Is it time for an astro redesign thanks to astronomy?

[Pallas-trine-Mars]

Opened minds preferred!

I think we might now have an opportunity, thank you, Galileo, for those of us so inclined, to reexamine our systems.

In ancient times only 7 "planets" were known, yet there were twelve signs created, perhaps a sun-moon, solar and lunar year concept, and this model has been the most popular to this day. This was probably not always the case. It's possible that at some point someone might've proposed a 7-sign zodiac to match the 7 planets, or a 5-sign zodiac to match the 5 moving stars.

The dignities system we use is another thing. Domicile and exaltation are not the same age, one was recognized before the other. I think exaltation could actually be thousands of years older than the sign domicile concept.

Of course when Uranus came along most of us decided to break from the tradition (this has also been known as a Uranian effect and even the term Uranian means a deviant) and reconsider our long-held systems. Since Uranus's discovery astronomy (something else largely attributed to him) has expanded tremendously. Where we once knew only of the Sun, Moon, five moving stars and the occasional comet which we didn't know where it came from or how long comets can take to orbit our Sun, we now know of maybe half a million, perhaps more neighboring bodies that are also satellites of our Sun.

What I wonder is, what if I told you I found new planetary bodies that represent Capricorn and Aquarius better than Saturn and Uranus? Would anyone miss them (Uranus I could see, but Saturn?) What if we find other planetary bodies that seem to show the earmarks of a sign ruler stronger than the guy who's been holding that title for so long, and probably largely out of convenience? (This isn't to say we can't find other work for them though) And of course, I know what I look for when deciding if I'll recognize a planet as this or that, but what does "ruler" or "exaltation" mean to you and how is it proven in your eye, if they do mean anything beyond perhaps just that you agree with traditional experts for the tradition? Does the idea of one ruler to a sign intrigue you anywhere as much as me or maybe two signs can just equally(?) share a ruler? Does, should size matter?

Oh, and happy new year. 2012 - ooga booga booga! I guess blame the Uranus in Capricorn for the questioning traditional astrology.

[Caprising]

I like the way you think P.T.M., as there is no perfect system available as yet. Finding the perfect system (or one thats more accurate) is only going to happen if people think outside the square. Discovering the currently unknown "X" factors is going to be difficult (or may not be possible given the limitations that we humans have), but thats not a reason to give up before we start! Surely a lifetime of study will reveal new techniques/astronomical bodies that can be shown to be valid!

[sandstone]

hey p-t-m - i like how you think too! i would question everything to do with astrology and i generally do, but i still find it useful.. i think those who don't question will hit a dead end at some point with the option of exploring other avenues, or giving up on astrology.. i think both can and do happen too..

no one system is the be all and end all in astrology as i see it..

[Frank]

In my many years of astrology study, I've examined just about everything that has been brought up here on this forum thus far. I've delved into hypothetical planets in Uranian astrology, asteroids, Modern Sidereal, Jyotish, Tibetan, etc.

What I come back to as my basis is the Tropical Zodiac, the seven Classical Planets, Essential Dignities, and the Ptolemaic aspects.

Of course, I do use other things on top of that, including both earlier and later techniques.

Working as a professional astrologer, one quickly learns to separate the wheat from the chaff. Use what works and discard what doesn't.

Hypothetical exercises are a healthy pursuit - but unless one can give good results whilst using them, they remain merely hypothetical.

[vasilis]

Very good article by Pallas-trine-Mars.

The theory of ruling of the planets on the Zodiac Signs is a product of Hellenistic Horoscopic Astrology.
Claudius Ptolemy says in his "Tetrabiblos" revealing how the planets are shared in the Zodiac Signs:
"Because from the 12 Zodiacs, the Northern ones to cause more heat are Cancer and Leo, they were given to be the houses of the two big lights: The Lion of the Sun and Cancer of the Moon ...."
"Saturn for being cold was awarded Capricorn and Aquarius, which are diametrically of Leo and Cancer Signs and hence colder .."
"To Jupiter which is mild, Sagittarius and Pisces were given for having similar nature."
"To Mars which is dry was given Aries and Scorpio for having similar nature"
"To Venus, Libra and Taurus"
"To Mercury were given the warmer Signs after Cancer and Leo: Gemini and Virgo"

That is, the temperature and the dryness was the criterion by which the houses were given to the planets. So today we say that Mars rules Aries based on the words of Claudius Ptolemy and the criteria of 100 AD.

But is it right? Can Astrology of 2012 be based on logic and science of 100 AD?
Can Astrology as an discipline accept uncritically the data of a bygone era? Is it time to enter new data in the discipline?

I will not dwell asking questions that pretty much have occupied us in the past. Modern sciences and especially Astronomy have been relied on the anachronistic elements of astrology trying to hurt it and to classify it to the pseudo – sciences or even worse to the Superstitions.

As a physicist I know that the planets did not ever have a prefered house. The planets do not rule any of the Zodiac signs of the ecliptic.The ranking of the houses of the planets of the Hellenistic epoch is now void and any later attempt to enter new planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto which was recently eliminated) the to old classification is at least unscientific. The same is true for comets and other celestial bodies of our planetary system.

The "Astrology of the 13 signs of the Zodiac" as a New Astrological theory can accept parts of the logic of Hellenistic Horoscopic Astrology of Claudius Ptolemy, Valens Vetious and other Hellenists astrologers, but does not accept unscientific evidence of that era. There is plenty of space for Astrology and the planets without using anachronistic “rulers theory”. There is enough ground for Astrology to flourish with the use of the planets of the Solar System and the aspects they form.

The characteristics of zodiacal constellations, planets and the addition of sunspots is sufficient for Astrology of today. It can thus be simplyfying the practice, but do not forget the importance of science against the complexity of another era.
What is essential in today's Astrology is how the planets associated with man. As is well known:
"The behavior of the fetus at the time of birth is associated with cycles of Earth's magnetic field which in turn is influenced by the 11-year cycle of solar activity and planetary positions."
This theory of Percy Seymour is the key issue in the theoretical support of the "13 Zodiac Astrology".