PDA

View Full Version : Planetary ruler of Astrology


AquariusT
02-22-2009, 06:24 PM
I use three degrees for most first magnitude/famous stars as well. :)



Hi Aqua, I don't think Regulus has anything to to do with astrology, and I'm not sure why someone would say it does. It's of the natures of Mars and Jupiter, not linked to Mercury (astrology or study) at all, and mostly has to do with military honors and whatnot.

Probably due to Isabel Hickey. And Uranus is Astrology, not mercury. :)


[Moderator edit: just to add that this thread is an off-shoot of the thread: Regulus, the Regal (http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=123874#post123874)]

RayAustin
02-22-2009, 06:34 PM
Probably due to Isabel Hickey. And Uranus is Astrology, not mercury. :)

AquariusT .. Mercury has been used in reference to astrologers for hundreds if not thousands of years. It makes sense, since Astrology was once done by hand and mental calculation which requires enormous intelligence that Mercury supplies.

Remember, Uranus has only been known in more modern times; of course they used a different planet to represent it. Mercury foremost, then Jupiter for the more esosteric and studious quality.

aquarius7000
02-22-2009, 06:51 PM
Remember, Uranus has only been known in more modern times; of course they used a different planet to represent it.It's just as you say: "Uranus has only been known in more modern times", however, the planet was not born in more modern times, it has always existed up above, and perhaps also always ruled Astrology for all we know. Only, we did not know about this, as we did not know about the existence of Uranus until about in modern times. So we assigned Astrology to what was known back then. I'm not debating that Mercury does not rule Astrology, but am trying to show why Uranus could equally and logically be the ruler of Astrology. Uranus is the higher intelligence, the higher octave of Mercury, and also known for its connection to intuition, which forms the basis of esoterics.

:)AQ7

PS: Though the generational planets have only been discovered in more recent times, yet they have always existed up there. Nothing stops to evolve and progress, not even Astrology. Apologies for going off-topic this once, and if posts on this subject continue to come in here, then I'll simply create a new thread.:)

RayAustin
02-22-2009, 07:13 PM
It's just as you say: "Uranus has only been known in more modern times", however, the planet was not born in more modern times, it has always existed up above, and perhaps also always ruled Astrology for all we know.


Aquarius, I'm well aware a planet wasn't born in the last hundreds of years.:p

I wasn't discounting the fact that Uranus rules it or not. I am a firm believer that Uranus can rule/or co-rule astrology at best, along with Mercury and Jupiter. No where did I say, it doesn't. My point is that Mercury was acknowledged first, and has been far longer.

Ray:)

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-22-2009, 07:20 PM
It's just as you say: "Uranus has only been known in more modern times", however, the planet was not born in more modern times, it has always existed up above, and perhaps also always ruled Astrology for all we know. Only, we did not know about this, as we did not know about the existence of Uranus until about in modern times. So we assigned Astrology to what was known back then. I'm not debating that Mercury does not rule Astrology, but am trying to show why Uranus could equally and logically be the ruler of Astrology. Uranus is the higher intelligence, the higher octave of Mercury, and also known for its connection to intuition, which forms the basis of esoterics.
In my opinion that's a very poor argument especially coming from someone who aligns themselves mostly with the modern camp. Modern astrology which is heavy in the idea of synchronity. By that, I mean, that the fact that Uranus wasn't around or known about until way after the fact, after a lot of astrological signification was assigned and Mercury had fully taken hold of astrology is significant. The Outers not being there to get Signs of rulership with everyone else should also be significant following the theory of signification, but that's different. ;)

Uranus's connection to intuition? Wow, thought that was Neptune and I'm not sure what intuition has to do with the study of astrology either.

Also, I see no good similarities of Uranus to rule astrology or anything linked to it. The studies of Mercury and the philosophy of Jupiter do it great justice.

Anyway, to segey this back on topic, Regulus isn't attributed to Mercury or Uranus, and fails as a studious star, so couldn't be traced back to astrology, so that angelfire site is mistaken and I wonder who their source is, if they have one. However, if you wanted to look for a possibly astrological star, Spica is a good one. Mercury and Venus nature, is beneficial to the scholarly and artistic alike.

RayAustin
02-22-2009, 07:24 PM
The star Acrux is an astrological fixed star, and is of the nature of Jupiter. I have Mercury conjunct it in my natal, which is most likely a very good thing for any astrological pursuits.

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-22-2009, 07:26 PM
The star Acrux is an astrological fixed star, and is of the nature of Jupiter. I have Mercury conjunct it in my natal, which is most likely a very good thing for any astrological pursuits.


Now, now Ray. :p Were you born below 29° latitude?

aquarius7000
02-22-2009, 08:07 PM
My point is that Mercury was acknowledged first, and has been far longer.It's like you say, it was acknowledged first, and again, it's like I said that was because it was known to our human eye and mind back then, and not Uranus. Had Uranus been known back then also, it could have perhaps been the sole and not co-ruler of Astrology for all you know.:p


:)AQ7

PS: What we all must really avoid doing is (and this is not directed at you, Ray) is to stop thrusting traditional or modern Astrology methods down someone's throat and to stop using unplesant adjectives to comment on somebody's understanding/belief when it comes to Astrology, just because someone is not giving into blindly following traditional Astrology. Tolerance is the key word to this science and to progress at all.

RayAustin
02-22-2009, 08:14 PM
I think, (and what happens often on this forum) is we shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions about what a person is saying, unless they're flat out wrong. And lesser so at making what they know a label... I don't call myself a traditional astrologer, nor what I study/practice as the opinions of only traditional astrology, or a traditional astrologer.

But I'm not going to just flush what has worked longer exponentially than what is working now down the toilet, which is why I give more credence to the Mercury/Jupiter rulership, if not for also respect for the authorities.

Ray

AquariusT
02-23-2009, 08:00 AM
AquariusT .. Mercury has been used in reference to astrologers for hundreds if not thousands of years. It makes sense, since Astrology was once done by hand and mental calculation which requires enormous intelligence that Mercury supplies.

Remember, Uranus has only been known in more modern times; of course they used a different planet to represent it. Mercury foremost, then Jupiter for the more esosteric and studious quality.

The study of Astrology may be Mercury, but Uranus rules Astrology. :D

RayAustin
02-23-2009, 08:19 AM
The study of Astrology may be Mercury, but Uranus rules Astrology. :D

Aquarius T, saying something over and over again without backing up proves nothing. If you backed it up such as Aquarius did, you might actually have an argument.

AquariusT
02-23-2009, 10:00 PM
Aquarius T, saying something over and over again without backing up proves nothing. If you backed it up such as Aquarius did, you might actually have an argument.


Actually any professionally taught Astrologer, student of Modern Astrology, knows this already. :) I have no need to prove/argue my point, this is not a just a learning forum, is it? But I will mention that I was told/taught this by my mentor Expert Astrologer Barbara Lopez of NY, who was taught this in person by many Famous Astrolgers, first hand well 40 years ago. She attended lectures, seminars and traveled the world to hear astrologers speak, and to learn. I am grateful for her knowledge and for her teaching it all to me.

Modern Astrology was assigned Uranus as it's ruler since the discovery of Uranus.

A google search of Uranus Rules Astrolgy would bring up many websites that agree.

waybread
02-23-2009, 10:09 PM
As has been noted above, Mercury is the traditional ruler of astrology, and Uranus is the modern ruler of astrology.

The reason for Uranus has to do the mythological status of the god Uranus (Ouranos in Greek). He was the god of the starry heavens and mate of Gaia, the earth: his name basically means "heavens"/heavenly.

Seems appropriate for astrology!

natasa812
02-23-2009, 10:20 PM
If the study of astrology is ruled by Mercury it means that Mercury rules the study of astrology. Mercury is M and rules the S of A.
Astrology is ruled by Uranus, so Uranus rules astrology. Uranus is U and anstrology is A.
So, M rules the S of A.
U rules A. A is under rulership of U.
So, we have M that rules the S of U.


Or, Mercury rules the study of astrology and astrology is ruled by Uranus, so Uranus is ruled by Mercury - and this is logical.
Logicaly, Uranus rules the subject, but Mercury the whole issue - and the study and the astrology...
Because, I don`t think that Uranus has the ability to expres any briliant idea. It is clearly Mercury who does it... You can not keep the idea or knowledge for yourself...Astrology is based on interpretation, mathematics, communication and words... Uranus could bring the idea...only.

astro.teacher
02-24-2009, 01:05 AM
I do love Astrological debate with regards to this subject. Astrology, the field and study of which has always been related to Mercury (with its philosophical, religious and poetical works ascribed to Jupiter) as stated by the other members of this forum. The classical and traditional authors all agree that Astrology is ruled by Mercury, these people were not only practicing Astrologers but also "scientists" in their time. There works have come through years of studies and observations. While it is true some authors choose to quote verbatim with little or no study, it certainly true that in order to achieve accurate results, you need accurate tests. These tests have been performed and have shown positive results (if not Astrology would have been ascribed to another Planet).

Now with the case of Uranus, these centuries of study and observations have not been performed. Sure we can read in books that Astrology is ruled by Uranus but not because an Astrology has tested it, looked in every chart and made years upon years of study. No what we see is people quoting the significations of Uranus being this and that, but failing to show any reasoning behind why Uranus rules Astrology.

Alright I admit i hear often of the significations of Uranus, but what are these? Are they taken from Mythology (as some have stated here)? If they are, why was Uranus named Uranus? It certainly was not named that name by an Astro-Philosopher (as the Ancient Planets were). So why is the mythological status of Uranus ascribed to the Planet Uranus? Be careful not to fall into this (very easy) trap. When I see the data, case studies and all the other information (as should be provided by the first person who claimed Uranus ruled Astrology (or anything else for that matter)), I have to go with the wisdom of the ages as precedent. If you believe Uranus rules Astrology, we will need some unquestionable scientific (style) data showing a correlation between them, which I admit, is not an easy thing to do.

RayAustin
02-24-2009, 02:38 AM
"Because your teacher said so"... really isn't an argument. In general (and not only talking to you), still there is no philosophical, real substance to the method of using Uranus other than "because my teacher told me". What surprises me is the apparent disregard for the tried-and-true methods of the ancients who were, undoubtedly, smarter than the "famous" (and famous doesn't mean knowledgable) astrologers today. It's either that excuse or the "higher octave" excuse. Says who?

I like the outers, they give more flavors, but I don't think they were ever meant to replace rulerships, since they were never needed before and astrology worked quite fine without them, if not better.

R

lillyjgc
02-24-2009, 03:38 AM
Hi,
I think its important to understand that until the 1930's the only kind of astrology that was practised was based on the Traditional methods.An astrologer named Alan Leo is largely responsible for the popularising of astrology, by according sun signs more important meanings than had previously been the case.This theme was picked up on by Linda Goodman in the 60's-70's when astrology experienced a *new age *resurgence.
You could say that Alan Leo single-handedly introduced the concept of modern astrology and many since him have added to it.

Personally I don't see how one person should automatically be allowed to *rewrite the books* on astrology.
Traditional astrology requires a far more in-depth approach-a lot more actual knowledge is required to interpret a chart using traditional methods.
The modern trend seems to be *forget everything before 1930*.
Reassigning planetary rulerships has no foundation in any research or practice.There's no foundation for so called *modern astrology* as there has been for Traditional.
Changing house rulerships and sign rulerships has no sound basis.
Of course I *include* the outers-they are there (!) and had they been known of in William Lilly's day, he may well have used them too. (we will never know), but when modern astrologers pooh pooh the ancient methods whilst having no knowledge or real understanding of them, traditional astrologers have a sound basis for disagreement. We see it here all the time.
I don't think *less* of modern astrologers, but I do feel everyone would benefit more by first studying the basic foundations, traditional, and then making a fully informed choice, based on facts not on popular *opinions*, which the internet is largely responsible for promoting.
If Traditional astrologers on AW seem to be critical of modern methods, it could be because the modern house rulerships and ruling outer planets don't really make sense in terms of understanding *temperament* of signs, the reason for the assignation of rulerships etc.
It is important to tolerate different opinions but when for example, people try to read horary charts using modern rulers, it doesnt actually work.
Students of astrology really do need to have a comprehension of *why* the trads did things as they did.
Cheers,
Lillyjgc

freedomlover
02-24-2009, 03:47 AM
I can a see point to be argued for all three: Mercury and Jupiter - Traditionally, and Uranus - Modern. However, this is how I would discern the difference:

I see Uranus as representing the Astrologer, and the study of Astrology - as Uranus refers to intuition and the "higher mind". Uranus/Aquarius also rules "genius" - and, regardless of what other may think, Astrology brings out the "genius" in oneself.

However, for the way Astrology works - for Astrology itself - the magnetism of energies that cause it to work ----- that, I would assign to Jupiter. This is because Jupiter rules Sagittarius, and I see Sagittarius as ruling these kinds of energies. Jupiter/Sagittarius also rules faith. When you truly have faith, you are aligned with Divine Will, and thus, with the natural realm- attracting what you desire.

Does this make sense to anyone but me?

Also: liillyjgc wrote:

The modern trend seems to be *forget everything before 1930*.
I wonder if that has anything to do with Pluto. Wasn't Pluto discovered in 1930? Also, if I'm not mistaken, that is when the "I AM" type of teachings came out.

FL

waybread
02-24-2009, 04:05 AM
Aaron, I have a lot of respect for astrologers who practice traditional astrology. But seldom for the reasons they state, i. e., that the ancients were better scholars or somehow performed accurate tests. Reading Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos today, to cite but one example, does not give me a lot of confidence in his methods or his view of humanity.

Part of the reason is because society has changed so substantially since the major works of traditional astrology were written. We don't live in the world of the classical, medieval, or renaissance astrologers: they would find modernity and post-modernity as we inhabit them bewildering.

As you probably know, there was a debate about the naming of Uranus after it was discovered to be a planet in 1781. The name Uranus did not become the accepted usage among astronomers until the mid-19th century; and some astrologers think it should have been called Prometheus.

If you think about it, it is kind of ironic for either a traditional or modern astrologer to insist upon scientific evidence as supporting their truth-claims. A good recent book on this problem of the lack of solid evidence in astrology is Garry Phillipson, Astrology in the Year Zero. The Gauquelins' "Mars effect" may still hold, but little else from either "camp".

The ancient astrologers were by no means scientists as that term is understood today in any university or government research lab. Some literally believed that the planets were gods. Others believed that the namesake gods controlled their planets. Hard to see those views in effect today.

Books on Uranus by modern astrologers include Joy Michaud, The Uranus-Neptune Influence, Joan Negus, The Book of Uranus, Richard Tarnas, Prometheus the Awakener, and Jeff Green, Uranus: The Freedom from the known. A classic by someone who did a lot of research is Reinhold Ebertin, The Combination of Stellar Influences.

BTW, any "moderns" out there might be interested in locating asteroid Urania in your charts. Mythological Urania was the muse of astrology.

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-24-2009, 04:15 AM
I see Uranus as representing the Astrologer, and the study of Astrology - as Uranus refers to intuition and the "higher mind". Uranus/Aquarius also rules "genius" - and, regardless of what other may think, Astrology brings out the "genius" in oneself.

However, for the way Astrology works - for Astrology itself - the magnetism of energies that cause it to work ----- that, I would assign to Jupiter. This is because Jupiter rules Sagittarius, and I see Sagittarius as ruling these kinds of energies. Jupiter/Sagittarius also rules faith. When you truly have faith, you are aligned with Divine Will, and thus, with the natural realm- attracting what you desire.

Does this make sense to anyone but me?
Yes and no. I don't see it written anywhere else where the study and the student are separated by two separate significators. The art and artist are Venus, the war and warrior are Mars, the religion and priest are Jupiter, etc, etc, etc.


I wonder if that has anything to do with Pluto. Wasn't Pluto discovered in 1930? Also, if I'm not mistaken, that is when the "I AM" type of teachings came out.
I doubt it, Lilly's date was sort of generalized. Leo started writing in his The Astrologer's Magazine in 1889.


The ancient astrologers were by no means scientists as that term is understood today in any university or government research lab. Some literally believed that the planets were gods. Others believed that the namesake gods controlled their planets. Hard to see those views in effect today.
Now that's not very fair. That's just how they rationalized how astrology worked, through the idea that the gods controlled them and they controlled us, I don't see modern astrology offering any better ideas as to why it works, either. Today's scientists have better tools available to them, the ancients only had their eyes and minds and saying that they "weren't scientists" is sort of an insult considering all they did and set up. You know, modern medicine, astronomy, mathematics...everything.

RayAustin
02-24-2009, 06:52 AM
The thing is I also don't like, is that if I respect the rules of the ancients.. I have to be labeled a "traditional" astrologer.. no, I'm just giving credit to the more reliable school, but that doesn't mean, it's all I give credit to. I'm just a student of astrology.. :)

AquariusT
02-24-2009, 07:59 AM
:confused: :confused: Why is this here and who moved it? I did not start this thread.

RayAustin
02-24-2009, 08:07 AM
It was moved because it was a big tangent. :)

waybread
02-24-2009, 07:16 PM
I hope this discussion doesn't devolve into a debate between modern vs. traditional astrology. I take a pragmatic view towards astrology. If something works, I'd like to learn it and use it. Maybe a good question to ask on this thread, is why would it matter, what planet rules astrology? The answers might suggest which planet is best to consider.

Re: my previous post on pre-modern astrologers not being scientists in the modern sense of the term:



Now that's not very fair. That's just how they rationalized how astrology worked, through the idea that the gods controlled them and they controlled us, I don't see modern astrology offering any better ideas as to why it works, either. Today's scientists have better tools available to them, the ancients only had their eyes and minds and saying that they "weren't scientists" is sort of an insult considering all they did and set up. You know, modern medicine, astronomy, mathematics...everything.

It's no insult, Kaiousei. I have a lot of respect for what these early astrologers accomplished.

A little known-fact is that Caludius Ptolemy is considered one of the founding fathers of modern cartography (map-making). In attempting to cast better nativities, he set some foundations for our modern system of latitude and longitude. He demonstrated that the earth had to be curved, not flat.

In the 12th century Albertus Magnus, a devotee of astrology, developed a rudimentary classification system for plant and animal species that laid the groundwork for the Linnean system currently in use, and discovered the element arsenic.

This list could continue for a long time...but the point is that in acknowledging its historical roots, science today is very different from the kind of work these men accomplished.

But here are just sample quotes from these two authors' influential works of astrology:

"India, Ariana, and Gedrosia have familiarity with Capricorn and Saturn; therefore the inhabitants of these countries are ugly, unclean, and bestial."[Tetrabiblos II.3, the latter 2 countries were in SW Asia]

"If [the moon] be Sovereign of the nativity, she maketh the children born honest, honourable, inconstant, loving wet and moist places, and given to see strange countries; of stature tall, white and effeminate." [The Book of Secrets. Much of the rest of this book includes really bizarre charms.]

My point was merely that despite my respect for traditional astrologers and astrology's forebears, I have trouble in using a lot of their work today because society no longer exists in the way it did in past centuries; and most sensible people today no longer think of nations or individuals in these terms.

I have no difficulty with traditional astrologers who use the old techniques in speaking to people's lives today.

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-24-2009, 07:42 PM
My point was merely that despite my respect for traditional astrologers and astrology's forebears, I have trouble in using a lot of their work today because society no longer exists in the way it did in past centuries; and most sensible people today no longer think of nations or individuals in these terms.

That may be true and the effects of countries and regions of the world being associated with various signs may be different, but they're still there and still very applicable. Case in point, North and West Europe and North America...

But owing to the vespertine configuration of Jupiter and Mars as well as the masculine condition of the anterior parts of the triplicity, and the feminine condition of its latter parts, the said nations regard women with scorn and indifference.

Now you'll probably find that unfair and "outdated", but I have to ask, is it really? Especially when you consider in America how women haven't even had the right to vote and own property for one hundred years yet and that we still have chronic glass ceilings with women only being able to go so far in their careers (because they're women) and getting paid less (because they're women), I think Ptolemy hit it right on the head, and he didn't even live in that part of the world.

However, I fail to see how a discussion of the planetary and sign associations for parts of the world and countries can easily be linked with the idea that traditional authors "weren't scientists in today's terms", which suggests a them/then < us/now attitude.

freedomlover
02-24-2009, 07:54 PM
Kai wrote:


Yes and no. I don't see it written anywhere else where the study and the student are separated by two separate significators. The art and artist are Venus, the war and warrior are Mars, the religion and priest are Jupiter, etc, etc, etc.
No, Kai, you and I are saying the same thing.

I see Uranus as representing the Astrologer, and the study of Astrology - as Uranus refers to intuition and the "higher mind". Uranus/Aquarius also rules "genius" - and, regardless of what other may think, Astrology brings out the "genius" in oneself.
I stated that the study of astrology and the person who studies are both signified by Uranus, from my viewpoint-- so that is "the study and the student", as you put it.


The other part I wrote was this:


However, for the way Astrology works - for Astrology itself - the magnetism of energies that cause it to work ----- that, I would assign to Jupiter. This is because Jupiter rules Sagittarius, and I see Sagittarius as ruling these kinds of energies. Jupiter/Sagittarius also rules faith. When you truly have faith, you are aligned with Divine Will, and thus, with the natural realm- attracting what you desire.
However, Astrology, as it refers to the way it works - the magnetic energies at work- brings "God" or the "God-force" into the picture. This makes its ruler, Jupiter. If you study astrology, you can't deny that there is a Higher Power at work in the Universe that makes everything work the way it does.

Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.

FL

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-24-2009, 08:12 PM
.
I stated that the study of astrology and the person who studies are both signified by Uranus, from my viewpoint-- so that is "the study and the student", as you put it.

Right, but that's not what I'm saying. You're saying there are three things involved. The student, the study, and the art. I'm saying that's not right, the only thing that's there is the student and the art. The study of it is not something that stands by itself, but is only brought into existence when the student meets the art.

Basically what you're saying is that the student of astrology and the study of astrology are Uranus but that the art of astrology, astrology itself, is something different. That's what I was talking about. The student is never separated from their art and if you wanted to get technical the study of anything would be Mercury. The study of art would be Mercury, but the art itself is Venus. I think of it as a verb/noun thing. You may be studying (Mercury) but that's not the important part, the important part is what you're studying, art (Venus).

Hope that makes sense.

freedomlover
02-24-2009, 08:21 PM
Right, but that's not what I'm saying. You're saying there are three things involved. The student, the study, and the art. I'm saying that's not right, the only thing that's there is the student and the art. The study of it is not something that stands by itself, but is only brought into existence when the student meets the art.

Basically what you're saying is that the student of astrology and the study of astrology are Uranus but that the art of astrology, astrology itself, is something different. That's what I was talking about. The student is never separated from their art and if you wanted to get technical the study of anything would be Mercury. The study of art would be Mercury, but the art itself is Venus. I think of it as a verb/noun thing. You may be studying (Mercury) but that's not the important part, the important part is what you're studying, art (Venus).

Hope that makes sense.

Kai,

No, I'm afraid you still don't understand what I am saying. In an effort to clarify, let me say:

I am saying that there are 2 categories, not 3. I am saying the student, the study, and the art are one - both signified by Uranus ( although I can see the lower generalized significator of Mercury, as it refers to study and communication and learning.)

The third category you are saying I'm trying to make is saying that there are: 1) the student 2) the study 3) the art. I've already stated that these 3 are 1, which has already been covered. The "other" part, that you seem to not understand, is the "mechanics" of astrology. Maybe I shouldn't even call it "astrology". Maybe I should call it "what you are studying when you study astrology.". Yeah, that seems to fit.

Does that help your understanding of what I was trying to say?

FL

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-24-2009, 08:56 PM
Does that help your understanding of what I was trying to say?

*sigh* No, you just said it all over again, but this time you denied saying it first.

I've already stated that these 3 are 1, which has already been covered.

Maybe I should call it "what you are studying when you study astrology."

However, for the way Astrology works - for Astrology itself - the magnetism of energies that cause it to work ----- that, I would assign to Jupiter.

The astrologer, the study of astrology, and astrology are all Uranus, but astrology itself and what you feel makes it work is Jupiter. Right. Gotcha.

Anyway, the topic is getting off track now that you and I have started our back and forth (well, actually it may have been the Ptolemy thing). I just think that assigning the student and the art two different significators is a bad way to go since the student isn't learning if they aren't even the same planet as their field. It's something that is seen time and time again in Lilly's sections on the qualities and professions of people signified by a planet. The person and the profession are the same planet and in the case of astrologers and astrology, it's quite clear that Mercury is the go-to-planet. After all, what are astrologers if not messengers of the heavens. ;)

freedomlover
02-25-2009, 12:06 AM
Kai,

*sigh* No, you just said it all over again, but this time you denied saying it first.
I'm sorry you don't get what I'm trying to say. I don't know any other way to try to explain it to you. What do you mean I "denied saying it first?" I don't understand what you are referring to.

Anyway, the topic is getting off track now that you and I have started our back and forth (well, actually it may have been the Ptolemy thing). I'm still talking about the planetary rulership of Astrology. However, this "back and forth we have" is getting very old.

I just think that assigning the student and the art two different significators is a bad way to go since the student isn't learning if they aren't even the same planet as their field. It's something that is seen time and time again in Lilly's sections on the qualities and professions of people signified by a planet. The person and the profession are the same planet and in the ca

Sigh..... I've explained till I'm blue in the face. You just do not get what I am trying to say. (Either you do not get it or don't want to get it - not sure which.)

it's quite clear that Mercury is the go-to-planet.
I do agree Mercury has merit, as a "catch-all" generalization for astrology, as I said before - although I believe it can be given clarity by the divisions I specified.

After all, what are astrologers if not messengers of the heavens. ;)
Something we can definitely agree on!

FL

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-25-2009, 12:50 AM
What do you mean I "denied saying it first?" I don't understand what you are referring to.

Sorry, the "first" was meant to show an order of things. As in, you saying they were all the same thing first, but then dividing it which contradicted your point.


I do agree Mercury has merit, as a "catch-all" generalization for astrology, as I said before

Of course Mercury has merit, it only signified the art for thousands of years. I'm glad that you can respect that.

although I believe it can be given clarity by the divisions I specified.

But why does it need to be divided in such a manner? In my opinion, nothing needs to be divided like that since it's more than just the sum of its parts. It's this sort of thing that bothers me about modern astrology. Didn't "types" of the same thing are put in different places and it causes way too much effort when it's really quite a simple thing. The art, the student, the study, the implications, etc, why does any of that even matter, and why give them all different significations? That just pulls them apart.


Something we can definitely agree on!

Strange how you can agree with that but not see how intimately (and elegantly if I do say so myself) it connects with Mercury.

freedomlover
02-25-2009, 12:58 AM
Kai,
Sorry, the "first" was meant to show an order of things. As in, you saying they were all the same thing first, but then dividing it which contradicted your point.

Okay, I see. But I did not contradict myself - you misunderstood. What I was saying is the "all the same" is this: The student, the study, and the art - which agrees with what you say, if I am understanding you correctly.



But why does it need to be divided in such a manner? In my opinion, nothing needs to be divided like that since it's more than just the sum of its parts. It's this sort of thing that bothers me about modern astrology. Didn't "types" of the same thing are put in different places and it causes way too much effort when it's really quite a simple thing. The art, the student, the study, the implications, etc, why does any of that even matter, and why give them all different significations? That just pulls them apart.

The "dividing it" had to do with the "student,study,art" as Category 1 - and category 2 is something I tried to explain, but you didn't understand what I was talking about. So, to hold down on confusion, Kai. Let's leave it as this: I agree with you that "the student, the study, and the art" all fall under the same significator. I agree with you that Mercury is the general signifcator for this. I also say it can be further categorized by Uranus. Call them co-significators, if you like.


Strange how you can agree with that but not see how intimately (and elegantly if I do say so myself) it connects with Mercury.


We actually agree on more than you give me credit for.

FL

astro.teacher
02-26-2009, 12:17 AM
waybread,

If you think about it, it is kind of ironic for either a traditional or modern astrologer to insist upon scientific evidence as supporting their truth-claims.

This is a point I have often wrestled with because a lot of Traditional and Ancient Astrology relies so heavily on understanding philosophy, mythology & religion. I find that that is a point which many have a difficult task proving their case with. However, since we do have a current system laid out now, it is up to those who wish to change it to provide evidence it is contrary to what has been followed. Galileo, Copernicus, & many other Astronomers didnt just write books stating the earth was round and revolved around the Sun (which was actually believed by Pythagoras to be a fact). They showed calculations, observations and much data to prove their cases. So my question, where is the data, calculations, observations recorded that prove Uranus has dominion over Astrology? That is all I am truly asking for. If we did have true Philosophers/Astrologers in this time, these new Planets would be heavily studied and observed, and with the amount of data we have available, conclusions would be easily shown. I mean a true Astrologer is also a Philosopher and a Philosopher is someone who is obsessed with the persuit of knowledge (and even more important, new knowledge, things never before studied). We need more Philosophers and less parrots.

Now please do not think that I myself do not have the responsibility to also prove my case, and in fact it is quite a lot more difficult than research started from scratch but I am slowly trying to bring out reasoning and methods to people (which cannot happen simply in a forum discussion) through my research, my website and books. I am obsessed with knowledge, I am obsessed with obtaining it, and more importantly im obsessed with sharing it. Unfortunately, being that Astrology (especially Classical and Traditional) is very Philosophically based, it makes it difficult to "prove" my stance without specific data. I apologize for digressing from the Mercury/Uranus = Astrology issue.

waybread
02-26-2009, 03:21 AM
Wonderful, thoughtful response, astro.teacher!

As I suggested above, I think the attribution of Uranus to astrology is based in mythology: Uranus/Ouranos means "the heavens" or heavenly."

I don't think we can know today how much research the pre-modern (let alone classical) astrologers actually conducted. It seems to be a matter of faith among traditionalists that they did this. In that regard, I don't find traditional astrologers' assumptions so entirely different from modern astrologers' assumptions.

I suspect but cannot demonstrate (for now!) that Mercury was cited as the traditional ruler of astrology because....what other planet was there? None of the luminaries or planets used by traditional astrologers really fits. Not even Jupiter, because prior to the PC, constructing a chart required a lot of careful mathematical calculations. Possibly Saturn in a fatalistic sense, but he's too material and practical. The "as above, so below" meta-theory of astrology (pre-theosophists) seems especially suited to Mercury as the one god (of winged feet) who could freely travel between the underworld, surface world, and heavens/Mt. Olympus. (Cf. Greek Hermes, Egyptian Hermanubis.)

But you've raised an interesting point: if modern astrologers did research Uranus as a decent modern replacement for Mercury, who were they? I don't know. John Addey and R. Ebertin come to mind as men of an early generation of astrologers who did a lot of research. But hopefully someone on this thread knows more history of astrology than I do.

If astrology were reinstated as an academic subject, this would make a great grad student research paper!

freedomlover
02-26-2009, 03:25 AM
If astrology were reinstated as an academic subject, this would make a great grad student research paper!

Ah, yes, that is my dream - that they would offer at least basic astrology as a course in public schools.

Kaiousei no Senshi
02-26-2009, 05:19 AM
I suspect but cannot demonstrate (for now!) that Mercury was cited as the traditional ruler of astrology because....what other planet was there?

Waybread, I'm pretty sure that that's how any and all significations are assigned. There's something that has to fit somewhere, so we go through a little thinking and decide that this planet must be it because no other compares.

War? Who else would rule war but Mars? There's no one else who can match well in the traditional planets, so I guess we'll just have to "settle" until something "better" comes along.

RayAustin
02-26-2009, 11:43 AM
I don't think we can know today how much research the pre-modern (let alone classical) astrologers actually conducted. It seems to be a matter of faith among traditionalists that they did this. In that regard, I don't find traditional astrologers' assumptions so entirely different from modern astrologers' assumptions.


Hey Waybread, I just have to quote you on this out of curiosity--how is it a matter of faith that they did tests & calculations? I think there is a lot more proof like left behind documents and such that they did, than otherwise.:) That said, I wouldn't know where to specifically find either of them for whichever school.

Ray

waybread
02-26-2009, 07:51 PM
Ray,

My comment was in response to Aaron's statement that:

"...since we do have a current system laid out now, it is up to those who wish to change it to provide evidence it is contrary to what has been followed. Galileo, Copernicus, & many other Astronomers didnt just write books stating the earth was round and revolved around the Sun (which was actually believed by Pythagoras to be a fact). They showed calculations, observations and much data to prove their cases. So my question, where is the data, calculations, observations recorded that prove Uranus has dominion over Astrology?"

I agree that a number of early astronomers (and some were both astronomers and astrologers) did lay out some of their mathematical calculations. I don't recall astrologers claiming Copernicus and Galileo among our number, but I may have missed something.

It seems harder to find evidence for rulerships based upon empirical data in astrology's foundational texts. A number of classical, medieval, and renaissance texts in astrology are available in English today in public or university libraries, googlebooks, Project Hindsight, or through used booksellers. The Loeb Classical Library publications include Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and Manilius. I have a tiny collection of historical material: I admit that I haven't read the majority of what's out there.

I haven't seen where these authors explain the evidence upon which their assumptions about rulerships or personality traits are based, which makes them comparable to modern authors who don't explain their evidence. As mentioned above, at least a few modern authors like John Addey, Reinhold Ebertin, and the Gauquelins did conduct their own research and indicate the basis for their conclusions (see also Garry Phillipson, Astrology in the Year Zero as a more recent summary), but I haven't seen a lot of this in modern works.

Manilius (Astronomica) for example attributes astrology to Mercury--phrased as a kind of praise or homage to the god of intelligence and learning; not based upon evidence gleaned from working with clients. Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos) doesn't give a ruler for astrology so far as I can tell, although he does say that Mercury rules human souls, which seems fitting in light of Hermes' repution as "the conductor." Aratus (Phaenomena) starts out with praise and homage to Zeus, not Mercury, as the creator of the heavens, which doesn't even quite jive with modern understanding of the pantheon. I guess one might conclude that rulership of astrology in classical Greence and Rome was based more upon the properties of the gods whose planets bore their names than upon evidence in an empirical sense of the term; and that classical astrologers disagreed as much as modern astrologers do about various facets of their discipline.

In Hellenized Egypt, however, Mercury becomes associated with the Egyptian god Toth, the scribe, who was believed to rule astronomy. So then you get the association of various occult practices with the mythical figure of Hermes Trismegistus, (Thrice-great Hermes). Hermetic texts, many written long after this period, infused occult and magical thinking in Europe during the Middle Ages and Dark Ages (Eugenio Garin, Astrology in the Renaissance), and was probably the reason for Mercury becoming standardized as the traditional ruler of astrology.

So my reply to Aaron was basically that I think modern and traditional astrologers are about at par, regarding his point, above, about factual evidence.

RayAustin
02-26-2009, 08:17 PM
Waybread, thanks for the very thorough and educating response. :)
You're saying their ascribement of astrology to Mercury had nothing to do with data, more like philosophical stuff. In that sense, I'd have to agree. I think the complexity of astrology is where the ascribement gets fuzzy, whereas things like love, and war, have very discreet planetary rulers.. Astrology can easily fall underneath Mercury, Jupiter..because of the intelligence required, and then the philosophy/study aspect of Jupiter. And perhaps, Uranus.

Ray :)

waybread
02-26-2009, 08:21 PM
Ray, thanks.

Incidentally with my own Mercury "exalted" in Aquarius, and with my Uranus conjunct MC trine my Aquarian sun, I figure I've got both astrology rulers covered.

RayAustin
02-26-2009, 08:26 PM
Ray, thanks.

Incidentally with my own Mercury "exalted" in Aquarius, and with my Uranus conjunct MC trine my Aquarian sun, I figure I've got both astrology rulers covered.

That's funny.. I've got Uranus trine the MC, and a very strong Mercury in trine with Moon in the ninth (study/astrology).. I'd have to say I've got both rulers covered, too. :)

waybread
02-27-2009, 06:58 AM
Olivia, thanks for the historic infill. [And I like the word "partile" as my Uranus/MC conjunction is partile, by Jove!]

Just a bit more historical infill of my own here, ultimately suggesting that there may be good reasons to retain Mercury as the ruler of astrology, but they seemingly have little to do with astrology's career as an academic subject.

Classical astrology took place prior to the development of universities, but some did develop in private academies of various sorts. The university as that term is understood today didn't really get a running start until the Middle Ages. Astronomy was part of the "quadrivium" of liberal arts subjects that students needed to study. Initially it apparently focused upon Ptolemy's Almagest, which is an astronomical work with hardly any astrological content.

Part of the problem of astrology in early medieval European universities was that most were linked to the church, which had been critical of astrology since the latter's inception. Also, a lot of the key classical sources weren't translated from the Arabic (where they had been preserved) until around the 11th-12th centuries.

When astrology per se does get adopted into medieval universities after that, it was typically as an adjunct to medicine (e. g. medical astrology), weather prediction, and alchemy. Well, a lot of this material by no means holds up to modern scrutiny today, because it was thoroughly imbued with sympathetic magic (the idea that like cures like.)

Jim Tester (A History of Western Astrology, 183) writes that although astrology became increasingly accepted in universities, any research was basically theoretical and inductive.

Unfortunately "vulgar empiricism" [Olivia's quote, above] is what has passed for scientific research for the last couple of centuries. During the Renaissance scholars in the sciences learned that the problem with arguing from first principles is that if one's assumptions are flawed, then the rest of the argument is flawed, also. As the nature of reasoning changed during the renaissance, astrology had difficulty shifting with it.

Astrology's university career ended with a whimper in the 18th century (with the last hold-out of which I am aware, ending astrology studies in 1817), for several additional reasons:
(1) As its sister-discipline of medicine began to do a better job of curing patients, astrology's truth-claims were too often wrong. Astrologers had gotten by saying, "Well, OK, we make mistakes, but so do doctors." But medicine was making strides that astrology couldn't match.
(2) Astrologers in the renaissance were concerned with predicting significant events like the manner and time of people's death, yet the problem of accurate house systems vexed them as much as it does modern astrologers--and it mattered a lot where one set the cusps of the 8th house. Wrong house cusps, wrong predictions--for very powerful people who were not amused.
(3) With the rumblings of the antecedants of modern science during the Renaissance, educated scholars as well as popular authors launched major criticizisms of astrology's assumptions and track record.
(4) The Ptolemaic system collapsed for astronomers with new evidence about the orbits of the earth and other planets around the sun, and the discovery of Uranus in 1781.
(5) Religious authorities began to take a hard line against astrology.

The debate among practitioners of various types of astrology: mundane vs. natal, traditional vs. modern, equal house vs. variable-width house systems, solar arcs vs. secondary progressions, &c., &c. often rests upon the truth-claim that their prefered branch is surprisingly accurate; while the practitioners of other branches haven't made their case.

While this position might be correct in some cases, unfortunately claims of accuracy on either side of a debate are generally based upon anecdotal evidence. They seem to depend more on the brilliance of a very small number of practitioners (like Lilly, possibly) not on the larger number of astrologers practicing at any given time. (Many are unknown today.)

So which glass is half empty? Whose glass is half full?

I think it's a toss-up. If people think using Mercury as astrology's ruler gives better results than Uranus, I have no problem with that.

lillyjgc
02-27-2009, 07:21 AM
Hi-I'm wondering then, do we have any astrologers here who have no mercury aspects and only Uranus aspects to reflect their interest in astrology? I too have both mercury and uranus aspecting one another!.
Another problem: If we say that Uranus *rules* astrology, does this link astrology to house 11? How can we have *astrology* being a matter to do with h3/h9 axis but ruled by a planet primarily associated with the eleventh house?
A problem with modern practice is that once you start playing around with the rulerships, you have to also play around with the houses-which draws further away from thousands, not hundreds of years of astrological tradition.
Personally I doubt that I will ever engage in a more mercurial pursuit than a chart delineation!
Uranus has a slightly eccentric orbit-this is where all the assignations of rebellion and eccentricity come from, as associated traits of uranus. So then we take this highly unusual and irregular planet and connect it with a very meticulous process like chart analysis. I can't see the logic in it.
At the time Uranus was discovered, astrology was not generally regarded as a *fringe* (uranian) occupation-the royalty employed them, and the wealthy.The Church had a few problems with astrology,and this is why William Lilly called his book *Christian Astrology*.

I think a body of knowledge is an organic thing and we should not dismiss new knowledge (planets) etc per se, but I can see the logic of traditional methods, whilst with many modern practices such as giving outer planets rulerships of houses etc and calling sun signs rulers of houses etc, I can't see the basis for it, if indeed there is one.
I have a friend who is NOT into astrology who has the same mercury/ uranus aspect that I have and involving the same houses-but not the same signs.So I suspect theres a lot of factors to consider.As always.:)
Lillyjgc

you know it
02-27-2009, 10:03 AM
If anyone is looking for information to do a study, then my chart is here for reference.
http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp136/aws226/birthchart2.gif

I have Uranus at 7.01 Scorpio trine the Part of Astrology at 6.13 Cancer, with an orb of (0.48). Uranus is trine the sun at 7.44 Pisces. The orb from the Sun to the Part of Astrology (1.31) is a little wide to count, from what I have read. The Part of Astrology is located in my 9th house. If you use the 3rd/9th house, then Mercury (13.27 Aquarius) is sextile the 3rd house cusp (10.20 Sagittarius), and sextile Neptune (13.53 Sagittarius) which is conjunct the 3rd house cusp (3.33 orb). Mercury is also square Uranus, and conjunct/parallel Venus (9.15 Aquarius), the Ascendant ruler. Mercury is trine the 9th house cusp (10.20 Gemini), while ruling the 9th house also.

Plus, both Mercury and Uranus are used in finding the Part of Astrology.
Ascendant + Uranus - Mercury = Part of Astrology

Even though most astrologers don't use the Arabic Parts, it is something worth investigating. Hopefully this info will be useful or helpful to someone.

waybread
02-27-2009, 09:18 PM
Lillygjc, regarding correspondences between planets, signs, and houses:

I do modern astrology, and I don't find a link to the 11th (or any) house relevant to the astrology rulership question. One of my pet peeves with **some** modern astrologers is that they conflate signs and houses, as if it made no difference whether somebody had Venus in the 4th house or Venus in Cancer. So I would not associate astrology with the 11th house at all, even though I am OK with Uranus (the sky god) as astrology's ruler. [Or Mercury.]

One handy desk reference that I use a lot is an AFA publication, Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book, which is based on a decent bibliography. Some entries in this compendium have house rulers, some don't. Interestingly, he gives astrology to Uranus and Aquarius, never mentions either Mercury or the 11th house, but then lists as secondary rulers Neptune, Pisces, and the 7th house! Well, Neptune and Pisces I get if one thinks of astrology as metaphysical rather than empirical and mathematical; but the 7th? Maybe this refers to one-on-one counselling, I don't know. But the point being that rulerships can have a sign and/or planetary ruler that have no accompanying house, or else that don't have the "natural" house relationship. Some do in his book, and some don't.

Lilly, I wouldn't recommend "playing around with rulerships" so much as someone (with more time and expertise than I have) doing some research. I don't do horary astrology (where I think the majority of astrologers wouldn't use modern planets anyway.) Other than that, we might consider where else the rulership problem actually matters. One area would be the use of so-called "accidental house cusp rulers" or "lords" of the signs on house cusps. This practice generally leaves out the problem of "natural house cusp rulers" where the affinity between Uranus and the 11th would lie. (Some modern astrologers would look at a house's "natural ruler.") Possibly the situation of Uranus vs. Mercury in a chart could suggest who's likely to be a good astrologer and who isn't.

Consequently, in terms of Mercury as the ruler of astrology, I also wouldn't see a necessary affilitation between the 3rd or the 6th house for astrological matters.

Olivia, it is interesting that the Catholic church had such a complex relationship with astrology. On the one hand they condemned it, but then clerics were responsible for translating many of the great classical astrology works into Greek and Latin from the Arabic, when the original versions were lost. The Church fostered astrology in medieval universities for some centuries, then came down very hard on it during the late Renaissance, when it was seen as a challenge to papal authority.

The fundamental problem with astrology to the Christian mind, I think, based upon biblical antecedants, is predictive astrology's danger of turning people away from faith in God. [Or one might argue, from faith in church leaders.]

From a secular perspective I think the more fundamental problem with traditional astrology and why it got dropped from university curricula, is that its determinism just didn't seem to fit new paradigms of thinking, criteria for evidence, and revolutionary discoveries in astronomy.

Intriguingly, "traditional astrology" was the only kind that was practiced, even in the US, through the early 20th century. When popular astrology makes a comeback, it is not through a scientific, academic approach, but through occult metaphysical circles like the Golden Dawn and the theosophists. They get picked up by people like Dane Rudhyar and "modern astrology" sort of takes off from there.

Andrew, you look like a natural! How does one calculate the Part of Astrology, and what does it mean?

Anyone here heard of the "astrologer's degree" at 11 degrees Virgo, or use the asteroid Urania (muse of astronomy/astrology)?

you know it
02-28-2009, 04:44 AM
Waybread, to be honest, I am not sure why the Arabic parts work. It is something I am wanting to study, to see how it works mathematically and geometrically. Here is a website I found from another thread on this community. http://www.astrosoftware.com/ArabicParts.htm It explains a little bit about why Arabic Parts work. Here is another website from the same thread/forum. It helps calculate the Arabic Parts for you, and gives the equation if you want to calculate it on your own. http://www.noendpress.com/pvachier/arabicparts/index.php