The Cold Face of Uranus

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
gaer said:
In a sense, a great deal of Aquarius is about building a whole new set of structures ON TOP of those already built by Capricorn.

Interesting idea, so now we have something concerning rebuilding that is not Plutonian. ^.^

Reading carefully some of Greene's negative comments about Aquarius, and agreeing the if we read all she has to say, the picture will be balanced, I would still wonder where this is coming from if I think only of Uranus

I want everyone to read this about five times aloud to themselves and really, really think about what Gaer is saying here. Here is the epitome of the X=Y=Z mentality of talked about in other threads.

"I would still wonder where this is coming from if I think only of Uranus."

This is too brilliant of an idea. When discussing planets, especially the Outers, we too often bring up their supposed ruling Sign and connect the two in such ways that they become inseperable as well. X=Y. Sign=Planet. Aquarius=Uranus. They have become the same entity, when they are supposed to be two very separate individuals. Just because a planet is said to rule a Sign does not mean the planet has no personality of its own.

"Aquarius is a humanitarian, so Uranus must be too." "Aquarius has to do with logic, so Uranus must have this connection also." No, I don't think so. I would have enjoyed Uranus in the age of original thought where he could have developed a personality that is separate (but perhaps crosses over) from his supposed ruling Sign.

Personally, I only think of a few things concerning Uranus.

1.) I think Uranus is the embodiment of luck and chance. Not good luck, not bad luck. Just neutral luck. He can bring us disaster or he can bring us riches. I guess this most easily fits in with Uranus being 'unpredictable', but I honestly do not agree with this. I find it very difficult to believe that such a 'heavy' planet can suddenly decide to turn left when he was going right, seems very ironic to me.

2.) I totally agree with Shining Ray's assessment of Uranus as a cold planet. Uranus is distant, he doesn't like to get involved. The sky is above us, looking down on us and observing. It's only involved when it feels it must be through predictable weather patterns, but for the most part the sky leaves us alone. Uranus may help out (give rain), but I can't see this planet being very involved in any sort of project or anything that requires a sort of personal investment.

3.) Perhaps the idea of Uranus' randomness is misunderstood. What if Uranus' power is that of chance, and as such he has the power to mix it all around and choose which ultimate outcome he would prefer us to have, which is then augmented by his relationship to the rest of the planets. (Positive aspects to beneficial planets would bring up a better ending than hard aspects to afflicted plantes)

I hope some of that made sense. Feel free to agree, disagree, question, or anything to any of my ideas above. Since this is a discussion of the planet Uranus I thought it'd be helpful to attempt to discuss Uranus himself and not this strange Aquranus hybrid creature we seem to want to discuss whenever either Uranus or Aquarius are invoked in a topic.

Frisiangal said:
It's also 'The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius', as a popular song once sang about.

We have a long, long way to go before that, though it would be interesting to see how things change between Pisces/Virgo and Aquarius/Leo. Too bad we won't live to experiance it. :(
 

Kingsley

Well-known member
You make some good points Senshi. You seem to be passionate about what you are saying. Thats the way I heard anyway. Perhpas Uranus described as cold is a little odd for my understanding. Detatchment, separateness, and dividing-splitting away can of course feel like coldness however the electricity and cunuctiveness of Uranus seems more hot and dry to me. Rather like a shocking kind of heat or cold. Feelings wise, it seems rather exciting and impartial instead of cold.

kingsley
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
YES! That's ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, Kingsley!

Something I was thinking about was a long time ago but had forgotten about until recently(found some notes I'd scribbled down in the margin of old Spanish notes). I was playing around, trying to come up with hurmours for the Outer planets. Originally, I took into consideration the authors who were writing around the time, calling Uranus 'very frigid'. Well, since he's past Saturn I assume that would make him dry as well, like Saturn, melancholic, but I really didn't like how that felt for Uranus. Thinking about it, choleric seems a much, much more appropriate humor for Uranus.

Rather like a shocking kind of heat or cold. Feelings wise, it seems rather exciting and impartial instead of cold.

How about that heat that you're not sure it's really hot, but feels kind of cold at first until you realize "YEOWCH THAT'S HOT!" Hm...these are the questions... ;)
 

gaer

Well-known member
Shining Ray,

I want to make sure I clear up a couple of points.

Shining Ray said:
"Aquarius is co ruled by the planets Saturn and Uranus. In the case of Saturn this operates as the connection to the past and tradition, cold reasoning and logic. In the case of Uranus it operates as aspirations towards the future and a new order, flashes of inspiration and innovation. Rarely does the sign concern itself with the here and now."
We could all quote countless astrology books, but I think we would find out that they do one of three things:

1) Claim that Saturn only is the ruler of Aquarius.
2) Claim that only Uranus is the ruler of Aquarius, that Saturn was only used because Uranus had not yet been discovered.
3) Claim that Saturn and Uranus co-rule Aquarius.

I see this as a clash between traditional astrology and modern astrology. One and three are the positions of the extremes, while two is a compromise. I'm not quite sure where I stand, and of course it's not really important either. I like Saturn as the ruler (day) of Aquarius. I like this idea because, as I said, it gives two sides to Saturn as is also true in traditional rulership for Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury. There is an elegance to this thinking, also a symmetry.

However, if we do not accept Uranus as co-ruler of Aquarius, we are still stuck with an important question: which sign does Uranus best represent. I can't help but think that the answer is Aquarius. If so, the relationship between Uranus and Aquarius becomes a matter of semantics. Either they fit together—or they don't. I think they do.

However, couldn't that also mean that we have too little understanding of the nature of Uranus, at least in natal charts? Isn't it possible that there is a very structured component to Uranus that is usually ignored? This is something that I am presently thinking about a great deal.
I don't remember anyone on this thread saying this just about the Sun in Aquarius or just one sign. When any of speak of Aquarian or Piscean we are just talking generally about the traits of the sign. We are not reading some one's natal chart. The birth chart will show all the areas of the personality.
And I need to apologize for jumping to conclusions. By defining what I meant by "Aquarian", I was simply trying to by consistent with what I have saying, that we have to be very careful about making a differentiation between having a planet or two in a sign and having a nature that makes the characteristics of a sign dominant within ourselves.

This thread has turned out to be consistent about talking about the archetype, not "profiling by Sun-sign". I like the way it has proceeded. My previous remarks, now at least a couple of days old, were off the mark. :)

Gaer
 
Last edited:

gaer

Well-known member
Kaiousei no Senshi said:
I wrote a blog about how I thought astrologer's were just being crazy when it came to Uranus. How appropriate it was that the planet Saturn was phyiscally bound by a ring, and had to do with structure and limitations. Then here comes Uranus with the exact same physically visible property, but is somehow the anti-Saturn. What now?
Here is another view, one that I have been thinking about recently.

Does Uranus really have to be anti-Saturn? What if it is a complement to Saturn, just as the two signs traditionally ruled by Saturn are themselves compliments to each other?

As I mentioned before, we might think of Aquarius as the energy that rebuilds what Capricorn has built, or perhaps better said builds new structures on top of old ones. Others have talked about this in this thread, and for precisely this reason the Aquarian archetype can be as rigid and dogmatic as Capricorn.

That's the irony. You see people, seeing themselves as revolutionary and free of tradition, creating new structures supposely replacing old ones that are just as restrictive—or more restrictive.

If Aquarius builds wisely on top of what Capricorn has already built, the result is something new, something that may appear radically different, but is it? I think upon closer inspection it is not.

Look at science, for instance? Think about Newtonian physics, then think of all the advances made in the 20th and 21st century. Newton's ideas are still valid. Physics has simply added to the ideas of Newton and his contemporaries.

You could make similar points about art, about many things. Those rings around Uranus may be just as restrictive, in their own way, as those around Saturn.

Where does "unexpected" and "sudden" come into this? I don't know. I don't have an answer to that yet, and I may never. I have not read one that satisfies me yet. One thing that has crossed my mind is this: lessons learned from Saturn seem relentless, unavoidable than quick. Perhaps Uranus is the next step, representing what APPEARS to be sudden when Saturn demands change and is ignored.

Just a thought… :)
 
Last edited:

gaer

Well-known member
Shining Ray said:
Silent Ray :D .

Are you trying to silence me Gaer. A Freudian slip, I will be back in a minute with my reply couldn't help but laugh at what you unconsciously called me. :p
Oh &*(&! I fixed it. You don't know about my finger speed. If you assume that some of my mistakes are any more than weird misfiring of too-fast fingers, you will be wrong. You would not BELIEVE the mistakes I find in my quick typing. Too many years of piano combined with a self-taught touch-typing system that is bizarre. :confused:

You silent? No! ;)

Have you ever typed something, then read it the next day and wondered what you were even saying? It's SO embarrassing!
 

gaer

Well-known member
Shining Ray said:
Another quote Gaer :)

Uranus was discovered in 1781, a time of immense social upheaval. America had just declared it's independence from Britain. France hovered on the brink of a bloody revolution. The discovery of Uranus which could only be seen through a telescope - thus giving it's rulership to all modern technology, destroyed the traditional lineup of planets that had defined our solar system for centuries. It also raised the prospect that there might be more planets out there somewhere. Everything that was familiar had been thrown into chaos. But then that's progress -which is practically Uranus's middle name.
Here is a perfect example of a possible connection to Uranus building upon solid structures (the US) in contrast to the French Revolution (which was so out of control, starting with violence that replaced one evil with another and that lead to Napolean).

There was nothing sudden about the US revolution. I've just finished reading (again) a long biography of John Adams, and both Adams and Jefferson were lawyers, students of history, and VERY careful about how they built. They both sought to find the very best of governmental systems of the past, and built ON those systems. Essentially they improved something old, although what they created was new because it was a new step.

To me this means that are two views of the nature of Uranus itself, if you want to link it to revolution. Something new may be built that lasts because it is based on solid foundations, and that leads to freedom (or more freedom). We can find many examples of people rebelling against a system to form something that worked much better.
The other side has been illustrated with all sorts of systems, gangs, repressive governments/regimes/dictatorships.
Germany is a good example of that worst and best of tearing something up and replacing it.

The rise of the Nazis is a perfect example of a completely evil dictatorship taking power in the name of freedom. We all know that story.

Yet at the end of WWII, was the change in government in Germany any less sudden? Any less unexpected? Who would guess that one of the most stable and liberal democracies in the word today would have arisen from fascism?

I still think that many things that appear sudden or unexpected are actually totally unavoidable and inevitable. Hitler appeared to have come out of nowhere, but we all know that the conditions that made his rise to power possible were set long before. Something HAD to happen. In this case, the result was horrible.

The conditions that lead up to other events that appear to come from nowhere can be positive. They also take a long time to "come to a boil", but the result may be very good.

An example of this might be the reunification of Germany, which appeared to happen overnight. It was a shock to everyone. Berliners (people I talked to there) did not expect the Berlin Wall to come down for decades. However, examining history carefully shows that all sorts of things lead up to "the fall of the wall". It appeared sudden, unexpected, a shock, but again this is just the way it appeared.
I like how Natasha phrased it well here about the groups considered outside of the mainstream have there own set of rules and rigid codes of behavior. You can see how Saturn and Uranus both rule Aquarius and the 11th house.
One point. There is so much more than Uranus at work here. What about people who grab power deceiving people they later control, or people deceiving themselves about what is going on? (Neptune)

What about power itself, domination? (Pluto)

When the energy of a sign or planet is misused to enslave people—including taking power over their minds, allowing a group to stamp out individual thinking—I would not think only of Uranus. I would not even look for Uranus first.

*********
President Paul von Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934. Rather than holding new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a law proclaiming the presidency dormant and transferred the role and powers of the head of state to Hitler as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor).
*********
In August of that year, Uranus was square Pluto/Mars (conjunct).

Uranus was square Pluto for the next couple years, with Mars/Pluto/Uranus forming a T in Feb. 1935, and one of the most lethal combinations you can imagine in early December of 1935. That was right in the middle of the period in which Hitler seized power, Pluto/Mars/Uranus again forming a T, Saturn square Jupiter, Neptune square Sun. And that's just the "toxic highlights".

I think this is an excellent example of how Uranus is a "player" in the brutal abuse of power by groups, destroying individual freedom, but look for Pluto, Mars, many other combinations and aspects to support this dominance, which I believe is a perversion of Uranus—truly malefic in nature.
 
Last edited:

Frisiangal

Well-known member
Originally Posted by Frisiangal
It's also 'The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius', as a popular song once sang about.

We have a long, long way to go before that, though it would be interesting to see how things change between Pisces/Virgo and Aquarius/Leo. Too bad we won't live to experiance it. :(

I would disagree; I must be much older than you and already lived through a lot of changes that have made the world a totally different place than that of my parents/grandparents/ancestors.:D
The Age of Aquarius began the day that Edison used electricity to ' (en)light(en) the world.' One can still differentiate between planet/sign because Aquarius deals with the natural laws/force of nature, of which lightening is one.;)

F.
 

Sivitri

Well-known member
I personally wouldn't really agree with the age of aquarius beginning with edison inventing electricity. Although it is said in that manner, you missed out the hidden/truth/real identity of this lightening, it would most probably the lightening and wakening of humans soul to something, the age of pisces which symbolises the bond is the needless bonding and meaningless bond to materialism. It is only when this bond is broken when the lightening of humans spiritual sight of truth of this needless materialism.
In saying of lightening in this manner is too discrete in a sense that its too surfacial. No true depth in it. Sorry for the debuttal but its just my 2 cents.
 

Natasha

Well-known member
Technically according to the Ephemeris we are still on the cusp of Pisces and Aquarius
Even in 2050 (which is as far as my Ephemeris goes the SVP is 4 degrees & 36 minutes Pisces. SVP is the Synetic Vernal Point. This point is the axis and it wobbles around the zodiac at one degree every 71.5 years (I am reading straight from the Ephemeris)
SO in other words if we are 4 degrees & 36 min on 2050 we go into Aquarius in 329 years which is 2336.
Not far when you think that we are in each sign for 2145 years
and the whole rotation called the great year takes just under 26,000 years

I think the 1960 era was called the age of aquarius as a romatic notion by the baby boomer teenagers who saw the sanfrancisco flower power movement as a change from the old to the new

There was an interesting doco on Nat Geo earlier this month about this very subject
Unfortunately it didnt speak of the astrological significator tho which was -:

Astrologically that period was the conjunction of Uranus & Pluto in Virgo and this conjuntion did indeed globally break a lot of old traditions

SO YES Uranus was in on the act in a big way when all those changes occurred!
 
Last edited:

Sivitri

Well-known member
However, i do agree on a fact that signs and many types of images of the coming age of aquarius is there. Its just that humanity is blind (spiritual - blindness ) to these.
 

Frisiangal

Well-known member
gaer said:
I want to make sure I clear up a couple of points.


We could all quote countless astrology books, but I think we would find out that they do one of three things:

1) Claim that Saturn only is the ruler of Aquarius.
2) Claim that only Uranus is the ruler of Aquarius, that Saturn was only used because Uranus had not yet been discovered.
3) Claim that Saturn and Uranus co-rule Aquarius.

I see this as a clash between traditional astrology and modern astrology. One and three are the positions of the extremes, while two is a compromise.

There could be a number 4. Aquarius follows Capricorn.
Uranus doesn't destroy and annihilate as Pluto does; it re-forms anything which has become outdated to provide change, yet leaving the original concept in tact. To my mind, Aquarius does that with Capricorn. This thought was formed when I once read that the sign rules archeology. What do archoelogists do ? They dig up old civilisations...Capricorn...in order to preserve and learn from them. We associate preservation with Saturn.
What would Saturn, as ruler Aqaurius be doing ? I look at it as the caretaker of all culture/knowledge( Sagittarius) past (Capricorn). So when we have this moment of intuitive enlightenment (Uranus through Aquarius) we are not thinking of something new, we are picking up on that which has already been and is stored in the memory banks of the mind and simply reforming it to fit in the Spirit of the Time.

Quote Natasha
Its interesting to notice that groups who see themselves as operating outside the mainstream 'value' or the conventional law, seem to have their own very rigid codes of behaviour which they hold sacrosanct

I totally agree with you. I have always wondered why these group formations who make an 'outer' statement about their difference, by their very alikeness of behaviour mode don't see that they are just as conventional in their pattern code as the very society they oppose. In their own 'society' there is always a leader (Leo) who generally dictates the rules to be followed. The fact that each one is part of, and only feels comfortable within a group setting goes against the very originality of thought expressed in Uranus. Must be a Moon thing in their charts?:)


F.
 
Last edited:

Frisiangal

Well-known member
Sivitri said:
I personally wouldn't really agree with the age of aquarius beginning with edison inventing electricity.
Although it is said in that manner, you missed out the hidden/truth/real identity of this lightening, it would most probably the lightening and wakening of humans soul to something, the age of pisces which symbolises the bond is the needless bonding and meaningless bond to materialism. It is only when this bond is broken when the lightening of humans spiritual sight of truth of this needless materialism.
In saying of lightening in this manner is too discrete in a sense that its too surfacial. No true depth in it. Sorry for the debuttal but its just my 2 cents.

No problem with a difference of thought. I'm a heavy Earth/Air person, so my instruction has been based upon fact proving theory. I don't call myself an astrological dinosaur for nothing.:)

Yet I can't help fear that the human souls awakening and yearning for the 'needless bonding to materialism'.....which must therefore include the human form and, thus, separation from Earth itself, both comprising of matter....are going to become very alienated from, and uncaring of each other. Which would bring us back to Uranus of Shining Ray's first post. Maybe the concept of the Creator will then be a giant computer regulating life from the cosmos.;)

F.
 

Sivitri

Well-known member
Frisiangal said:
No problem with a difference of thought. I'm a heavy Earth/Air person, so my instruction has been based upon fact proving theory. I don't call myself an astrological dinosaur for nothing.:)

Yet I can't help fear that the human souls awakening and yearning for the 'needless bonding to materialism'.....which must therefore include the human form and, thus, separation from Earth itself, both comprising of matter....are going to become very alienated from, and uncaring of each other. Which would bring us back to Uranus of Shining Ray's first post. Maybe the concept of the Creator will then be a giant computer regulating life from the cosmos.;)

F.

Ah... Yes. Thats rather true of what from my perspective of the new age. A dis-attachment from earth.Also an interesting age at which we get to meet aliens, higher - evolved beings alot better then humans. In terms of spiritual level and of technology. In time, humans will gradually move away from earth and seek home in the far galaxy. A rather interesting age!
 

Nexus7

Well-known member
'Its interesting to notice that groups who see themselves as operating outside the mainstream 'value' or the conventional law, seem to have their own very rigid codes of behaviour which they hold sacrosanct'

That is the point I wanted to make too, when I commented that it can be very easy to fall foul of these rigid codes of behaviour, at least in my experience.

Somehow the original impusle towared greater revision and freedom gets lot in an urger to conform whcih can be just as despotic as the original conformism it purports to despise.

I would not know if it is a Saturnian calcification thing, or a lunar desire to Belong or not - that is why I still do not know if this excusivity in being part of the Inner Circle is truly Uranian or not. This tendency to split into more and more mutually exclusive groups was noticed before - so maybe, this 'splitting' is art of Uranus - or perhaps not. Leninists versus Trotskyists, and so on, anyway, I do know Donna Cunningham also commented on this.

Kingsley - yes, I will stay in touch on the sbject of Chiron transits.

Here is anoher possibl epoint of departure - if Uranus is the rebel, then where would Chiron fit in here, as the maveric? Cold it be that a Chironic link might impel some kind of rebelling against the rebels, once the Dominant Authoriies have decreed what shall be the One Alternstive Way?
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
Gaer,

Then perhaps Uranus is the breaking point. :) When things break, they always appear to just snap apart, but obviously if we were to go back in time we could watch the item corrode and grow weaker to where it was almost certain to break. It's like when there's a bad part to your car and you're driving it to a mechanic. On the way there you're praying "Please don't break, please don't break". Not because it's in a cars nature to just break unexpectedly, but because we know a particular part of it is in bad shape and might not hold up much longer.

Uranus doesn't destroy and annihilate as Pluto does; it re-forms anything which has become outdated to provide change, yet leaving the original concept in tact.

I disagree with this. I don't think Pluto destroys anything, but unfortunately I don't think this is a Pluto thread. Gaer made a good point about the U.S. revolution, but I think we saw a particularly interesting thing in the French Revolution. A big rebellion with shiney lights, a whole new system of everything, and then they got Napoleon. Someone didn't think something through. So, in comparison, the U.S. revolution was successful and by basing their ideas off of concepts from past cultures' and philosophers' ideas that worked, they were able build something that's lasted for some 200 years. The French, however, who tried to build something completely new, just didn't work so well. So, if we wanted to take these into account as a sort of 'global goings on' reflecing an aspect of Uranus's personality, we could say Uranus works best when built upon the rock and not the sand. :)

Ah... Yes. Thats rather true of what from my perspective of the new age. A dis-attachment from earth.

I disagree, I think the New Age is about reconnecting with the Earth we seem to have forgotten about.


EDIT EDIT EDIT: Something I was thinking about. Please don't shoot me for referencing Oriental myth, but I thought it was interesting. In Shinto thought, there are three primal forces; the creater, the preserver, and the destroyer. These primal forces are one half of the "personalities" of the Three Imperial Treasures of Japan; the Kusanagi (草薙劍 grass mowing sword?), Yata no Kagami (八咫鏡 eight-span mirror?), and the Yasakani no Magatama (八尺瓊曲玉 large curved jewels?). While the sword Kusanagi represents valor, it is also the personality of the destroyer, the mirror Yata no Kagami represents wisdom, but also the personaity of the creator, and the jewels Yasakani no Magatama represents benevolence, but also has the personality of the preserver.

Now, that I've gone on about that, how do I make it fit? Well, I don't think it's any leap of the imagination to see Uranus as the sword (disruptions), Neptune as the mirror (reflections), and Pluto as the jewel (wealth). While the connections of those planets to the Imperial Regalia is not anything new, I hadn't thought of it in connection to the ideals of valor/destroyer, wisdom/creator, and benevolence/preserver.
 
Last edited:

Kingsley

Well-known member
Nexus7 said:
'Its interesting to notice that groups who see themselves as operating outside the mainstream 'value' or the conventional law, seem to have their own very rigid codes of behaviour which they hold sacrosanct'

Hi Nexus, good point

This is the exact point about the traditionalist concept of Aquarius and perhaps the the emphasis on Uranus' association with Aquarius.

Indeed groups such as bikies rebel in extreme scenarios however they have just as many rules and regulations as government law. They make their own, reformative justice!

Yes, Uranus individuates by separating two or more things. When you get a Uranus transit to an aspect of two natal planets, Uranus wants to split them up. He wants to individuate the two so that they know their separate functions. Uranus is a bit of a reductionist realy, and he likes to see spade as a spade and confronts the duality of any situation. Uranus perhaps can develop into a fibre optic state if he can keep the different impulses separate within the same conduit. I guess that requires some difinitive boundaries and folowing the rules of currents.

kingsley
 

Nexus7

Well-known member
It is hard to say with traditionalist rulerships.

I have seen the way this 'splitting' which could mean blackballing of those those face does not quite fit within a clique of so-called anti conforminsts in action enough times personally to want to question how this planet can be linked to a sign where notions of 'solidarity, brotherhood, sisterhood' are said to be such important themes, certainly.

In a way, Uranus seems to be as much as about defining enemies as it could be about friends. I think Mike Harding saw this Uranus theme as being one ultimately to do with separation, definitely, whereas Neptune might be more binding of individuals who might otherwise feel either separate or atomised.

I have seen thisproblem at work too, ncidentally, among those who are rrying to get a sense of what Eris might be all about. Eris, some people are saying, could be about defining who are firends and enemies - defining, separating again, in terms of who is One of Us or One of Them.

So with the questions about whether or not Uranus is misnamed too - I know Greene and Tarnas would rather it was called 'Prometheus' - so maybe there is still room to redefine what it is about - and particularly what it might not be about, if astrology decides to 'keep' Eris as a major planetary player alongside Eris and Pluto.

Still, Uranus's connection with madcap inventions and genius also fit in well with the sign Aquarius. My expereince of ther sign (and my parameters are not necessarily Sun-sign based, even less so than the almighty Liz Greene in fact) that Saturn seems to be a perfectly adequate ruler at times for it, whilst with others, others do seem to have more of the desire to to challenging in a more Uranian sort of a way.

Did you know that Charles Carter also had reservations about accepting Uranus as Aquarius's ruler, a good few decades before now?
 

gaer

Well-known member
Shining Ray said:
Here is a video that I found which goes well with my thread, fits the theme perfect. The title would have fitted the thread better as well. :rolleyes:

Dissociation in modern society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydWFHAmMOJ0


That's a very sad thing to watch. It certainly highlights the negative side of technology, and the negative side is enormous.

The flip side, for me, is that while I am waiting between two lessons that I teach, at work, instead of having nothing to do, I'm writing here, right now, to you.

I'm also able to start perhaps 10 times as many young children playing the piano because of inexpensive, affordable electronic keyboards. This allows people to start and try it out. They don't have to have an expensive accoustic instrument first.

And if a couple of people I've spoken to for almost 10 years in other countries do not write each day, I worry.

The only phrase that comes to mind right now is:

It is the best of times, the worst of times. Dickens with a tense change. :)

Technlogy. I love it. And I hate it. Both at the same time.

Gaer
 

gaer

Well-known member
Kaiousei no Senshi said:
"Aquarius is a humanitarian, so Uranus must be too." "Aquarius has to do with logic, so Uranus must have this connection also." No, I don't think so. I would have enjoyed Uranus in the age of original thought where he could have developed a personality that is separate (but perhaps crosses over) from his supposed ruling Sign.
I see an enormous problem, and I have no idea how to tackle it.

It's rather easy to identify people who have a sign very dominant in their charts. Just check how many planets are in that sign. (There are countless other things to consider, of course, but at least that's a good start.)

Now, sign dominance may not be all it seems if the planets in such a sign appear to be weak, by house, by aspect, by dignity, etc. But I think if we find 100 charts with the Sun, Moon and a couple personal planets all in the same sign, we might be on solid ground saying that this sign is very important.

That's why I keep bringing up Einstein. Of the seven traditional planets, only Jupiter is in an air sign (Aquarius), and only the Sun is in water (Pisces). Only Mars is in earth (Capricorn). Four are in fire. The Moon is in Sagittarius, while the remaing three, Mercury, Venus and Saturn, are all in Aries.

I would say that Aries dominates, certainly fire, in spite of the Pisces Sun. And everything I've read about Einstein, which includes several carelly written books, underscores his dislike of authority, his need for freedom, his inability to bend himself to the will of anyone else, or anything else. That certainly sounds like Aries to me.

That part is easy. But what is the dominant planet? That's a great deal more difficult, and possibly an interesting subject for another thread.

Which brings me to the problem, the one that bothers me:

How do we locate charts in which Uranus dominates as either the most powerful or one of perhaps two most powerful planets in a chart?

I have never thought about this before, and now I wonder why.

I'd love to see charts of famous people suggested as examples of a strong "Uranus". Certainly Einstein's placement seems important to me, since it is inconjunct the Mercury/Saturn conjunction in his 10th house. That conjunction is angular, in Aries it points towards originality and leadership, and Saturn there gives enormous powers of concentration, no surprise. But it would be nice to find Uranus in a chart, angular and forming important aspects to many planets.

Now, if we could find 100 charts like that, what would we find? As with all the outer planets, our major problem is that we have had much less time to study them. A couple centuries may seem like a lot of time, but in comparison to the original seven, I think we still have a long way to go before we "catch up" to what what we know about the ones we have used for thousands of years.

Gaer
 
Last edited:
Top