Confused about Pluto

muchacho

Well-known member
Chart file is not displayed :alien:

Of course we can, but depends on what you want your outtake to be:

If you explain something like neptune-conjunct sun in the 12:"your misterious self awararness grants you a a resolution for spiritual evolution....etc"

We are clearly able to describe a person, but we do it in a more realistic down to earth way- So while the test is interesting, depends on the expected results.

I've noticed by your post that perhaps that is why we can't get to an agreement, given that the nature of the outers, you grant to them significances we consider a bit unreal, for example:

We don't deal on unrealistic terms. Emotional depth for example, not sure what could imply:

- as in is the person supceptible to emotional needs? is able to understand its emotions? is all day thinking about its emotions?

We can analyze those things, but we do it as seperate objective things, not mash-up significations of feelings.

For example that mention of pluto is similar to what I said of the moon disconnected from the Asc or its ruler, a person that may or may not be able to connect to its emotions. If we would find the moon in mutual reception with the Asc ruler, could be considered what you can qualify as "emotional depth", but we would call it a person that is aligned and supceptible with its feelings.

The explanations for those kind of things will obviously be able to be explained: once you break it down into objective things.

Obviously if you expect for us to find an explanation to: "spiritual evolution", we clearly won't, since we don't believe in that.

In the same way that you cannot replace Scorpio with Aries and Capricorn or the 8th House with the 1st House and the 10th House, you cannot replace Pluto with Mars and Saturn. Those are different signatures. So, to me, the question is not if we need a Pluto or not. We need it, of course. The question is if the object we call Pluto is really matching the signature of Scorpio. So far it does seem that way.

And you are right, the energies of the outer planets are more subtle and therefore way more powerful than the inner planets. They are difficult to pin down. Pluto is way more powerful than Mars. You can't really see that power (as with Aries or Mars). You can only see the effects that manifest as a result of that power at work. That's what I mean with 'depth'. The inner planets can't give you that. As you say, you don't even have the vocabulary for that. That's what this exercise will show you. The outer planets have indeed something to add.

But it really depends on the chart you've got. If you have the Sun (Self) and Mercury (intellect) in Scorpio (like you) then you've already got very strong Scorpio qualities in your chart that influence every aspect of your life and the influence of Pluto won't be obvious. So, I understand your conclusion to some degree. For that same reason, our first example of Moon conjunct Pluto in the 3rd House in Libra wasn't such an ideal example either since the 4th House is in Scorpio.

edit: about the breaking down into objective things... you can actually just go into more abstractions in return. I think abstractions should also work with traditional methods, you just haven't practiced it. After all, both traditional and modern astrology just create a map of the territory, but they all have to deal with the same territory and also with the same 12 basic principles/energies, so I'd say it isn't really a matter of abstract vs. concrete. It's more a question of being able to handle abstractions (where the traditionalist may be lacking) vs. being ablate to handle objective things (where the modernist may be lacking)
 
Last edited:

muchacho

Well-known member
Let's give it a couple of days and see who contributes. If no one contributes, then I will post a short interpretation and then Dirius can try to match the modern interpretation with just his traditional method. So, let's just take our time. This is important and going to be a game changer.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
In the same way that you cannot replace Scorpio with Aries and Capricorn or the 8th House with the 1st House and the 10th House, you cannot replace Pluto with Mars and Saturn. Those are different signatures. So, to me, the question is not if we need a Pluto or not. We need it, of course. The question is if the object we call Pluto is really matching the signature of Scorpio. So far it does seem that way.

Not really, because no one is exchanging one for the other.

In the example you gave, the conclusion of pluto relating to the person being in sync with its feelings, is more related to the moon being related to the ascendant, rather than to a planet.

Mars and Saturn add their own significance. We both sort of mention similar things (albeit in different ways).

In the example you gave, things you said about pluto, are more related to the general state of the moon in perspective to the sun (because of light), and its aspect to the asc ruler.

And you are right, the energies of the outer planets are more subtle and therefore way more powerful than the inner planets. They are difficult to pin down. Pluto is way more powerful than Mars. You can't really see that power (as with Aries or Mars). You can only see the effects that manifest as a result of that power at work. That's what I mean with 'depth'. The inner planets can't give you that. As you say, you don't even have the vocabulary for that. That's what this exercise will show you. The outer planets have indeed something to add.
If by "something" to add, you mean some cheap delineation using words like: powerfull, spiritual, deep, mysterious....

Then to some audience listening to that type of stuff might be convincing, but to others it won't. Because the purpose is to be correct, not to make the client be flattered.

The outers essentially add "miss-information" rather than information. Because you can't obtain objective information from them.

Think about real pshycologists. They don't go around telling their patients: "you have a deep analytical mind....etc".

They tell them what is wrong with them and how to fix it. That is what the chart shows.

Embelishments are not really neccesary. Unless of course the client just wants to pay money to listen to nice things said about themselves.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Let's give it a couple of days and see who contributes. If no one contributes, then I will post a short interpretation and then Dirius can try to match the modern interpretation with just his traditional method. So, let's just take our time. This is important and going to be a game changer.

You can do it right now actually :kissing:

I mean, the point of the excersice is to check if we traditionalists can match the modern delineation...

for that we would only need 1 delineation.
 

waybread

Staff member
That's an interesting challenge. Let's test it with this chart and see if the outer planets make no difference whatsoever. I invite the modernists to post their interpretation of the 3 outer planets in this chart and the traditionalists to explain how these interpretations can be explained with the traditional planets alone. You can also only focus on Pluto if it's too much effort.

Another blind chart reading? Can you say something about this person? Also, why the sidereal whole signs?

Dirius and Jupiter Ascendant, I am waiting for you both to read Elizabeth Smart's chart, which I posted above, with full biographical information to make it easy for you, in light of the explanations I have given of Pluto.

Dirius, you are really mistaken about clinical and counseling psychologists. Have you ever been in therapy? Much of what they do is simply listen to people, and to try to gently get them to the point where the clients know how to solve their own problems. This isn't a top-down "father knows best" process.

One thing to understand about Pluto in modern natal chart interpretation is that it often works through the sub-conscious-- especially at the onset of a difficult transit. Similarly, the moon as one's emotional nature is hard to explain, because emotions don't dwell much in words-- that's Mercury's domain.

An analogy would be that you can read a recipe or a menu (Mercury,) but that isn't the same as your sensation of eating the food (moon.) For example, describe to me what it is like to eat chocolate! You might go some distance with bitter and sweet; but that really isn't going to explain to someone what chocolate is like. You might describe the taste as "delicious," which is on a par with your criticizing the expression that someone "has a deep intellect." You have to experience the taste, and that sensory experience doesn't exist in Mercury's domain.

And if "your astrology" cannot get at the subconscious then, of course, it is going to be difficult for you to read natal charts in a way that helps people explore their identities.

I've found in reading charts for people that sometimes it's best to be suggestive rather than definitive-- because the goal is for people to become more self-aware, not to play magus with them, not for the astrologer to position him/herself in some kind of superior position.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Dirius and Jupiter Ascendant,
I am waiting for you both to read Elizabeth Smart's chart, which I posted above,
with full biographical information to make it easy for you, in light of the explanations I have given of Pluto.
I quote one of the explanations you have given re: Pluto
And yes, if you feel Pluto in your life, it works as an astrological planet.
clearly then, using your own criteria, to make it even easier for you
if you do not feel Pluto in your life, it DOES NOT work as an astrological planet
:smile:
 

muchacho

Well-known member
Another blind chart reading? Can you say something about this person? Also, why the sidereal whole signs?
It's just a random chart to challenge Dirius' theory that what the outers seem to add can by fully explained with the traditional planets alone, therefore no need for Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. So it's not like Konrad's challenge. The modern delineation will definitely describe a personality that has Pluto/Scorpio traits written all over it. And I want to see how the traditional method can arrive at exactly the same conclusion without having any planet in Scorpio or the 8th House that they could work with. I don't think it's possible, but we will see. And with Pluto in the 1st House conjunct the Ascendant, I think we can be very concrete about looks, manners and general outlook, something Dirius can deal with, hehe. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

StillOne

Well-known member

astralrabbit

Account Closed
I never implied I'm more intelligent. Just that I employ techniques and methods that are much harder to apply, than what "general" modern astrology employs- which is true.

Fair enough; however, again I disagree with this blanket statement. I would say it is safe to state that there are quite a few "modernist" who employ traditional techniques that take into consideration the energy of the outer planets. They may be labeled as eclectic; but that's cool as....
I certainly have been studying harder now concerning traditional technique; so but I at this moment in time, I am certainly not persuaded by what you have presented. Try harder. What's that old saying? "You catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar!":wink:




I don't need to incorporate anything. Classical planets as they are, already provide me with much more information that what you get with outer planets.

Erm okay, so how would the general description of Uranus play out then and deciphered similarly in a traditional manner? Something like....?.... Gemini Asc with Mercury Retrograde in Virgo opposite Sun in Pisces :andy: with Mercury furthermore inconjunct Mars in Aries and Saturn in Aquarius; along with the natal planet being square the lot of Eros and ,Venus of course, at full speed at the 22nd degree of capricorn in a Diurnal chart..... ? hmmm.... What I am asking; is how can you explain " a general transiting outer planetary energy to one of the inner planets, "by using the seven classical planets that are transiting at the same given time, when you would need 2 or more of those planets that combine influence with one of the luminaries and hold dignity with in a specific sphere of influence to equal the modernist's definition of the outer planet's energy, to give the same affect?

The hermetic lots have nothing to do with energies. As I explained, they are representations of the middle points in which the Asc (the self) meets the planet which the lot is related to.

I disagree with what you state here. The Hermetic Lots have everything to do with energy my dear sir and you know it. They are mathematical calculations representative of the energy of any one of the 7 classical planets
and the culmination of that energy realized through self. They are not visible to the naked eye in the sky, but only through observation of their manifestation through the native's behavior.


Using traditional techniques, you get all the information, so you don't really need outer planets.

Show us then and with certainty. I have read that the onus of proof is upon the modern view. In rebuttal, I say hogwash~ In observation, the perceived awareness is one in which the general consensus has supported the recognition of the outer planetary energy. That is why such grievance has given way to a cacophony of discourse clamored by a minute portion of the Astrological community representative here on this thread. There has been only 3 of you who vehemently support your view that you state here, versus more than 3 that have spoken up in opposition to your stance. Elementary statistics employed alone here would support my stated observation.


The example you are giving about a Native having a planet that makes no aspect to any other planet, can be explained by many different things.

There are more things aside planetary aspects in charts: essential dignities, speed, position in relation to the sun, reception through signs, house placement, etc.

I can not speak for everyone else; but I do take into account all of these techniques that you state here minus the position in relation to the sun. These techniques are important when discerning which key energies are most readily expressed; I would imagine that most modern astrologers look at these. That is what I learned eventually in my studies. I do agree with the insinuation that it is not only the aspects between planets that make a person who they are.

I do however understand how your perception can be as it is; for instance, when I first started learning, all had to learn from was Astrodienst, and the first thing you look at as a newbie when learning about the signs is the planets and how they act in conversation to each other. One who is serious and who has the energy to dig deeper and study harder will do so and see that the techniques that you speak upon above are important.



Obviously if you expect for us to find an explanation to: "spiritual evolution", we clearly won't, since we don't believe in that.

I surmise that your statement is your own perceptual reality and is more than likely not in alignment with all practicing traditional Astrologers.
How do you conceptualize the Lot of Spirit? From my understanding and what little research that I have given the Lot; it is primarily associated with the mind and the soul of the individual. Soul, being the most important part of this statement I add. I mean look at Classical Mythological works that follow heroes deep into the bowels of Hades. Again, I must surmise that many great Astrologers of the past were most certainly concerned with spiritual evolution and that is one of the reasons why the energy of the outer planets have become included.
 
Last edited:

Oddity

Well-known member
How do you conceptualize the Lot of Spirit? From my understanding and what little research that I have given the Lot; it is primarily associated with the mind and the soul of the individual. Soul, being the most important part of this statement I add. I mean look at Classical Mythological works that follow heroes deep into the bowels of Hades. Again, I must surmise that many great Astrologers of the past were most certainly concerned with spiritual evolution and that is one of the reasons why the energy of the outer planets have become included.

The lot of spirit is frequently mischaraterised as a marker of 'spiritual evolution' or somesuch.

How it actually works is this: Fortuna shows what happens to you, the things beyond your control. Spiritus shows what you can do in the world, how you can act and react, and not necessarily in spiritual ways - the use of the world 'spiritual' at all in astrology tends to unnerve me, because I don't hold with Theosophist belief, and that is where modern astrology got it from.

Interesting point of not-so-trivia: Are you left-handed or ambidextrous? If so, Fortuna and Spritus probably switch places in your chart. Lefties tend to have the charts where the astronomy of things dictates this happens, which is kind of an interesting working out of as above, so below.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The lot of spirit is frequently mischaraterised as a marker of 'spiritual evolution' or somesuch.

How it actually works is this: Fortuna shows what happens to you, the things beyond your control. Spiritus shows what you can do in the world, how you can act and react, and not necessarily in spiritual ways - the use of the world 'spiritual' at all in astrology tends to unnerve me, because I don't hold with Theosophist belief, and that is where modern astrology got it from.

Interesting point of not-so-trivia: Are you left-handed or ambidextrous? If so, Fortuna and Spritus probably switch places in your chart. Lefties tend to have the charts where the astronomy of things dictates this happens, which is kind of an interesting working out of as above, so below.

one of our members Curtis Manwaring has an article on this subject :smile:
on his website
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/arabic-parts.html
 

astralrabbit

Account Closed
The lot of spirit is frequently mischaraterised as a marker of 'spiritual evolution' or somesuch.

How it actually works is this: Fortuna shows what happens to you, the things beyond your control. Spiritus shows what you can do in the world, how you can act and react, and not necessarily in spiritual ways - the use of the world 'spiritual' at all in astrology tends to unnerve me, because I don't hold with Theosophist belief, and that is where modern astrology got it from.

Interesting point of not-so-trivia: Are you left-handed or ambidextrous? If so, Fortuna and Spritus probably switch places in your chart. Lefties tend to have the charts where the astronomy of things dictates this happens, which is kind of an interesting working out of as above, so below.

Thank you Oddity,very well said; however I digress back to the essence of what I spoke upon; and that was to state that many Hellenistic writings were presented implying that the spirit or the soul was the object of manifestation; from Sun to Moon (spirit to matter) or vice versa. In reflection, such transformation of the spirit could be considered to evolve from one state of being to another.
Transformation being the key word. This is where I recognize the energy of Pluto in transit to a sensitive point in the chart. A way of being or and idea usually ends with its energy in transit and is transformed to new awareness. This to me is an evolution of sorts pertaining to mind, body, and soul.

one of our members Curtis Manwaring has an article on this subject :smile:
on his website
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/arabic-parts.html

Thank you Jupiter~
 
Top