Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:12 am**

Modern astrologers confidently assert that Uranus rules Aquarius. We are taught to accept this in modern astrology schools nowadays like milk in our cornflakes. But is the logic of this view really convincing?

I dont personally hold with the idea of outer planets as rulers of signs. The traditional rulerships have an aesthetic harmony, philosophical consistency and historical legacy that is not matched in modern astrology in my view. Moreover, they simply work!

However, I can go along with the idea of Bernadette Brady that they may have associations or affinity with certain signs rather than 'rulership'.

Here is Bernadette Brady on this issue from an interview with Garry Phillipson here on Skyscript:

The outer planets definitely have an affiliation to certain signs, but I think we need to redefine the term 'rulership'. Uranus is connected to Aquarius. Any predictive astrologer working with transits and looking at bringing in the houses of a natal chart to give you the areas of life being affected has that proven every single day in the consulting room - that the outer planets 'rule' (in inverted commas) signs.

I was having this discussion with Rob Hand only last week - that really, what we need to say is that the old planets rule signs, and we need to have a new term for the three modern planets, to convey that they 'have very strong affiliations to' signs. Because 'rulership' in the medieval model means a very precise thing; it means that a planet will be able to fulfil its potential, its function, very well. Pluto in Scorpio - we can't say of that, 'it can fulfil its potential', because it doesn't work at an individual level.

Therefore I think we need to redefine rulership, or - better still - give rulership to the old planets, and have another term for the connection that the modern planets have with certain signs. But you see, if we say 'Pluto rules Scorpio', then some astrologers rush off and want to give it dignity, and say 'it's in detriment in Taurus' - what absolute garbage! It doesn't have detriment, exaltation and fall - because it doesn't really rule Scorpio - but it has a strong affinity there. Whereas Saturn - yes, let's use the exaltations and detriments and fall - because they work, we can measure them, we can see them - anybody with Saturn in Leo knows the difficulties that Saturn has when it is in detriment.

In The Eagle and the Lark I talk about those planets 'ruling', because I was still using that kind of terminology. That's one of the things I have changed now, but I wouldn't change the principle in terms of Pluto being aligned to Scorpio in predictive work.

I think I brought Rob Hand round to that point of view - we had a good debate last week. Anyway we both agreed that astrology needs a new term, let me put it that way.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/brady.html

I can see the associations between Neptune and Pisces and Pluto and Scorpio. However, I dont necessarily agree with Brady in regards the affiniy between Aquarius and Uranus. Did we actually get the association right sign wise with Uranus?

The history of how Uranus became linked to Aquarius is set out in this article by Kim Farnell:

http://skyscript.co.uk/ur_aq.html

Lets just recap on the basic traditional understanding of Aquarius for millennia before Uranus was assigned its rulership.

Traditionally Aquarius is ruled by Saturn. Saturn is known as a cold, slow planet indicating delay and sometimes stagnation. Aquarius is the diurnal manifestation of Saturn in a masculine sign. So the Saturn energy is more extroverted here and more focused on bringing about social change than the more personal ambitions of Capricorn. Aquarius is a fixed sign. Again emphasizing the slower actions than with the impulsive cardinal signs. Aquarius is an air sign and linked to a socially gracious sanguine temperament in a human sign.

Uranus on the other hand is generally is seen as unpredictable, erratic, very fast acting and separative. Uranus has nothing to do with the quality of consensus and collective action that characterizes Aquarius. The true Uranian personality is the pioneer, rebel, the maverick non-conformist who takes little account of the wishes of others as long as their wishes are accomplished. In terms of an elemental association Uranus seems fiery in nature.

Does this fit any of the traditional associations of the signs?

I would say it sounds far more like a strongly individualist , cardinal, fire sign like Aries than Aquarius!

Historically and looking at contemporary events Uranus certainly seems to be very powerfully expressed when it is in Aries. Is it time for modern astrologers to look at Uranus with fresh eyes?

Alternatively, rather than look at the outers through the lens of specific signs or elements maybe we can think of the outers more in terms of the qualities?

-Uranus=cardinal
-Neptune=mutable
-Pluto=fixed

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:19 am**

Hi Mark,

I'm still waiting for a valid philosophical reason to even apply these bodies to our work. I understand the idea that light = knowledge/effect/influence, and since these bodies are not visible I fail to see their purpose,and the fact they were discovered within our perception does not really cut it for me. Every signification I have ever been told of them (and every reading I have ever had with them) has always been better described by one of the traditional planets. Coming from a time where I had the gift of learning pure traditional astrology, I see them as items that people can't let go of rather than an effective predictive tool. Maybe that's just me and my own biases, but being someone who has all three of them either in the ASC sign and in the first quadrant or in the MC sign and the 10th quadrant, I can quite easily say that any astrological reading done without them is more comprehensive than any reading done with them - in modernity, they tend to dominate the reading to the detriment of the traditional seven. If you'd like to test Uranus, I have it rising as I was born, I would be a good test subject if you would like to prove its effect.

I know that is probably not what you were looking for when you made your post but, if we are to disrupt the harmony of the other seven, I feel we need a threefold reason: it needs to fit philosophically, theoretically and practically and I am not seeing this with them currently.

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:53 pm**

Hi Konrad,

I suppose its fair game to challenge the whole question of whether the outer planets have an astrological effect at all. This is the philosophy forum. Although as you acknowledge its a completely different topic. Its perhaps better dealt with in its own thread.

Lots of traditionalists would agree with you on the outers but then lots would take the opposing point of view too. Those utilising the outers in their work include: Robert Hand; Bernadette Brady; Lee Lehman; Deborah Houlding; Anthony Louis and Chris Brennan who all work with outer planets. Still, a position isn't any stronger by just giving a list of those who support it!

I understand the idea that light = knowledge/effect/influence, and since these bodies are not visible I fail to see their purpose.

I have some sympathy for that view in regards the basis of the rulerships. Because they are not visible to the naked eye I think this gives these bodies a completely different status.

However, if invisibility rules out the significance of an astrological point why use the nodes or the lots? These are mathematically derived points. Its true they derive from the planets but in some cases the link is getting quite distant with lots derived from other lots! Unlike these points the outer giants are a significant part of our solar system. On that basis they have a stronger root in material reality than these other points.

You rather imply using the outers is a historical hang over of people who were taught modern astrology and cannot let go of what is effectively an addiction to use these bodies. A bit like the nutritional effects of white sugar in our diet.

Actually, I am fully aware of this kind of 'sugar rush' type of modern astrology! Some astrologers hone in on Uranus or Pluto or Neptune in a chart irrespective of what they are actually doing in a chart. In contrast basic aspects of a traditional delineation are totally ignored. If I had to choose between this type of modern astrology and a traditional view excluding outers I would much prefer the latter.

Its certainly true that anyone who has been studying astrology for several decades was probably exposed to astrological tuition which incorporated the outer planets and in many cases used them as joint or sole rulers too of Scorpio, Aquarius or Pisces. You are an example of a very modern trend. In particular those who have studied traditional astrology first without any exposure to modernist ideas. Is this likely to become the norm amongst traditionalists or is eclecticism more likely?

I have no crystal ball on the future of astrology. I certainly, think its fully viable to work without the outer planets.

Your latter point is that these bodies have no discernable effect in charts. You think any effect can be better explained by other traditional sources of delineation.

You finish off with a challenge that you dont see Uranus operating in your chart. I doubt anything I could say would convince you otherwise. Its a question of consciousness and perception not empircism. Frankly, I am not interested in trying to convince you. At least in some kind of public debate. I am not an evangelist for outer planets.

I find them a useful addition to chart reading but If you dont see the effects of Uranus or any other body so be it. We must all make our own decisions on such questions I do think the outers should be used judiciously. Hence, they should be a salt and pepper addition to a delineation rather than the core of a reading. The same as with fixed stars or lots. However, I think they are especially useful as predictive tools by transit. Having said that I dont find Pluto as noticeable by transit as many other seem to find. Perhaps as by natal promise its very well placed in my chart and trining Jupiter and Venus and my ASC/MC. Or maybe its position outside the plane of the ecliptic is significant.

All I can authentically relate to you is my experience with Uranus and the effects of these transits in my life and those of others around me. I see Uranus is transiting over your natal Moon next year. I will be interested if your view changes after that transit completes.

One final thought. Uranus is just visible to the naked eye! Assuming you have excellent eyesight, zero light pollution, know exactly where to look, and can pick out one insignificantly faint star-like speck out from dozens in the same region, it is possible!

Mark

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:39 pm**

Mark wrote:However, if invisibility rules out the significance of an astrological point why use the nodes or the lots? These are mathematically derived points. Its true they derive from the planets but in some cases the link is getting quite distant with lots derived from other lots! Unlike these points the outer giants are a significant part of our solar system. On that basis they have a stronger root in material reality than these other points.

Well you answered your own question there, the nodes and Lots are intertwined with the visible planets.

You finish off with a challenge that you dont see Uranus operating in your chart. I doubt anything I could say would convince you otherwise. Its a question of consciousness and perception not empircism.

Hmmm, I'm doubtful of that. Consciousness is so hard to define, that it seems to be another way of saying "it works for me and that is enough" and that is fine if you want to do that. The reason I posted in the first place was to highlight that before any significations are attached to the outers, perhaps we should figure out, philosophically and theoretically, why we are using them. The only rationale I can see so far is that they were discovered and people attempted to observe their effects empirically (and at a time of inferior use of the traditional seven too, in my opinion of course), with empirical observation being something you deny in me witnessing these planet's effects. I see reams and reams of significations but little theory or philosophy surrounding them.

Frankly, I am not interested in trying to convince you. At least in some kind of public debate. I am not an evangelist for outer planets. I find them a useful addition to chart reading but If you dont see the effects of Uranus or any other body so be it. All I can authentically relate is my experience with Uranus and the effects of these transits in my life and those of others around me. I see Uranus is transiting over your natal Moon next year. I will be interested if your view changes after that transit completes.

No, I wouldn't expect you to try and convince me, I just like to offer those who use them my chart and my transparency as I have them all in traditionally powerful places and they should be apparent in my life. I'll keep you updated as Uranus transits my Moon, any hint as to what I can expect? You can PM me if you would like to keep it private.

One final thought. Uranus is just visible to the naked eye! Assuming you have excellent eyesight, zero light pollution, know exactly where to look, and can pick out one insignificantly faint star-like speck out from dozens in the same region, it is possible!

Yes, I thought you might bring that up.

I would liken that to the use of 6th magnitude stars in one's delineation - not something I would see as advisable, accurate or even useful!

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:51 pm**

I will attempt a reply to Konrad here although I feel this discussion is going off at something of a tangent from the actual topic of this thread. Still, I can hardly complain about being asked for philosophical justifications on this forum!

However, I would also like hear from those that already use outer planets. What do you think of my position that Uranus has an affinity to Aries?

Mark

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2014 6:07 pm**

hi mark,

thanks for raising this issue/question on the connection with uranus to aq verses aries, and any other broader thoughts around these ideas and the role uranus might play in a chart.

we are all trying to base our astrology on our observations of astrology at work. this is ultimately a subjective activity as i see it, so no one is going to be able to prove much to anyone else!

i like the quote you gave on the idea of rulerships verses associations or affinity with a sign that bernadette brady mentions in the interview. i think that is a helpful distinction to make.

my own perspective is that the outer planets do play a role in our life and in our consciousness, but they are harder to define.

as for uranus not being a perfect fit with the symbolism of aquarius, and having some affinity for aries - i think that has merit. i tend to think of uranus as working outside 'the box' or traditional ways of thinking, basically bringing in new energy that can't be gotten thru an emphasis on traditionalism. i believe the energy of saturn and uranus are different. i believe i see when a person identifies strongly with one, how the other acts like a constant irritant on the other or what it represents.. case in point might be konrads attachment to saturn for the sake of uranus, but since i am not konrad i can only say how it looks like to me! i feel a nice balance of these 2 planets energies is a necessary ingredient for doing astrology and even if someone doesn't believe uranus has any place in their astrology, the fact they are doing astrology implies they are working in an area of study that is not a traditional area, or one recognized by the society we live in much if any.

i have just had the transit of uranus over my sun at 9 aries. it is still happening. while i think uranus has a lot of similarity with the sign aries, i believe uranus comes with some greater vision for society that wants to bring it into the future which i wouldn't immediately associate with aries! i associate uranus energy with breaking down the attachments that invariably build up when one identifies too closely with what has already taken place in the past at the mercy of what is possible in the future..the futuristic side to where we could go (which saturn is capable of representing as well) is something that i believe uranus represents more strongly. much depends on how well these 2 energies are balanced in an individual chart or in society at certain times. i can't prove any of this, but only say that it is my observation that uranus has an energy unique from saturn - more forward looking perhaps. in this sense i think uranus energy has a good connection to aries. in so far as uranus has some type of social consciousness that could express itself in the most positive way by having a vision for the future, i think it has a lot in common with the sign aquarius too..

i see the affinity uranus has with both signs. it really hinges on other factors in a persons chart how they will express this energy, or have it impact their consciousness. will it be 'unconscious' operating like an irritant and ultimately still helping to create a wider perspective, or will it be something they embrace given the balance that is suggested in their own natal chart? i think it depends on the chart, and the consciousness of the person who has a particular chart to work with.

i can think of the many aquarian friends that i have who don't have the rebelliousness that one might associate with uranus, so much as a vision of how the world could be a better place and who work towards this in a fairly consistent manner. then there are my aries friends who are not afraid to 'rock the boat' of tradition in an attempt to break up the rigidity that can sometimes come with an over emphasis on tradition at the mercy of anything new.. great question that doesn't have an answer as i see it!

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:21 pm**

There are several angles to using the outers in astrology. I agree with Konrad that much that is attributed to the outers by astrologers can easily be explained using only the traditional planets. What makes the outers difficult to define is that they most probably deal mainly with consciousness rather than external events. Classical astrology which uses only the tractional planets dealt almost wholly with event astrology. There was no talk of "self-actualization," or spiritual awareness or the evolution of the personality.

In the last day I happened to be looking through Isabel Hickey's Astrology: A Cosmic Science. Isabel Hickey apparently had psychic perception which she used in her astrological work. I'm not saying that she was correct in everything she said or that I agree with her. However, for what it's worth, here is what she says about Uranus and Neptune. (Her book was published in 1970 before astrologers had a take on Pluto.)

These two energies come from outer space, beyond our zodiac, to step up the vibration of the planet and bring it to a a higher state of evolution. Mankind always responds negatively to new energies before he learns to respond positively to high forces... She goes on to say that these two planets can be dumb notes or can be destructive. (page 234)

In my own work I find that sometimes the outers seem to be dumb notes except they may refer to a one-time period in life when something to be remembered happens that changes the life view for the individual. Uranus does seem to be related to sudden and unexpected death.

I believe I have at least a partial take on these planets because in my chart Neptune is at the zenith in close trine to Uranus in the 6th, and Pluto is closely square my Moon. Both Neptune and Uranus closely aspect Mercury in the (11th or 12th depending on the house system). So there is a tight Mercury/Uranus/Neptune configuration in tight aspect to the ascendant.

I refer to the Edgar Cayce readings as my primary source of outer planet meanings. Cayce's words on the outers are quite simple:

Uranus: extreme mood swings, moody and changeable, can be prone to depression; interest in occult subjects (including astrology!) Intuition: picking up "vibrations" underneath the actions and words of others.

Neptune: Interest in psychology; finding comfort and inspiration near large bodies of water [the Pisces association?]; attraction to the spiritual, a mystical outlook on life; love of the mysterious and mysteries; sensitivity to unseen underlying vibrations (similar to Uranus)

Pluto: a developing spiritual awareness which will become more prominent in the next 100 years (from the years Cayce was alive); can be self-centered

Garth Allen/Donald Bradley noted that Pluto avoided contact with other people as much as possible and called Pluto the planet of the loner. I'd say that this applies to myself as I'm probably what would be called an HSP individual (highly sensitive person), and when "out and about," absorb everyone else's energy which is exhausting. I do spend the majority of my time alone, and dislike being among groups of people.

So if we are looking for empirical evidence of the outers, we may not be seeing this in events except when a changed state of consciousness affects our life in ways that others can observe. Philosophically: why not the next stage of human evolution with a developing awareness beyond the physical?

My life has always had a spiritual emphasis--daily prayer and meditation, much reading of occult and spiritual literature, a deep love for astrology, always having the sense of living more on the astral than the physical (three feet in the next world I always say), great sensitivity to energy and vibrations, love being near the ocean, and feel greatly deprived living in the mountains away from water.

I do have some comments and observation on how the outers may relate to signs of the zodiac, but that is another post.

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:56 pm**

It occurs to me that there is a some important highly relevant background reading I should have done before diving in to this topic....

Firstly, the book Prometheus the Awakener by Richard Tarnas. I have clearly been remiss in not reading this work before now.

Here is an excellent review of the book from Amazon.co.uk

With his new book Prometheus the Awakener: An Essay on the Archetypal Meaning of the Planet Uranus Richard Tarnas has created a stunning synthesis of archetypal astrology, history, and spiritual psychology. Reading this work one feels graced with expanded horizons, the sudden rediscovery of a conscious universe. I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for meaning in their lives or in the world at large.
Tarnas believes that the first seven bodies of the solar system were given archetypally accurate names, reflecting the intuitive consciousness of the ancient Greeks. However, in 1781 when Uranus was discovered, the modern scientific mind had lost its intuitive and subjective faculties and the new planet was given a name derived with conventional logic: Uranus was the next planet out from Saturn and so it was given the name of Saturn's father in Hellenic mythology, just as Saturn lay just beyond Jupiter's orbit and was Jupiter's father. In the essay's thesis, Tarnas describes his realization that the planet Uranus does not correspond with Ouranos after all, but with the rebel figure Prometheus. Ouranos has a distinctly paternal and static character, very different from the qualities of rebellion and innovation observed in individuals with Uranus strongly aspected in their charts. In contrast, Prometheus is known for outwitting and stealing fire from Zeus, and giving that fire--life, culture, and science--to humanity. These and other characteristics of Prometheus fit the nature of Uranus so completely that Tarnas concludes the new planet was misnamed.

The body of the essay consists of an impressive mosaic of cultural figures with the planet Uranus prominent in their natal charts, men and women known for their rebellion against orthodoxy or tradition, display of scientific or artistic genius, and other Uranian-Promethean qualities. Tarnas' unique background--a Jesuit education, Harvard, and then Esalen Institute where he was Director of Programs--has created an unusually rich diversity of perspective.

I was impressed by the discussion on Uranus-Pluto and the Sixties, in which the Uranus-Pluto conjunction of 1960-1972 is convincingly applied to comprehend that unique era. The "rebellion against established structures of all kinds, the intense intellectual adventurousness and restlessness of the era, the radical consciousness transformation, the titanic technological advances into the space age, the general atmosphere of revolution on all fronts" precisely fit what one would expect knowing the astrological natures of Uranus and Pluto.

This correlation is given more credibility by an examination of previous Uranus-Pluto aspects in history--such as the opposition of 1787-1798 which straddled the similarly radical and Promethean decade of the French Revolution, or the conjunction of 1845-1856 (immediately preceding that of 1960-72) which coincided with a wave of revolutions effecting the entire European continent. Similarly presented is the opposition of 1643-1653 (the one that immediately preceded that of the French Revolution) which was the period of England's Puritan Revolution known in its own century as the Great Rebellion--and other examples. The discovery of the Uranus-Pluto cycle with its upsurges of apparently spontaneous revolutionary energy, is an unexpected deciphering of one of history's long-puzzling questions, and he continues with several other major historical cycles.

Tarnas uses examples of both diachronic correlations, in which a sequence of events in one field occurs under successive transits--for example scientific breakthroughs under a series of Jupiter-Uranus conjunctions--as well as synchronic correlations, in which multiple events occur during a single transit. Examples of this type include the wide-ranging events of years such as 1914, 1969, or 1990. In this section is also included a representative comparison between Freud's and Jung's charts, their respective approaches to psychology, the nature of their relationship, and the timing of their historic split.

The essay concludes with a review of the potential effects of the Uranus-Neptune conjunction of the present decade (1985-2001). This combination is associated with periods in which the archetypal-"the mythic, the spiritual, the transcendent, the imaginal, the numinous--is suddenly awakened and liberated in new ways into human consciousness." After reviewing the variety of contemporary manifestations of this transit--both positive and negative--Tarnas cites a series of remarkable historical precedents.

To name several in the 172-year cycle, conjunctions of Uranus and Neptune occurred in 1815-1829 during the age of Romanticism, in the 1470's and 1480's at the heart of the Renaissance, and during the early 1300's wave of mystical fervor that saw Dante's Divine Comedy and the birth of Petrarch. They were conjunct in the 620's and 630's during the birth of Islam, and in 15-35 A.D. during Jesus' ministry, crucifixion, and the conversion of St. Paul. They were also conjunct during the last decade of the fifth century, B.C. and the first decade of the fourth, that saw the most influential teachings of Socrates, and his death in 399 B.C.--the event that initiated the birth of Platonism. Finally, during the only triple conjunction of outer planets in modern times--Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto being conjunct from the 580's to the 560's B.C.--"we find the heart of the great 'axial age' that brought forth so many of the world's principal religious and spiritual traditions: the age of Gautama Buddha in India, of Lao-Tzu in China, of Zoroaster in Persia; the age of the major prophets of ancient Israel, Jeremiah, Ezekial, and Second Isaiah, when the Hebrew Scriptures began to be compiled; the age when the oracle of Delphi was at the height of its influence in ancient Greece; the age of the earliest Greek philosophers, Thales, Anaximander, and Pythagoras.... Thus there is reason to believe that our own experience of Uranus and Neptune in conjunction will not be without its enduring blessings."

Tarnas' intellectual labors and twenty-year collaboration with Stanislav Grof have yielded a luminous overarching vision of psyche, cosmos, and history scarcely imaginable a generation ago. This participatory world view has implications in every discipline and not insubstantial possibilities for personal and planetary healing. This is truly a promising and exciting direction for the mainstream culture, both unexpected and inevitable. The fire of the divine has again come to earth.

Secondly, an 82 page long article by Sue Ward on the Outer Planets I have long intended to read.

http://www.sue-ward.co.uk/

No excuse now I guess....

Mark

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:07 pm**

Alternatively, rather than look at the outers through the lens of specific signs or elements maybe we can think of the outers more in terms of the qualities?

-Neptune=mutable
-Pluto=fixed
-Uranus=cardinal

This is exactly how I have come to view them.

I certainly don't see Uranus associated with Aquarius, although I see some support for associations of Neptune with Pisces and, to a lesser extent, Pluto with Scorpio. This is mainly because I have encountered very few Aquarians ( and I've worked with a lot of them) who have the characteristics that astrologers over the last century seem to have assigned to them,( but including I would have to say, collective action and consensus!). They are quite often quite different from one another, but I attribute that to the Sun being weak there so that their other planets often stand out more.

So, in my view Aquarians are generally not any more Uranian than any other sign. But Uranus in conjunction with the Sun does often display some of those characteristics, so I wouldn't stick with a purely traditional approach and ignore it.

Would I associate it more with Aries then? Not especially.
Aries is very directed. Uranus just materialises from nowhere and doesn't of itself have a direction.

But with cardinals as a whole. Yes.

I would never use the outers as rulers of the qualities though. I think I probably tend to use them instead of the qualities. So when I see Uranus operating I think 'very quick change,' 'dramatic shock,' 'new approach' or 'active opposition'.

I also don't see Uranus as having much social conscience. It is often associated with groups seeking their rights but in this case it is manifesting its violent opposition to the status quo rather than any cosy moral stance.

Indeed I am not sure any of the outer planets are capable of social conscience. By their nature and position they stand outside the ( in the eyes of the universe as a whole) petty concerns of the human race.

Posted: **Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:21 pm**

i enjoyed the tarnas book on uranus written in 1995.

i haven't read sue wards paper on the outer planets, but would like to.

my views on uranus don't operate in a vacuum. i do connect uranus a lot with how saturn works in a chart, but they function differently. any social consciousness that might be connected to uranus must function with other planets to bring this about. i would say the same about the others too.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:07 am**

The Sue Ward paper is definitely worth the time and the money to read it, read it years ago.

Never read Tarnas, doesn't seem to quite be my bag.

Posted: **Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:29 am**

amelia wrote:
This is mainly because I have encountered very few Aquarians ( and I've worked with a lot of them) who have the characteristics that astrologers over the last century seem to have assigned to them....
Funny you should say that. There has been a lot of talk about how Uranus does not fit our traditional view of astrology. But was Aquarius always a fixed air sign? Aquarius is the "water bearer". It's glyph is rippling water. And back in Hellenistic times, it was considered a "watery sign". See Palchus here:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/shippalchus.html

Perhaps the changeable, shifting, unpredictable nature of Uranus is a reflection of this watery nature of Aquarius which we do not acknowledge these days?

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Is Uranus Associated with Aries?

Is Uranus Associated with Aries?