suggest Eris is added to the title of this thread?

It seems to me there are several possible responses to these newly discovered objects:

1 Ignore all non-visual bodies-The ultra traditionalist stance. The logic here is not just one of following the classical approach. There is also a philosophical tradition which suggests we should give more focus to what we experience through our sense perceptions and especially the naked eye.

This reminds me of a comment once made by Deborah Houlding on the forum on the topic of mundane vs zodiacal aspects. Although the context was very different the comments still have validity here.

I think that most of the great philosophical astrologers of the past would have argued that the soul perceives divine intent through the images that we see (Kepler in particular wrote a great deal about how the eye is the instrument through which the divine intention of the Creator is received). But most astrologers today are much more concerned with the appearance of planets on chart forms than they are about the appearance of planets in the sky...

This explains why fixed stars were so important to the ancients.

2 Ignore any bodies beyond Pluto. The logic being that Pluto is the symbolic 'gate keeper' to the Kuiper belt and the vast zone of innumerable Trans-Neptunian bodies. Although, I suspect most astrologers that use Pluto but not other TNO's just do so through habit and not because of a well thought out position.

3 Ignore all the plutoids and stop at the gas giants i.e. Neptune. One argument might be the vast number of TNOs out there. Secondly, all the newly discovered TNO's are wildly outside the ecliptic.

4 Incorporate all the larger Plutoids/TNOs recently defined as dwarf planets. So we add Pluto, Eris, Makemake and Haumea to our astro software options and start to display these in our charts.

The latter is obviously the focus of this thread so I will roll with that approach here.

The question is how do we interpret these bodies? Do we go with the names astronomy has assigned these bodies and work with the key mythology as our guideline? Thats clearly what astrologers do with the asteroids and centaurs.

I suggest an alternative working approach might be to regard all these 'Plutoids' as broadly similar to Pluto in effect.

All these bodies share a similar icy composition. I also think their effect can be seen as basically malefic like Pluto.

There is a traditional basis for this view. Comets are basically TNOs that get drawn closer into the Sun's orbit. Like the other Plutoids they are effectively 'dirty snowballs'. Comets have always had a negative reputation in most cultures across the world. So I think that is a plausible starting point for an astrological study of TNOs.

Mark

James_M wrote:

how much do you think distance removed from the ecliptic matters with these distant bodies? my understanding is being on the ecliptic is an important element to astrology.

If you hold strongly to that view you should also be questioning your use of Pluto and Chiron!

Its true this is even more of an issue with the newly discovered bodies. A good way to see this visually displayed is the Solar Fire Planetarium feature. Just look at how way out Eris currently is for example!

how important do you think fixed stars are? how do they compare with makemake or haumea for example?

some astrologers claim fixed stars are important and some don't, or don't use them..

I personally think fixed stars are very important indeed. They form an important part of the ancient, medieval and early modern astrological outlook. So my view is there are two kinds of astrologers. Those that already know fixed stars are important and those that haven't got far enough in their studies to understand that fundamental point yet! lol

The only comparison between the TNOs and fixed stars is that they are often way outside the ecliptic. I think a better comparison for TNOs is comets. Indeed one might describe a comet as a TNO that likes to travel!

Comets often have eccentric orbits compared to the ecliptic just like other TNOs. In terms of composition comets have an identical icy nature as the newly discovered TNOs.

...many of the astrologers here at skyscript are primarily focused on traditional astrology with planets out to saturn. you might not get a lot of interest on this topic here at skyscript!!! i do think this is a philosophical issue too!

Your right that many traditional astrologers exclude outer planets. By no means all though. Actually, I would be curious what percentage of traditional astrologers use outer planets. Certainly, many people who are prominent in the traditional astrological community use outer planets. Examples include: Robert Hand, Lee Lehman, Deborah Houlding, Graham Tobyn, Demetra George, and Chris Brennan.

Some traditionalists suggest that is because these astrologers were part of a grouping influenced by astrological assumptions from the 2nd half of the 20th century. The implicit assumption is that a new generation of traditionalists are studying astrology from the outset without outer planets and will therefore feel no need to incorporate them.

Certainly teachers like Benjamin Dykes and John Frawley dispense with outer planets.

I dont think it matters what kind of astrology we practice. I think we all need to think through our philosophical stance on Trans Neptunian bodies even if we decide not to incorporate them.

Mark

bjorkstrand - thanks for waking mark up!

Mark wrote:James_M wrote:

how much do you think distance removed from the ecliptic matters with these distant bodies? my understanding is being on the ecliptic is an important element to astrology.

If you hold strongly to that view you should also be questioning your use of Pluto and Chiron!

mark - you'll notice i question everything regularly including my own preferences!! if so and so is doing something, it is no reason for me to do it! what is that saying? "if you can't stand for something then you don't stand for anything" - or something like that.. i don't buy that myself.. if i have to wear a coat that says 'modern' or 'traditional' astrologer - i am in trouble!!~ i know this freaks a few folks out, but i will continue to be receptive to any astrological idea/technique working, even if i don't use them, or haven't tried them..

Mark wrote:Its true this is even more of an issue with the newly discovered bodies. A good way to see this visually displayed is the Solar Fire Planetarium feature. Just look at how way out Eris currently is for example!

that is a nice feature of solar fire that i use periodically.

James_M wrote:

how important do you think fixed stars are? how do they compare with makemake or haumea for example?

some astrologers claim fixed stars are important and some don't, or don't use them..

Mark wrote:I personally think fixed stars are very important indeed. They form an important part of the ancient, medieval and early modern astrological outlook. So my view is there are two kinds of astrologers. Those that already know fixed stars are important and those that haven't got far enough in their studies to understand that fundamental point yet! lol

"an important part of the ancient, medieval and early modern astrological outlook" had no awareness of these TNO's as well. i understand if someone who wants to strongly identify with a particular school of astrology to think they need to embrace all of that particular school's views. the problem with this as i see it is one has to ultimately work with the ideas directly to find whether they have merit or not. i remember owning a copy of robsons fixed stars book a long time ago.. i do not follow fixed stars, not because i haven't considered them, but more due the fact i have more then enough to work with and haven't found the need to incorporate them! same deal with the TNO's for the most part.. i don't close the door on any of it and remain receptive to them working for others. i don't feel the need for more data at this point as i feel i have more then enough using 16th harmonic aspects for example which is something most astrologers, traditional or modern - completely bypass.

James_M wrote:

...many of the astrologers here at skyscript are primarily focused on traditional astrology with planets out to saturn. you might not get a lot of interest on this topic here at skyscript!!! i do think this is a philosophical issue too!

Mark wrote: Your right that many traditional astrologers exclude outer planets. By no means all though. Actually, I would be curious what percentage of traditional astrologers use outer planets. Certainly, many people who are prominent in the traditional astrological community use outer planets. Examples include: Robert Hand, Lee Lehman, Deborah Houlding, Graham Tobyn, Demetra George, and Chris Brennan.

Some traditionalists suggest that is because these astrologers were part of a grouping influenced by astrological assumptions from the 2nd half of the 20th century. The implicit assumption is that a new generation of traditionalists are studying astrology from the outset without outer planets and will therefore feel no need to incorporate them.

Certainly teachers like Benjamin Dykes and John Frawley dispense with outer planets.

I dont think it matters what kind of astrology we practice. I think we all need to think through our philosophical stance on Trans Neptunian bodies even if we decide not to incorporate them.
Mark

i agree with the part of your comment i have bolded and would even go further and suggest we need to think through our philosophical stance on more then just the TNO's! if you want to swallow the 'traditional astrology' coolaid, or the 'modern astrology' coolaid - you don't have to think about any of this and can just ignore thinking thru much and stick to the particular focus that turns yer crank..

James_M wrote:

"an important part of the ancient, medieval and early modern astrological outlook" had no awareness of these TNO's as well. i understand if someone who wants to strongly identify with a particular school of astrology to think they need to embrace all of that particular school's views. the problem with this as i see it is one has to ultimately work with the ideas directly to find whether they have merit or not. i remember owning a copy of robsons fixed stars book a long time ago.. i do not follow fixed stars, not because i haven't considered them, but more due the fact i have more then enough to work with and haven't found the need to incorporate them! same deal with the TNO's for the most part.. i don't close the door on any of it and remain receptive to them working for others. i don't feel the need for more data at this point as i feel i have more then enough using 16th harmonic aspects for example which is something most astrologers, traditional or modern - completely bypass.

If it wasn't already obvious I was having a bit of fun with my comments on fixed stars! I dont hold with astrological fundamentalism. Still, I have found fixed stars a very useful technique. The fact so many great astrologers over the centuries have utilised them doesn't prove their effectiveness but it does at least give their investigation justification. However, we all have our limits in terms of what we can realistically incorporate into a chart reading. I can understand if you feel fixed stars are just one technique too many. I personally tend to avoid midpoints for the same reason. I already have fixed stars, lots, antiscion and monomoiria to work with. All astrologers consciously or unconsciously set restrictions on their working toolset of techniques.

Mark

hi mark,

the canyon between using fixed stars and TNO's is an interesting one.. i wonder if anyone has been crazy enough to try to study both at the same time? i wonder if this distinction fixed stars or NGO's is an immediately obvious way of quickly picking up whether someone is more focused on a trad verses modern approach as well? the divide seems obvious and yet the mystery of how fixed stars and TNO's function may be connected in a funny sort of way.. it is like the 'we can't figure it out so we have to look at something else' astrology crowd is speaking.. these are the folks who don't fall into any fixed and rigid position with regard to any of it or, they desperately want to and latch onto the imagined or real workings of this potpourri of fixed stars/NGOS..

to me the parallels are striking and any outsider would immediately see it..

i think anything to do with 'astronomical' reality is worthy of investigation whether old or new. some folks will gravitate to one more then the other based on their own inclinations, but it is all worthy of consideration. i am personally focused on very close 16th harmonic aspects in combination with midpoints as i have found a lot of merit in them. this is not to say i want to convert or start up a 'fundamentalist school of astrology' that requires any possible converts to adopt my own approach.. it would be like a religion if i did! i think astrology is bigger then this, or i would like to think it is..

James_M wrote:

i wonder if this distinction fixed stars or NGO's is an immediately obvious way of quickly picking up whether someone is more focused on a trad verses modern approach as well?

Hi James,

No I dont think so. Sorry but you seem to be operating under the misconception that working with fixed stars is exclusively the preserve of traditional astrologers. It isn't. Although, it is probably true that working with fixed stars is a more common practice amongst practitioners of traditional over modern astrology.

I dont want to take the thread off into too much of a tangent here but lots of important modern astrologers have written about the influence of fixed stars. A few examples: Edward Johndro, Reinhold Ebertin, Philip Sedgewick, Diana Rosenberg and Celeste Teal.

The late Diana K. Rosenberg was arguably the leading authority on fixed stars in the second half of the 20th century. Diana was a Uranian astrologer and often used heliocentric charts. I recommend her two volume book: Secrets of the Ancient Skies: Fixed Stars & Constellations in Natal & Mundane Astrology.

Mark

hi mark,

Edward Johndro, Reinhold Ebertin... i wonder what they would say about eris, makemake and haumea next to their interest in fixed stars? they weren't around for a lot of th TNOs...

Philip Sedgewick.. isn't he into heliocentric astrology? i think so!

Diana Rosenberg.. she had a big focus on fixed stars as i recall..

Celeste Teal.. i don't know much about her..

i never said fixed stars were the preserve of trad astrologers..

you will note that many of my initial comments on this thread were in the form of a question.. same deal with what you have quoted me on here.. thanks for providing your own personal answer to the questions i ask..

i am going to repeat - i see a lot of parallels in the interest in fixed stars and the interest in TNO's.. both are wanting to understand astronomical knowledge in some astrological context better.. to me on one level there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE!