Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Astrology
Other Astrology
Research and Development
Confused about Pluto
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Konrad" data-source="post: 597521" data-attributes="member: 11466"><p>Waybread,</p><p></p><p>the "naked-eye" argument actually does hold up. Most of the significations of the planets come from their visible astronomical behaviours or mathematical conceptions of things like their visibility cycles and return periods. To suggest that the reason for not using Pluto is that it can't be "shoe-horned" into the essential dignity system is very misleading. It isn't used because it isn't part of the traditional system for the reason that it can't be seen in the night-sky.</p><p></p><p>As for your comments on combustion, they are quite frankly ridiculous, as you well know. I was debating whether or not to even respond to them, and I will for the simple reason that someone less knowledgeable than yourself may read them and believe them. Combustion is important, as you note, because a planet becomes invisible due to the power of the Sun's light. That the Sun is not visible at night is either here nor there, the point is that the planet is no longer visible either before the Sun rises or at night when it is below the earth. Similarly, that only the Moon is visible with the Sun during the day is meaningless (in this context anyway) as the others will be visible either in the morning before the Sun rises, or for some chunk of the night. As for Venus appearing brighter than Saturn, you actually prove the importance of naked-eye observation. This is one of the reasons Venus is associated with beneficial things, and Saturn is seen as a planet of maleficence at least in regard to sustaining life.</p><p></p><p>As for your comment on wearing eyeglasses, we tend not to find the norm or mean from those who are deficient somehow. I would not look to find a measure of health from one terminally ill. The fact that you need eyeglasses to see a planet does not negate the fact that they can be seen by those with healthy eyes and this vision of them appearing and disappearing is vital to the way they were interpreted even after people stopped watching the skies to interpret them. My point is that the observational astronomy of the Mesopotamians is fundamental to all astrology whether the practitioners know it or not. Telescopes have only been around since the 17th century, so no, they were not around in astrology's heyday.</p><p></p><p>Finally, in regard to your final comment about the efficacy of Pluto, I remember putting forth my chart as I have all three outers in either the 1st or 10th house, so my thinking was that I should exhibit their significations quite strongly. If you remember, it didn't go well. I was even told that I had the wrong birth-time! I would go as far to say that anything one attributes to the outer planets in a chart reading can be spoken for without them. My personal preferences aside, I will say it would be better for all astrologers to learn to work fully with the seven traditional planets before working with the invisible ones. As an example, it would be better to look for some Venus/Saturn affliction when speaking of substance abuse rather than jumping straight to Neptune.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Konrad, post: 597521, member: 11466"] Waybread, the "naked-eye" argument actually does hold up. Most of the significations of the planets come from their visible astronomical behaviours or mathematical conceptions of things like their visibility cycles and return periods. To suggest that the reason for not using Pluto is that it can't be "shoe-horned" into the essential dignity system is very misleading. It isn't used because it isn't part of the traditional system for the reason that it can't be seen in the night-sky. As for your comments on combustion, they are quite frankly ridiculous, as you well know. I was debating whether or not to even respond to them, and I will for the simple reason that someone less knowledgeable than yourself may read them and believe them. Combustion is important, as you note, because a planet becomes invisible due to the power of the Sun's light. That the Sun is not visible at night is either here nor there, the point is that the planet is no longer visible either before the Sun rises or at night when it is below the earth. Similarly, that only the Moon is visible with the Sun during the day is meaningless (in this context anyway) as the others will be visible either in the morning before the Sun rises, or for some chunk of the night. As for Venus appearing brighter than Saturn, you actually prove the importance of naked-eye observation. This is one of the reasons Venus is associated with beneficial things, and Saturn is seen as a planet of maleficence at least in regard to sustaining life. As for your comment on wearing eyeglasses, we tend not to find the norm or mean from those who are deficient somehow. I would not look to find a measure of health from one terminally ill. The fact that you need eyeglasses to see a planet does not negate the fact that they can be seen by those with healthy eyes and this vision of them appearing and disappearing is vital to the way they were interpreted even after people stopped watching the skies to interpret them. My point is that the observational astronomy of the Mesopotamians is fundamental to all astrology whether the practitioners know it or not. Telescopes have only been around since the 17th century, so no, they were not around in astrology's heyday. Finally, in regard to your final comment about the efficacy of Pluto, I remember putting forth my chart as I have all three outers in either the 1st or 10th house, so my thinking was that I should exhibit their significations quite strongly. If you remember, it didn't go well. I was even told that I had the wrong birth-time! I would go as far to say that anything one attributes to the outer planets in a chart reading can be spoken for without them. My personal preferences aside, I will say it would be better for all astrologers to learn to work fully with the seven traditional planets before working with the invisible ones. As an example, it would be better to look for some Venus/Saturn affliction when speaking of substance abuse rather than jumping straight to Neptune. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Astrology
Other Astrology
Research and Development
Confused about Pluto
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top