JUPITERASC
Well-known member
THEMA MUNDI DISCUSSION thread http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=402663#post402663
Is Pluto an astrological planet?
- Thread starter JUPITERASC
- Start date
graay ghost
Well-known member
Sure. And you had an idyllic childhood, never went hungry, your girlfriends or boyfriends are always wonderful, buckets full of supportive friends, great career, loads of money, never had major disappointments, , never been ill, no accidents....
And you don't feel all alienated
I'm stretching a bit, but if your chart is as awful as you say it is, I'm guessing that what I wrote above isn't completely true and that some of those things had an impact on you.
The idea that everyone has some hardship is kind of... I don't know. Seems like a stupid non-answer. It doesn't seem like a life that merely isn't "charmed" would be signified by such pointedly placed malefics.
There is always the perpetual dread that things can and will get worse, you know?
Thanks. I'm not sure how relevant the astrology part of it is but this reminds me that I should be looking into Zoroastrianism...
http://www.astrologyweekly.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/
Oddity
Well-known member
The idea that everyone has some hardship is kind of... I don't know. Seems like a stupid non-answer. It doesn't seem like a life that merely isn't "charmed" would be signified by such pointedly placed malefics.
There is always the perpetual dread that things can and will get worse, you know.
Then it would seem that things are already bad, no?
A by no means hard and fast rule: If a malefic is well dignified and angular, the native often profits from harm to others. Example: your parents die in a gruesome accident, you inherit millions.
This can sometimes make very bad people who seem good and wise. It happens. It's not wildly common, but it can be an 'out for yourself only' kind of deal, though that takes it to some of the extremes of interpretation.
Or sometimes you'll be a good person, but the harm to others is in some way inevitable.
If the malefic is in poor dignity and strongly placed, then the harm is going to come to you, or possibly be generated by you. If you have weak malefics, it can mean that you do not control their expression well, so that instead of breaking your anger on compassion, you're out breaking heads. Bad, bad, bad. Or someone could break your head, you might be the victim.
I've seen more than a few charts where angular malefics badly dignified and in opposition has led to death from a fall, though the person was a nice person. Planets are not always indicative of personalities.
It depends on so many chart factors how it's going to play out. Prominent malefics do not tend to make for an easy life, but by themselves they don't make for a horrible one either.
graay ghost
Well-known member
I mean, I get that they don't define personality.
There is also the question of why anyone would want to actually know this information, if it is in fact information that can be known. It is still one of those things where you can't change your birth and if stars say you're ******, you're ******, and I mean, your only options are being ****** and knowing you're going to be ****** or being ****** by surprise. I kind of think getting ****** by surprise might be better, but I do understand that it is a philosophical difference.
Oddity
Well-known member
I can respect that. But there are enough times when you can stay off the water for three months, or go to a doctor for a small problem before it turns huge and the like, or don't marry that person you're so hot on because it will be a disaster, that it can be worthwhile for some folks to know.
It can't all be predicted, and sometimes you're wrong, but it is still an amazingly useful source of counsel. To me, at least.
As you get older, you'll know that the bad is going to happen, astrology or no. That may be our philosophical difference right there.
graay ghost
Well-known member
So it's all because I'm a dumb young'un?
All the things you say are risk avoidance, though. The fact is that avoidance is always going to be safer than actually doing anything. If you don't do something, there's no risk. Humans are structured this way, that's why we, and pretty much any other animal, sees much more danger than there actually is in the world.
I mean I've thought of becoming a hermit and avoiding the entire world. It would prevent a great deal of problems, wouldn't it?So in this way it seems better not to worry about things, but I am asking a lot of myself because it is very contrary to my nature. But there's no living otherwise, not really.
Oddity
Well-known member
So it's all because I'm a dumb young'un?
Maybe? I don't think of it as being dumb. And you can certainly be aware of it young, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
After you watch a lot of people you care about and your contemporaries age and die, God forbid your kids predecease you, as you age and die, it kind of hits you that everyone you love and you are going to die. Probably badly. Not just in a philosophical way.
Do you understand what I mean?
All the things you say are risk avoidance, though. The fact is that avoidance is always going to be safer than actually doing anything. If you don't do something, there's no risk. Humans are structured this way, that's why we, and pretty much any other animal, sees much more danger than there actually is in the world.
So in this way it seems better not to worry about things, but I am asking a lot of myself because it is very contrary to my nature. But there's no living otherwise, not really.
It's a little bit of risk avoidance. If you avoid everything because bad things might happen if you do them - well, worse things are probably going to happen if you don't. And that kind of 'risk avoidance' has nothing to do with astrology.
graay ghost
Well-known member
I mean, on one hand, I guess so, but on the other, I'll be stunned if I outlive any of my contemporaries. I mean I'll be kind of stunned if I live past 25.
So I guess it, again, depends on if you get to live that long.
waybread
Well-known member
LOL, Oddity.
Now you're getting the hang of writing a spoof. I didn't realize that you had such a delicious sense of humour.JA, define "wander." But don't be surprised if the outers "wander," as well.
I thought you didn't like digressions from the OP.
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
either you have lost the '1971 edition of the OED'
or
are being obtuse
or
you continue to ignore and not read my posts
i.e.
because the traditional astrological meaning of “stars that wander”
has already been stated
i.e.
'Planets' are so-named in order to distinguish them from 'fixed stars'
Greek word 'planētēs' = 'wanderer'
however, since you seem in need
I re-iterate
The traditional definition of 'an astrological planet' includes Sun and Moon
i.e.
'Planets' are 'stars that wander'
as distinguished from
'stars that are fixed'
"....Old French from Late Latin planēta,
from Greek planētēs wanderer,
from planaein to wander..."
given that
the traditional definition of “Stars that wander”
as distinct from “stars that are fixed”
requires simple individual observation of the skies
without the use of the Hubble telescope
or
the Lowell Observatory
or computer software
or even the '1971 edition of the OED'
then obviously
of the classical planets orbiting the sun
Saturn is clearly the outermost of the traditional classical planets 'that wanders'
Odd that you seem unaware of forum policy
by the way
the current modern astrological definition of 'astrological planet' on this thread
i.e.
By that definition means the following illustrated dwarf planets are all 'astrological planets'
and there are many more, similar 'dwarf astrological planets'
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Life can be surprisingI mean, on one hand, I guess so, but on the other, I'll be stunned if I outlive any of my contemporaries.
I mean I'll be kind of stunned if I live past 25.
Certainly, everything is interdependent
waybread
Well-known member
JA, no need to repeat yourself. Or engage in insults. If you do this again, I will flag your posts for the mods.
I want your definition of wander. I mean, I appreciate the etymology run-down, but it doesn't constitute a definition.
Incidentally, I just realized that the 1971 OED has a supplement on the back, which does include the word "Pluto". They must have accidentally left it out of the main text. (Americans of my vintage may recall Book of the Month Club's two-volume boxed set with microscopically tiny print, but also with its own magnifying glass.)
"[...the god of the underworld and brother of Jupiter and Neptune.] A more remote planet than Neptune, discovered in 1930."
By any definition, Pluto, the asteroids, the trans-Plutonians "wander" if this is your term to distinguish planets, as you just used it in your previous text. Moreover, some of the outers and major asteroids can be seen with a strong pair of binoculars or a reasonably priced "backyard" telescope. Sorry, but if "wander" is your key word here, then all of the asteroids and Kuiper Belt objects should be in, which is more than modern astrologers (yet) claim.
I still have my old OED, and here's how it defines "wander." Do you accept this definition? Its root is from the Germanic languages, not Greek or Latin, incidentally.
1. "Of persons and animals. To move hither and thither without fixed course or certain aim. To be (in motion) without control or direction; to roam, ramble, go idly or restlessly about; to have no fixed abode or station."
2. "Of an inanimate thing. To travel, move, or be carried about in an uncertain course, to stray."
The subsequent definitions (like the metaphorical ones) are pretty much like the above.
So if you're good with these definitions of "wander", we have to admit that they do not match up with astrologers' use of ephemerides-- which date back to ancient Mesopotamia, prior to the invention of horoscopic astrology. Planets' positions, in fact, are highly predictable-- even in comparison with fixed stars.
Why are you so bothered by the possibility of hundreds of trans-Neptunians? These aren't an argument against astrological Pluto. Modern astrologers digested the fact of thousands of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter, just as trads digested hundreds of fixed stars and lots. Throw in the minor essential dignities, planetary joys, and pitted degrees, and you've got a huge number of data-bytes that I personally don't bother with. Some of us modern astrologers use asteroids judiciously, and some of us don't. To each her own. They don't bother us in the slightest.
You write as though you're afraid of something unknown and chaotic, that you can't control.
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Obviously, since you are continually repeating the same question
there is a clear need to repeat the answer
to the same question that you keep repeating
My posts are no more insulting than your posts
On the contrary 'the given definition' constitutes the traditional definition of 'planets'
the etymology makes that very clear
Traditionally
'Planets' are so-named in order to distinguish them from 'fixed stars'
Greek word 'planētēs' = 'wanderer'
....The traditional definition of 'an astrological planet' includes Sun and Moon
i.e.
'Planets' are 'stars that wander'
as distinguished from
'stars that are fixed'
"....Old French from Late Latin planēta,
from Greek planētēs wanderer,
from planaein to wander..."
QED
Clearly NOT by traditional definition
i.e.
Exactly
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
On the contrary
'..... even under the best of circumstances, finding Pluto isn’t easy.
Pluto never shows a resolvable disk in even the largest backyard telescope,
and instead, always appears like a tiny star-like point. .....'
On the contrary
The fact is the modern word 'planet' originates from or is derived from the Greek word planētēs = wanderer
Clearly, Traditionally speaking
Celestial objects that are invisible without a telescope
cannot qualify as either stars that wander
or any other kind of star
The definition you have cited is one you have repeated previously
and it is irrelevant to the traditional meaning of the word 'planet'
which is originally derived from the Greek
and so
'planētēs' = planet = wanderer
Huh? If you are referring to 'scary dwarf astrological planet pluto' then you definitely do have a sense of humor
obviously
by traditional definition then
of the classical planets orbiting the sun
Saturn is clearly the outermost of the traditional classical planets 'that wanders'...
Oddity
Well-known member
One last thing: dim fixed stars were recognised by ancient and medieval astronomy/astrology. But they weren't used in astrological delineation because they didn't give enough light to have much, if any, influence.
Kuiper Belt objects, asteroids, Neptune, all fail the 'star' test on the same grounds. I suppose an argument for Uranus and Vesta doing something sometimes could be made, but they'd play such a small part, if they would play any part at all, that one can easily do delineations without them.
Kuiper Belt objects, asteroids, Neptune, all fail the 'star' test on the same grounds. I suppose an argument for Uranus and Vesta doing something sometimes could be made, but they'd play such a small part, if they would play any part at all, that one can easily do delineations without them.
waybread
Well-known member
Got it, but I'll give you the same challenge I gave JA. Define "wander".
And keeping in mind that nobody accepts this antiquated "naked eye" restriction except for some orthodox trads. Everybody else accepts lenses and magnification, not only in astrology but in every other single aspect of their lives. Many more relaxed and open trads use the modern outers as additional data points. Some of them are respected traditional astrologers like Olivia Barclay, J. Lee Lehman, and "Paul," horary moderator at Skyscript and former member of this forum. Skyscript, the premier English language website on traditional astrology, includes several articles on using Pluto in the horoscope.
So it's not just that modern astrology didn't work for you back in the 70s, even though other modern astrologers found that it worked very well; but that you don't want anybody else to use it now, despite ongoing progress in modern astrology since back-then.
I can see that Pluto doesn't fit into Ptolemy's table of essential dignities, or an ancient Greek view of planets adhering to non-existent celestial spheres. I can see that some astrologers simply want to practice the type of astrology practiced during Hellenistic, Medieval, or Renaissance times. These would be reasons not to use Pluto. But the naked eye argument doesn't hold up.
Trads are fond of claiming Galileo and Kepler as astrologers, and you bet they used telescopes. Telescopes enabled Galileo to discover Jupiter's moons. Kepler advanced research into optics, and invented an improved telescope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler * It beggars the imagination to think that astrologers who used all kinds of instruments available at their times in history (such as armillary spheres, astrolabes, the antikythera mechanism, described as the world's first analog computer) wouldn't have discovered Uranus or Neptune if they could have, with the quality of telescopes available in their day. (Pluto had to wait the development of photographic plates.)
Indeed, Galileo observed Neptune in1612, but mistook it for a fixed star, apparently because it was stationary at the time he recorded it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune
Moreover, *"Kepler lived in an era when there was no clear distinction between astronomy and astrology, but there was a strong division between astronomy (a branch of mathematics within the liberal arts) and physics (a branch of natural philosophy)."
I don't know of any orthodox trads who wish to claim the entire tradition from which they cherry-picked their "naked eye" definition.
Last edited:
Oddity
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure Galileo wasn't using the moons of Jupiter in astrological delineation.
I never said that nobody should use Pluto. I do believe I said use anything you like. Asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects, whatever. I'm not going to, but that certainly shouldn't stop you from doing it if you feel that it helps you achieve whatever you're trying to achieve with astrology.
I really don't get how you think that the original astrological definition of planets is cherry picked. You may not like it, and you may not agree with it, but it is what it is, and as you've read extensively in traditional astrology, you know there are sound philosophical reasons for that.
You don't have to use it, I should think that's obvious. But you're not correct in saying that it's wrong for those who use traditional techniques to rely on traditional definitions.
But again, we come to: in modern astrology, a planet is something in the sky that's personally meaningful to the astrologer, and isn't a star or an asteroid.
Is there a problem with that defintion? Because that's what the thread was originally about. How does modern astrology define an astrological planet?
I never said that nobody should use Pluto. I do believe I said use anything you like. Asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects, whatever. I'm not going to, but that certainly shouldn't stop you from doing it if you feel that it helps you achieve whatever you're trying to achieve with astrology.
I really don't get how you think that the original astrological definition of planets is cherry picked. You may not like it, and you may not agree with it, but it is what it is, and as you've read extensively in traditional astrology, you know there are sound philosophical reasons for that.
You don't have to use it, I should think that's obvious. But you're not correct in saying that it's wrong for those who use traditional techniques to rely on traditional definitions.
But again, we come to: in modern astrology, a planet is something in the sky that's personally meaningful to the astrologer, and isn't a star or an asteroid.
Is there a problem with that defintion? Because that's what the thread was originally about. How does modern astrology define an astrological planet?
There are lots of astrologers who use asteroids. Do you know how many asteroids there are, bloody thousands. Pluto Uranus and Neptune are planets and part of the solar system until, well, Pluto was "demoted" to a dwarf planet, but planet it remained didnt it? The ancients couldnt see past Saturn because they did not have the capability, rather than not the will or wonder.
Id rather use Pluto if it seems relevant in a chart than say an asteroid named Marilyn to decipher Monroes birth chart!
Outer planets dont have to mean traditional methods be discarded, they can enhance at least surely, theres only three major ones since the last 2 or 3 centuries, not much to ask, and I dont rate chiron personally , more confusion than explanation
Im too behind with this thread now so out of it,sorry
Last edited: