Traditional vs modern. state your case

I used to frequent another forum.......based on psychological astrology...

Here i am seeing a definite, new amount of information, on traditional astrology.

I dont know what to follow.....i cant study both at once i dont think....

Anybody who would like to state why they prefer one over the other, or perhaps to share some problems with the style not chosen would be great.....all opinions are valid....

And please dont fight....i hate starting threads that turn into war zones.....nobody will be getting any prizes;)
 
Last edited:
one thing that has been very confusing for me is the idea that signs rule houses.........a modern "invention" i think.....(aquarius rules the 11th type stuff.)..........on forums to a beginner this starts to get really annoying because, despite the way i look at it, there is always someone batting for the other team that will pipe up and tell me I'm wrong......
For a long time i was just confused by the whole lot......my own research is helping........somewhat
 

Pisceanfool

Well-known member
the houses in general have been kinda confusing for me, and i just don't get the 12th at all. something about secrets...

i think that traditional astrology is just as accurate and valid, but you can't ignore new planets and information. The main issue i have is that the outermost planets (ya pluto not a planet... whatever) make so much more sense as the "rulers" of thier respective signs. It's amazing that some astrologers ignore or belittle this, but i can see why they are more comfortable with the time tested approach.

For example, how can Saturn rule Aqua? That's like some kind of astrological oxymoron in my opinion. There are some similarities, but not like Uranus. The others also fit very nicely. I can elaborate, but i think most of you guys agree.

As for which you should study.. well... whichever you fancy more ;).
 
thanks pisean fool......I am just finding out your opinions.
I agree with you about the ruler of Aqua.....but with the outer objects, i find it hard to know when to stop.....you can just keep going and going.......I think the planets have served people for a long time...there must be some validity.....with out the lumps of rocks making thinfgs difficult......i just know that lots of people swear by them......
 

mdinaz

Well-known member
All I can say on that (Saturn vs Aquarius) is that the outer planets - Uranus, Neptune, Pluto - are generational and their locations mean little to your personal makeup, only your overall view of life, which is certainly generational. If I'm looking at a chart and focusing on relationships, say, I'll look at the 5th and 7th house. If the 7th house is in Aquarius, I'll look at Saturn as much as Uranus, because Saturn is a traditional ruler of Aquarius, Uranus is a slow moving generational planet, and Saturn for centuries ruled that sign. It's not an either/or - use both to keep to the deeper meaning of the situation. Same goes for Mars and Scorpio.

Now on that same question, let's say that Saturn was in 3rd house in Aries. I'll certainly focus on how communications in relationships may be severly limited. I personally won't link Mars into the equation, just because Saturn happens to be in Aries. My own opinion is at that point, you are reading too much into it and getting information overload. Other astrologers do, and if it works for them, great. I guess that's where I diverge from other astrologers on sign rulerships.
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
I agree with mdinaz concerning the Outers. While I would interpret the Inners based on Sign, House, and Aspect, I would not treat the Outers in such a way. Instead, I would only find the House and Aspects (and the only to the Inners) to be useful, so Signs don't matter to the Outers and since they don't, why would they bother to rule them?

For example, how can Saturn rule Aqua? That's like some kind of astrological oxymoron in my opinion. There are some similarities, but not like Uranus.

I disagree, in most cases, Uranus has shaped Aquarius to be something it's generally not, so perhaps Aquarius is rather misunderstood.

The modern association between Aquarius and Uranus has given this sign an exaggerated reputation for being rebellious, anti-social, perverse, eccentric and emotionally unstable. All of these negative forms of behaviour arise as extreme manifestations in individuals that have yet to find their centre. Anyone who is naturally inclined to care about the interests of social welfare will face their shadow in a world of political frustration where they are confronted with the mirror of their own anger and disappointment. Uranus sits comfortably within the theme of Aquarius in issues of detachment and mental separation, but the intrinsically destructive nature of that planet undermines the fact that Aquarius is regarded as a fortunate sign that rarely offers hostile conditions unless the planets within it are afflicted and heavily debilitated. Whilst some degree of separation from the group is a natural and healthy Aquarian trait, social isolation is not. Primarily this sign works best when supporting well-reasoned theoretical reform rather than violent civil disruption, leaving aggression aside in favour of its polished weapons of diplomacy, logic and tactful gathering of public support.
 

mdinaz

Well-known member
Kaiousei no Senshi said:
I agree with mdinaz concerning the Outers. While I would interpret the Inners based on Sign, House, and Aspect, I would not treat the Outers in such a way. Instead, I would only find the House and Aspects (and the only to the Inners) to be useful, so Signs don't matter to the Outers and since they don't, why would they bother to rule them?
I agree, and to expand on that, some have postulated that Uranus is a higher octave of Mercury, and I concur. In times past, the expression of Mercury was highly limited due to the religious and political fervor of the times. In the modern area, with the new emphasis on the "new age", technology, and other themes, Uranus I think very well reflects that. And with that modern age and technology, things have speeded up and people expect more, and more quickly, and again Uranus reflects that. I don't find Uranus any more destructive than say, a hand grenade. Okay, hand grenades are destructive, sure. But in the hands of a soldier who needs to take a bunker on a hill, RIGHT NOW, it's a useful tool and moves things along quickly. I see Uranus the same way. It's a useful tool that moves things along quickly, but will explode in your hand if you act like an idiot.

Don't you guys love my analogies? :D
 

Pisceanfool

Well-known member
I realize what you are saying, and they defintly are representative of the trends. Pluto and Uranus defintly stir things up (scorpio unravelling and aqua innovating). They move very slow, but that does not make them any less valid or personal. People take thier chart and express it in thier own unique way, and 1/12 of ppl (theoritically) have the same whatever bodies sign as someone else. I don't see why the sign of any object would not matter, even if they are entirely generational.

I think of rulerships as the best suited, as far as similar "vibrations" or "energy" whatever, just how they are. I also believe the outers are the higher octaves of some of the personals. They can be expressed personally.

Mars-Pluto
Moon-Neptune
Mercury-Uranus

Personally, i think they represent the next phase in our evolution, as we expand and resonate with different vibrations. Of course, we will need Saturn and Jupiter to move forward as well.

Only my opinion, still a noob
 
Last edited:

wilsontc

Staff member
generational and personal, to mdinaz

mdinaz,

You said:
the outer planets - Uranus, Neptune, Pluto - are generational and their locations mean little to your personal makeup

I think the outers are both generational and personal. While they do have generational effects because of their slow movements, they can have very strong personal effects as well. However, not everyone is "tuned" into these planets. But for those who have many aspects to these planets or if it hits any of the 4 points in the chart (i.e., Ascendant, Midheaven, Descendand, and IC), these energies are very strongly felt.

Strongly,

Tim
 

wilsontc

Staff member
signs and Outers, to Kaiousei

Kaiousei,

You said:
While I would interpret the Inners based on Sign, House, and Aspect, I would not treat the Outers in such a way. Instead, I would only find the House and Aspects (and the only to the Inners) to be useful, so Signs don't matter to the Outers

I think a planet is a planet, and since planets are in signs, then planets are in signs. Whether or not it is an "inner" planet or an "outer" planet, it doesn't matter. Since the "outer" planets are planets and have signs, then signs matter to the outer just as much as to the inners.

Simply,

Tim
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
They move very slow, but that does not make them any less valid or personal.

Are they less valid? No. Are they less personal? Yes. Uranus spends about seven years in each Sign, will that affect the world? Definitely. Will it affect individuals? I don't see it happening, unless that person's chart is colored with a specific member of the Outers (or perhaps more than one) regarding house position and aspects to by the Inners.

I don't see why the sign of any object would not matter, even if they are entirely generational.

See above. They matter, perhaps in such astrologies as mundane and predictive, but I don't see them making much of an impact in nativities unless certain circumstances are met.

I think the outers are both generational and personal. While they do have generational effects because of their slow movements, they can have very strong personal effects as well. However, not everyone is "tuned" into these planets. But for those who have many aspects to these planets or if it hits any of the 4 points in the chart (i.e., Ascendant, Midheaven, Descendand, and IC), these energies are very strongly felt.

Exactly. They're generational, and only personal in regard to the rest of the chart.

I think a planet is a planet, and since planets are in signs, then planets are in signs. Whether or not it is an "inner" planet or an "outer" planet, it doesn't matter.

Big words when we're not even sure what constitutes a planet. ;)

Do the Outers express themselves in Signs? Yes, but in a general manner I don't see it applying to individuals, but the entire group.

I don't get it, you agree with me but you're angry about it.
 
I would not yet call myself an astrologer at all......just to get this out the way.

I think that the outer planets have to do with evolution......obviously this has to do with the generations but i think that they can also have a profound experience on individuals.....
I had an experience in 1997 (psychedelic drug induced mind you) that has changed who I am as a person.......When i look to the stars on what happened that day, I am a bit blown away.......Maybe not to you guys, but to me yes! (I have trouble expalining to others what i experienced but lets just say that i think if everyone had similar experiences the world would be a safer and more loving place)
Anyway on the day....transitting sun , sat on my natal uranus at the zenith.......Transiting uranus sat on my aqua asc.........transitting neptune sat on my natal moon.......
Anyway what i am getting at is, I think I had some original thoughts that day......I think thats what the outer planets are doing.....bring ing the opportunities to think deeper and wider, to evolve......

I disagree that they are only generational.......maybe for the most part they are, but when they conjuct planets in our natal in transit, ithink they become very personal.....for me to the point that i cant expalin to anyone else what i felt and experienced.......

But like i said , I am not an astrologer.....I am just throwing this experience into the equation to see what you all think.....

I think Tim is right....because for me....when uranus hit my asc......i felt it stronger than anything else i have experienced in my life.....(truely)
 

mdinaz

Well-known member
I think the outers, in and of themselves, are generational and only are there to shape the general cultural worldview of those of us who live on Earth. When they closely aspect our personal planets or transit very sensitive points, they do certainly modify some personality traits. But whether Uranus in Taurus square Mercury is any different than Uranus in Virgo square Mercury, I say, not really. It may affect certain generational viewpoints and the expression of those viewpoints but the essential personality remains the same. A very fine line to be sure, but that's the fun part of astrology.

Second part, Uranus on the ASC/MC, etc. Until Uranus was discovered, life moved very slowly. Things just didn't change much as far as overall quality of life. The discovery of Uranus coincided with the rise of technology and science as well as politics, and then things did indeed begin to change quickly. Uranus was always there, just no one knew it, and as a generational planet affecting personal planets, it simply did not exist. This is what I mean when I say "Uranus is generational and as such, does not shape the personality". It modifies the personality, it adds elements to it, but it is not a vital component of the personality, only the inner planets are. Clear as mud, I think. :)
 
you dont both think that our non knowledge of these planetsfor such along time, is influenced by there placement at the time.....?

Sorry i am a bit muddy with my dodge merc placement.....bare with me
 

mdinaz

Well-known member
Liquid Green said:
you dont both think that our non knowledge of these planetsfor such along time, is influenced by there placement at the time.....?
That's exactly what I think - if the planet wasn't known, it essentially did not exist. And their discoveries exactly mirrors our own evolution as people and cultures. Think back - as cavemen, we knew two planets - sun and moon. That's it. And life was essentially focused on that - "Am I alive? Do I feel pain?", and that's about it. There were no thoughts about "why am I here", "what's my career path" - the only thoughts were "eat, sleep, don't bleed, and make little cave children".
As the ancients discovered other planets, life evolved. Venus and Mars, cities and trade grew. Jupiter - philosophies, religions, reasons for life. Saturn - governments, large states and nations, big business. And there life stalled, for two thousand years. Once Uranus came around, things changed rapidly. Radical political thoughts - wars over ideas rather than property. Neptune - science, medical discoveries, drugs. Pluto - radical ideas that challenged the supremacy of religion and the Church, people taking claims about who THEY were, apart from a nation or town. When the planets didn't exist, the ideas didn't exist; I think it follows very well.
 

gaer

Well-known member
Pisceanfool said:
For example, how can Saturn rule Aqua? That's like some kind of astrological oxymoron in my opinion. There are some similarities, but not like Uranus. The others also fit very nicely. I can elaborate, but i think most of you guys agree.
First, consider the term "modern" astrology. What does it mean? And traditional astrology: same question. What does that mean?

Studying the history of astrology and what has gone before will surely enrich your knowledge, period.

The traditional rulership linking planets and signs assumed that all planets had two "sides", a masculine and feminine side. Only the Sun and Moon were exempted from this. So seven planets, five connected to two signs.

Now, consider Saturn. We tend to have a very limited idea of what Saturn represents today. We consider mostly the feminine side, linked to Capricorn. So we associate Saturn with lessons, limitations, hard lessons, restrictions.

But think beyond that. First, think of how Saturn operates in easy aspect to other planets. What does Saturn trine Mercury show? A limited mind? Or one that, through discipline, may be capable of going on to completely uncharted territory? If Saturn is trine Jupiter, does it mean that Jupiter is less expansive, less generous? Or more in control, more balanced?

When you think of Aquarius, do you think of flakes, weirdness, eccentricity? Or of freedom controlled through discipline/wisdom and focused to get something done, perhaps something new that works?

The idea that Aquarius is linked with eccentricity and weirdness is a relatively new idea, and I think a very wrong one. I would argue, for the same reason, that IF Uranus resonates with the energy of Aquarius, and I think it does, our concept of Uranus is equally flawed.

I have Mercury trine Aquarius, both sextile Saturn. You and others have read my posts. Am I tradiational? Modern? Or am I looking for solutions that bring the best of both ideas together?

Obviously the latter. I don't accept every idea that has been, in my opinion, sometimes blindly accepted simply because astrologer A or B declared it so. I'm going to test things (this is part of Saturn too, find the limitations), but I'm going to go wherever my ideas lead me (freedom), which you may associate with Uranus. So I see no problem whatsoever in seriously thinking about how Saturn relates to Aquarius.

Gaer
 

gaer

Well-known member
mdinaz said:
That's exactly what I think - if the planet wasn't known, it essentially did not exist. And their discoveries exactly mirrors our own evolution as people and cultures.
I agree that the discovery of the "new planets" mirrow our own evolution, when talking about mankind as a whole.
But I don't agree that "if the planet wasn't known, it essentially did not exist."

I think that's taking a point too far.

It's unfortunate that we can't view accurate charts of people living long ago. So many times we are very lucky to have the right day, with all the calendar conflicts, incorrectly recorded data, etc. Birth-times? I don't trust them.

But IF we could examine the chart of Da Vinci, for instance, I would not be surprised to find an outer planet on the angles. Was there ever a greater genius? Someone who was more known for thinking beyond his times? The fact that we don't have an accurate chart for him does not prove to me or even suggest to me that positions of the outer planets within his natal chart, the one we don't have, and aspects from them to personal planets, would not at least support what we know already: inventive genius for the most part totally at odds with the times in which he lived.

I'm looking at the chart of Frederic Chopin right now. Uranus trine Pluto/Sun/Venus. Square Mercury. Almost exactly inconjunt Pallas, for those of you who are interested in that. We can't check the houses, no reliable birth-time, but does that mean that Uranus only counts because it was discovered already?

Okay. So what about Neptune? Chopin not only was one of the great innovators, perhaps the greatest ever in relationship to piano music, but his music has always been described as dreamy, other-worldly, romantic, and so on. Using your idea, we can't use Neptune in his chart because it was not yet discovered. A planet does not work until after it is discovered. And Chopin died at about the time Neptune was found.

So the fact that Neptune is square to those same three planets as well as trine to Mars can have no importance, following your logic. If that's what you meant.

I believe that if a planet has energy, it would be as important in a natal chart from two thousand years ago as in one from two decades ago. :)

Gaer
 
Your post is very clear, Gaer....in no way limited or eccentric.......
It seems to me that traditional astrology is the roots of the topic.....you cant go on without it.......

The weird thing i am noticing though (as useless as this info is), is that our knowledge of astrology is only going to be relative to what is going on in the sky for all of us .... and i guess we have to accept that new trends ,to our way of life, could be representd by new discoveries of planets/objects......I dont think we can ever assume that the knowledge of astrology will ever be boxed and not needed to be added too.....

[non-astrological comments moved to chat board - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wilsontc

Staff member
please stay on topic

To all,

Please stay on topic. There is a general chat board for discussions that are not about astrology. I have moved the non-astrological evolution comments to this chat board.

Moderately,

Tim
 
Last edited:
Top