Nobody I've asked seems to explain it well: Why don't the "cusp rules" apply to rising signs. Mine is less than a half degree of Sagittarius; why shouldn't I or anybody else exhibit the Archer? Now, Scorpio truly defines my ascendant, yet if the cusp works in almost every other situation why wouldn't it exert itself here? Is there actual theoretical rationale at work, or is it just because astrologers have said so for centuries?
Rising Sign and the Confounding Cusp
- Thread starter benyaw
- Start date
Are you absolutely certain of your birth time? If you relate more to Scorpio, you may actually have Scorpio rising because the angles progress so quickly (something like one degree per 4 minutes). If you are going by your birth certificate, sometimes doctors round the time off and even by a little bit it could be a different sign
Frisiangal
Well-known member
Hi,
The Ascending sign and M.C. axies are calculated from the exact time and place of birth. They are the only truly reliable points of the chart because they remain the constant, whichever house system is preferred. Within minutes of your birth, the earth's rotation no longer puts your birth place in line with a degree in Scorpio on the Eastern horizon, but Sagittarius. THIS is the difference. It has nothing to do with the Ascendant being 'pulled' towards the next sign. The rising sign is a position based upon a geographical and astronomical fact.
Does that make things clearer ?
F.
The Ascending sign and M.C. axies are calculated from the exact time and place of birth. They are the only truly reliable points of the chart because they remain the constant, whichever house system is preferred. Within minutes of your birth, the earth's rotation no longer puts your birth place in line with a degree in Scorpio on the Eastern horizon, but Sagittarius. THIS is the difference. It has nothing to do with the Ascendant being 'pulled' towards the next sign. The rising sign is a position based upon a geographical and astronomical fact.
Does that make things clearer ?
F.
To Frisiangal,
Yes, that makes sense. And for the record, I am Scoripio rising: 29:43 degrees. Still, it amazes me that my penchant for medicine, mystery, and metaphysics - along with Scorpio's...ah, more nefarious facets - would not exist if I was born just minutes later.
Thanks for explanation.
Yes, that makes sense. And for the record, I am Scoripio rising: 29:43 degrees. Still, it amazes me that my penchant for medicine, mystery, and metaphysics - along with Scorpio's...ah, more nefarious facets - would not exist if I was born just minutes later.
Thanks for explanation.
Arian Maverick
Well-known member
I do not believe that one's Ascendant is necessarily indicative of one's true self, but rather, the way a person presents themselves to the outside world. I am sure that there are plenty of other factors in your natal chart that explain these interests
Arian Maverick
Frisiangal
Well-known member
benyaw said:
It might if you also have Pluto prominently figured in your chart. With Scorpio on the Ascendant, Pluto becomes chart ruler and its nature is intensified through who you are. But you also have progr. Ascendant in Sagittarius for the forming years of your life, which has an affinity with medicine (health and/or specialisation) as well as metaphysical concepts. Transiting Pluto has also been in your first house for many years.
I would think that Scorpio Ascendant would mean that you do not accept things at face value. You will tend to delve deeper into their origin of meanings before you come to believe in their personal importance to you.
Lunar Pisces
Well-known member
Frisiangal is right. In astrology a calculated point behave differently from actual, physical bodies. As Frisiangal says, a calculated point is hypothetical and can be assumed static and constant in a horoscope, while the physical bodies are moving - something that is taken into consideration with cusps (and to a lesser degree, aspects too). Even stars, which we percieve as stantionary, are "moving" in the sense the Earth is moving, and so the distance between Earth and the stars is constantingly changing. So in cases of moving bodies, it is apropriate to say that a cusp represents that body moving into the next sign.
I hope that doesn't confuse you.
I hope that doesn't confuse you.
Hi Benyaw,
I'm afraid I would have to be characteristically difficult and disagree with this.
With Scorpio on the Ascendant, Mars is the ruler of the Ascendant, and not necessarily the ruling planet in the chart as a whole, which would be the planet given to most dignity.
I have Mars in Scorpio, which is in it's domicile.
It is a matter of opinion for some, but Pluto, Neptune and Uranus do not rule signs. They are transpersonal. As such, they are above and beyond compartmentalisation into zodiacal categories, the great forces that the Creator, Preserver and Destroyer represent are quite outside the trifling limitations which 30 degrees of the zodiac has to offer. Not to say that they rule over nothing, but perhaps it would be better put, at a push, that they rule over everything.
I would go into a lengthy explanation as to why it is better to see things this way, but this isn't called for here.
I just intended to point out that Pluto would not rule your Ascendant to all. Mars is the ruler of Scorpio.
Draco
I'm afraid I would have to be characteristically difficult and disagree with this.
With Scorpio on the Ascendant, Mars is the ruler of the Ascendant, and not necessarily the ruling planet in the chart as a whole, which would be the planet given to most dignity.
I have Mars in Scorpio, which is in it's domicile.
It is a matter of opinion for some, but Pluto, Neptune and Uranus do not rule signs. They are transpersonal. As such, they are above and beyond compartmentalisation into zodiacal categories, the great forces that the Creator, Preserver and Destroyer represent are quite outside the trifling limitations which 30 degrees of the zodiac has to offer. Not to say that they rule over nothing, but perhaps it would be better put, at a push, that they rule over everything.
I would go into a lengthy explanation as to why it is better to see things this way, but this isn't called for here.
I just intended to point out that Pluto would not rule your Ascendant to all. Mars is the ruler of Scorpio.
Draco
Frisiangal
Well-known member
Draco said:Hi Benyaw,
I'm afraid I would have to be characteristically difficult and disagree with this.
With Scorpio on the Ascendant, Mars is the ruler of the Ascendant, and not necessarily the ruling planet in the chart as a whole, which would be the planet given to most dignity.
.................. etc.etc.
Draco
This is the ever constant disagreement between traditional and modern views and techniques of astrology, isn't it ? It may be necessary for everyone to mention their personal usage when posting. I was raised on modern astrology and have never had difficulty with the given rulerships. Rather than [/i]transcendental, I think of the outer planets as conscious-raising. If they ruled one of the first 6 signs, I'd have difficulty with such rulership because these involve one's attitude towards one's personal life. But they each rule signs of contact between 'I' and 'another facet of life outside and larger than my own.' That makes more sense to me.
There is a theory that Mars rules Scorpio in youth and Pluto in adulthood.
OTOH, traditional methods seem to work so well with horary questions, don't they?
I guess, Benyaw, 'you pays your money and you makes your choice', as the old saying goes.
F.
Lapis
Well-known member
Draco said:
Draco,
Trifling limitations indeed!
I get what you're saying and I even get why you and others think and believe this, but personally I don't. Which century and Age are we in now? These big 3 are 'BIG' most definitely, but not to the degree that you seem to be suggesting. They are not omnipotent.....they are just the new "personals" for mass humanity in the Aquarian Age.
The real mind torque with this issue (and so many others) is that both of us are correct!
Hi Fris and Lapis,
Yes, but why?
Western astrologers and Vedic astrologers are aware of the massive differences between the way in which each faction goes about it's astrology. However, I have never been given the impression that these differences in perspective are a 'disagreement'.
Most Vedic or Western astrologist understand that the views of their counterparts are not a debunking of their own system of astrology, but rather simply an alternate perspective.
Given that there is much greater differences between Vedic and Western astrology than there are between 'traditional' and 'modern' methods, this causes me to wonder why those who like to assign rulership to the outer planets and those who don't are often so keen to bash each other over the head. Is it really such a big deal?
The fact is, we are all modern astrologists, whether we tend toward tradition or not, because we all live, study and practice in the modern world.
Indeed. I say this because I see the personal planets and the outer planets as being in two different leagues. We experience the cycles of the inner planets in a lifetime, the cycles of the outers go beyond this existence. I see the seven inner planets as representative of all that which goes on before our eyes in the world, and the outers as representative as all that which goes on behind the scenes. I just see the outer planets as representing forces so subtle and so great, so all permeating that I see their assignment to certain signs as a confinement of an energy which cannot be so generalised as to be apportioned 30 degrees of the zodiac. I think, open minded as you are, you can understand this perspective, even if you don't agree with it, which is all I ask.
I don't know why this view causes so much panic, it's not as if I am rubbishing the outer planets all together, I just don't perceive them as having rulership, any more than they have exaltation, triplicity, term or face, because they are above and beyond all that, which is what I meant about 'trifling limitations'. I said this simply to articulate my perspective, not to try and offend anybodies opinion which they held dear.
There are of course traditionalist, who ignore the outer planets all together, who aside from not assigning rulership, act as if the outer planets just don't exist. They would be better of getting in a time machine back to the Elizabethan era!
I do however, feel that such staunch traditionalists, are blinding themselves as much as modernists, who even though assigning outer planet rulership to the signs, ignore the traditional rulership totally, which is most disconcerting.
I am unsure as to what the century has to do with it. :?
I was born in the 80's, so I came into the world at the time that traditional ideas were being popularised once again to be explored from a modern perspective. Traditional study continues to increase in popularity.
I think it was the mission of previous generations of astrologists to somehow try to reconcile the outer planets with the signs. Now that has been done, I think it is more the mission of my generation to try and reconcile a decent compromise between the inclusion of the outers in astrology without destroying the beautiful, harmonious and very logical and poetic order of the inner planets around the zodiac. <(Pluto in Libra )
I say this because previous generations of astrologists, particularly those who experienced the 60's, would have had little to no exposure to traditional methods, because it was not truly revived then, and probably only of interest to those astrologist with a particular interest in history. A student of astrology in my generation, would be very hard pushed not to come across many a traditional perspective along their path of study, so a reconciliation of both schools of thought, for us at least, is in order.
In my teens, before I had personal access to the internet, I studied astrology as much as I could without it, and one of the greatest challenges I was presented with was to try and reconcile the outer planets in assignment to the zodiac, while at the same time preserving the beautiful ordered harmony of the assignement of the inner planets.
One idea I had, was if we were to assign Uranus to the cardinals, Neptune to the mutables and Pluto to the fixed signs:
Aries: Uranus / Mars
Taurus: Pluto / Venus
Gemini: Neptune / Mercury
Cancer: Uranus / Moon
Leo: Pluto / Sun
Virgo: Neptune / Mercury
Libra: Uranus / Venus
Scorpio: Pluto / Mars
Sagittarius: Neptune / Jupiter
Capricorn: Uranus / Saturn
Aquarius: Pluto / Saturn
Pisces: Neptune / Jupiter
Another idea, was assigning Uranus to the first four signs, Neptune to the next four, and Pluto to the last four.
Aries: Uranus / Mars
Taurus: Uranus / Venus
Gemini: Uranus / Mercury
Cancer: Uranus / Moon
Leo: Neptune / Sun
Virgo: Neptune / Mercury
Libra: Neptune / Venus
Scorpio: Neptune / Mars
Sagittarius: Pluto / Jupiter
Capricorn: Pluto / Saturn
Aquarius: Pluto / Saturn
Pisces: Pluto / Jupiter
Then consequently, the sensible and very reasonable assignment of the 'traditional' planets to the zodiac could be preserved, while also incorporating the outer planets without having to sacrifice that essential harmonious order which makes so much sense. I do believe that this needs to be done, done in a satisfactory way, and to become mainstream.
However, I found such assignments unsatisfactory for various reasons, and have since decided to pay attention to the outer planets but not assign them rulership until this problem can be adequately reconciled. I am genuinely astonished that this has not already been done by previous generations of astrologers. Then again, perhaps this is a task for the Pluto in Libra generation?
For now I am quite happy to see the outer's as above and beyond attribution to small portions of the zodiac, although seeking to find some harmonious reconciliation will be part of my future study and mission.
I may come to decide that the outer's do not need to be apportioned to resonance with certain signs at all, but I am sure that there can be more compelling reasons to attribute them to the zodiac while maintaining that essential harmonious order than 'Pisces are fish and Neptune is god of the sea = rules Pisces', 'Scorpio is secretive and Pluto is the god of the underworld = rules Scorpio'.
This is too simple, it destroys the harmonious pattern, and could be matured into something more workable which could satisfy 'modernists' and 'traditionals' with a minimum amount of fuss on either side.
Draco
Yes, but why?
Western astrologers and Vedic astrologers are aware of the massive differences between the way in which each faction goes about it's astrology. However, I have never been given the impression that these differences in perspective are a 'disagreement'.
Most Vedic or Western astrologist understand that the views of their counterparts are not a debunking of their own system of astrology, but rather simply an alternate perspective.
Given that there is much greater differences between Vedic and Western astrology than there are between 'traditional' and 'modern' methods, this causes me to wonder why those who like to assign rulership to the outer planets and those who don't are often so keen to bash each other over the head. Is it really such a big deal?
The fact is, we are all modern astrologists, whether we tend toward tradition or not, because we all live, study and practice in the modern world.
Indeed. I say this because I see the personal planets and the outer planets as being in two different leagues. We experience the cycles of the inner planets in a lifetime, the cycles of the outers go beyond this existence. I see the seven inner planets as representative of all that which goes on before our eyes in the world, and the outers as representative as all that which goes on behind the scenes. I just see the outer planets as representing forces so subtle and so great, so all permeating that I see their assignment to certain signs as a confinement of an energy which cannot be so generalised as to be apportioned 30 degrees of the zodiac. I think, open minded as you are, you can understand this perspective, even if you don't agree with it, which is all I ask.
I don't know why this view causes so much panic, it's not as if I am rubbishing the outer planets all together, I just don't perceive them as having rulership, any more than they have exaltation, triplicity, term or face, because they are above and beyond all that, which is what I meant about 'trifling limitations'. I said this simply to articulate my perspective, not to try and offend anybodies opinion which they held dear.
There are of course traditionalist, who ignore the outer planets all together, who aside from not assigning rulership, act as if the outer planets just don't exist. They would be better of getting in a time machine back to the Elizabethan era!
I do however, feel that such staunch traditionalists, are blinding themselves as much as modernists, who even though assigning outer planet rulership to the signs, ignore the traditional rulership totally, which is most disconcerting.
I am unsure as to what the century has to do with it. :?
I was born in the 80's, so I came into the world at the time that traditional ideas were being popularised once again to be explored from a modern perspective. Traditional study continues to increase in popularity.
I think it was the mission of previous generations of astrologists to somehow try to reconcile the outer planets with the signs. Now that has been done, I think it is more the mission of my generation to try and reconcile a decent compromise between the inclusion of the outers in astrology without destroying the beautiful, harmonious and very logical and poetic order of the inner planets around the zodiac. <(Pluto in Libra
)I say this because previous generations of astrologists, particularly those who experienced the 60's, would have had little to no exposure to traditional methods, because it was not truly revived then, and probably only of interest to those astrologist with a particular interest in history. A student of astrology in my generation, would be very hard pushed not to come across many a traditional perspective along their path of study, so a reconciliation of both schools of thought, for us at least, is in order.
In my teens, before I had personal access to the internet, I studied astrology as much as I could without it, and one of the greatest challenges I was presented with was to try and reconcile the outer planets in assignment to the zodiac, while at the same time preserving the beautiful ordered harmony of the assignement of the inner planets.
One idea I had, was if we were to assign Uranus to the cardinals, Neptune to the mutables and Pluto to the fixed signs:
Aries: Uranus / Mars
Taurus: Pluto / Venus
Gemini: Neptune / Mercury
Cancer: Uranus / Moon
Leo: Pluto / Sun
Virgo: Neptune / Mercury
Libra: Uranus / Venus
Scorpio: Pluto / Mars
Sagittarius: Neptune / Jupiter
Capricorn: Uranus / Saturn
Aquarius: Pluto / Saturn
Pisces: Neptune / Jupiter
Another idea, was assigning Uranus to the first four signs, Neptune to the next four, and Pluto to the last four.
Aries: Uranus / Mars
Taurus: Uranus / Venus
Gemini: Uranus / Mercury
Cancer: Uranus / Moon
Leo: Neptune / Sun
Virgo: Neptune / Mercury
Libra: Neptune / Venus
Scorpio: Neptune / Mars
Sagittarius: Pluto / Jupiter
Capricorn: Pluto / Saturn
Aquarius: Pluto / Saturn
Pisces: Pluto / Jupiter
Then consequently, the sensible and very reasonable assignment of the 'traditional' planets to the zodiac could be preserved, while also incorporating the outer planets without having to sacrifice that essential harmonious order which makes so much sense. I do believe that this needs to be done, done in a satisfactory way, and to become mainstream.
However, I found such assignments unsatisfactory for various reasons, and have since decided to pay attention to the outer planets but not assign them rulership until this problem can be adequately reconciled. I am genuinely astonished that this has not already been done by previous generations of astrologers. Then again, perhaps this is a task for the Pluto in Libra generation?
For now I am quite happy to see the outer's as above and beyond attribution to small portions of the zodiac, although seeking to find some harmonious reconciliation will be part of my future study and mission.
I may come to decide that the outer's do not need to be apportioned to resonance with certain signs at all, but I am sure that there can be more compelling reasons to attribute them to the zodiac while maintaining that essential harmonious order than 'Pisces are fish and Neptune is god of the sea = rules Pisces', 'Scorpio is secretive and Pluto is the god of the underworld = rules Scorpio'.
This is too simple, it destroys the harmonious pattern, and could be matured into something more workable which could satisfy 'modernists' and 'traditionals' with a minimum amount of fuss on either side.
Draco
Frisiangal
Well-known member
Hi again Draco,
I agree with you that 'alternate perspective' fits better than 'disagreement', but the truth is that traditionalists and modern astrologers are in two different camps when it comes to agreeing upon many ideas within astrology, of which the outer planets form a major hurdle. Those terrible terms of 'malefic' and 'benefic' are another. Pity the poor soul who is lumbered with Mars in Cancer (me! ) or Saturn in Aries, whereas a strong imagination and/or taking time to concretise plans can be beneficial.
You have raised some very interesting points regarding assignment and distribution of the outer planets that, with your preference for the traditional teachings, you should surely pursue. Astrological thought in the 21st century IS changing as the generations with the outer planets all in the social signs bring their perspective of life in general into the future astrology books.
Just out of interest, to which of the 7 original planets would you assign AIDS, photography, Play Station, and the ozone problem :?:
F.
I agree with you that 'alternate perspective' fits better than 'disagreement', but the truth is that traditionalists and modern astrologers are in two different camps when it comes to agreeing upon many ideas within astrology, of which the outer planets form a major hurdle. Those terrible terms of 'malefic' and 'benefic' are another. Pity the poor soul who is lumbered with Mars in Cancer (me!
) or Saturn in Aries, whereas a strong imagination and/or taking time to concretise plans can be beneficial. You have raised some very interesting points regarding assignment and distribution of the outer planets that, with your preference for the traditional teachings, you should surely pursue. Astrological thought in the 21st century IS changing as the generations with the outer planets all in the social signs bring their perspective of life in general into the future astrology books.
Just out of interest, to which of the 7 original planets would you assign AIDS, photography, Play Station, and the ozone problem :?:
F.
Hi again,
When it comes to the benefic and malefic planets, I agree that Mars and Saturn can certainly be beneficial, particularly if you are an athlete or a historian for example. Jupiter and Venus can certainly be malefic, such as in the case of a person who struggles to lose weight or to a victim of sexual abuse for example.
However, I feel that the terms 'malefic' and 'benefic' for Mars and Saturn, Venus and Jupiter originally came about because when we think of the most horrible and disturbing things in life, then Mars and Saturn would typify such things more readily than the other planets, and when we think of the most beautiful and happy things, then Venus and Jupiter would be most typical of such notions.
In London there is a place for tourists called the 'London Dungeon', which has on display a vast collection of torture devices that were actually used to torture people in medieval times. Personally, I would be loathe to ever visit the place. I am very sensitive to 'vibes', a bit of a psychometrist you could say, so I could never visit such an evil place because I would find it a most distressing experience. The fact that these devices, which were actually used to put people to death in the most brutally agonising ways possible makes me feel that it is very perverse to put such things on display for the 'entertainment' of the public.
Things like this make me realise why Mars and Saturn have been termed 'malefic'. Such a place as the London Dungeon absolutely throngs with Mars/Saturn energy (and Pluto of course).
Mars and Saturn can brings us benefit, but they usually do so in unpleasant and difficult ways.
Imagine the Mars oriented athlete or body builder. Sure, they derive a lot of benefit through Mars, but not without the necessary pain and discomfort which goes with it, 'No pain, no gain', they often say in gyms throughout the world. Mars is termed 'malefic', because to gain his favour he needs must see us suffer for him.
I could give a similar example for Saturn, but you get my point.
Venus and Jupiter on the other hand don't need to see us completely shattered and spent before they will accept us into their fold, they completely spoil us, sending winning lottery tickets our way, and fatten us up with sugary treats. The way in which they can be malefic however, is the opposite to hard, demanding Saturn and Mars, who must see us strive through difficulties before they bestow their gifts. Jupiter and Venus can harm us through pampering us too much, making us too soft and lazy.
I suppose you might say that the 'malefics' are 'cruel to be kind', the 'benefics' are kind but to such an extent that it can do us a disadvantage in the end.
Jupiter and Venus present us the 'path of least resistance', Mars and Saturn the path of most resistance, hence they are termed 'benefic' and 'malefic' respectively.
Perhaps a better more modern terminology is in order, over 'benefics' and 'malefics', which might imply that there is no benefit to be derived from Mars and Saturn, and no malevolence to be had from Jupiter and Venus. Personally, I prefer the terms 'soft' and 'hard' planets, a terminology which seems more well rounded.
AIDS I would associate with Venus, because it is a largely sexually transmitted disease, and Venus rules over anything 'venereal', which literally means 'of Venus'. Of course, of the outer planets, AIDS would seem most Plutonic. If I was to look at the chart for the official discovery of AIDS (does anyone have this?) I would be most interested in the way in which Pluto is configured with Venus. I would also be interested in how Venus and Pluto are configured in the charts of those who have succumbed to this terrible disease.
Photography is of course Neptunian (but not Piscean), but let's not overlook Mercury's role in all kind of devices and contraptions such as cameras. I would also associate photography with Saturn, because to photograph something is to preserve it forever, to freeze a moment or a series of moments in time, and Saturn is time as well as the influence which holds things still and fixes them in place.
I would say that the Playstation is a most Mercurial thing, because again it is a gadget, and Mercury is associated with youth, as are games consoles for the most part. However, the whole idea of games consoles is that they are for fun and play, so perhaps Venus gets a look in here as well. Of the outer's then I would imagine Uranus has an involvement.
For the destruction of the ozone layer, this is a hard one, but I would have to opt for Mars and Saturn, because Mars rips and tears apart, and Saturn brings an awareness of impending danger and causes us to feel regret.
Draco
When it comes to the benefic and malefic planets, I agree that Mars and Saturn can certainly be beneficial, particularly if you are an athlete or a historian for example. Jupiter and Venus can certainly be malefic, such as in the case of a person who struggles to lose weight or to a victim of sexual abuse for example.
However, I feel that the terms 'malefic' and 'benefic' for Mars and Saturn, Venus and Jupiter originally came about because when we think of the most horrible and disturbing things in life, then Mars and Saturn would typify such things more readily than the other planets, and when we think of the most beautiful and happy things, then Venus and Jupiter would be most typical of such notions.
In London there is a place for tourists called the 'London Dungeon', which has on display a vast collection of torture devices that were actually used to torture people in medieval times. Personally, I would be loathe to ever visit the place. I am very sensitive to 'vibes', a bit of a psychometrist you could say, so I could never visit such an evil place because I would find it a most distressing experience. The fact that these devices, which were actually used to put people to death in the most brutally agonising ways possible makes me feel that it is very perverse to put such things on display for the 'entertainment' of the public.
Things like this make me realise why Mars and Saturn have been termed 'malefic'. Such a place as the London Dungeon absolutely throngs with Mars/Saturn energy (and Pluto of course).
Mars and Saturn can brings us benefit, but they usually do so in unpleasant and difficult ways.
Imagine the Mars oriented athlete or body builder. Sure, they derive a lot of benefit through Mars, but not without the necessary pain and discomfort which goes with it, 'No pain, no gain', they often say in gyms throughout the world. Mars is termed 'malefic', because to gain his favour he needs must see us suffer for him.
I could give a similar example for Saturn, but you get my point.
Venus and Jupiter on the other hand don't need to see us completely shattered and spent before they will accept us into their fold, they completely spoil us, sending winning lottery tickets our way, and fatten us up with sugary treats. The way in which they can be malefic however, is the opposite to hard, demanding Saturn and Mars, who must see us strive through difficulties before they bestow their gifts. Jupiter and Venus can harm us through pampering us too much, making us too soft and lazy.
I suppose you might say that the 'malefics' are 'cruel to be kind', the 'benefics' are kind but to such an extent that it can do us a disadvantage in the end.
Jupiter and Venus present us the 'path of least resistance', Mars and Saturn the path of most resistance, hence they are termed 'benefic' and 'malefic' respectively.
Perhaps a better more modern terminology is in order, over 'benefics' and 'malefics', which might imply that there is no benefit to be derived from Mars and Saturn, and no malevolence to be had from Jupiter and Venus. Personally, I prefer the terms 'soft' and 'hard' planets, a terminology which seems more well rounded.
AIDS I would associate with Venus, because it is a largely sexually transmitted disease, and Venus rules over anything 'venereal', which literally means 'of Venus'. Of course, of the outer planets, AIDS would seem most Plutonic. If I was to look at the chart for the official discovery of AIDS (does anyone have this?) I would be most interested in the way in which Pluto is configured with Venus. I would also be interested in how Venus and Pluto are configured in the charts of those who have succumbed to this terrible disease.
Photography is of course Neptunian (but not Piscean), but let's not overlook Mercury's role in all kind of devices and contraptions such as cameras. I would also associate photography with Saturn, because to photograph something is to preserve it forever, to freeze a moment or a series of moments in time, and Saturn is time as well as the influence which holds things still and fixes them in place.
I would say that the Playstation is a most Mercurial thing, because again it is a gadget, and Mercury is associated with youth, as are games consoles for the most part. However, the whole idea of games consoles is that they are for fun and play, so perhaps Venus gets a look in here as well. Of the outer's then I would imagine Uranus has an involvement.
For the destruction of the ozone layer, this is a hard one, but I would have to opt for Mars and Saturn, because Mars rips and tears apart, and Saturn brings an awareness of impending danger and causes us to feel regret.
Draco
wilsontc
Staff member
both and
Draco and Frisiangal,
It seems to me this disagreement comes down to a matter of absolutes. Draco says the outer planets do NOT have to do with people individually Frisiangal says the outer planets DO have to do with people individually. Perhaps this issue can be resolved by saying that the outer planets have to do with large, generational, universal issues (Draco) AND with people's individual, personal lives (Frisiangal). The challenge of the outer planets is that they "contain multitudes" (as someone once said! ).
Multitudinously outer (in an inner way),
Tim
Draco and Frisiangal,
It seems to me this disagreement comes down to a matter of absolutes. Draco says the outer planets do NOT have to do with people individually Frisiangal says the outer planets DO have to do with people individually. Perhaps this issue can be resolved by saying that the outer planets have to do with large, generational, universal issues (Draco) AND with people's individual, personal lives (Frisiangal). The challenge of the outer planets is that they "contain multitudes" (as someone once said!
).Multitudinously outer (in an inner way),
Tim
Frisiangal
Well-known member
Re: both and
Right on, Tim.
That how I see their influence; how they effect people's individual lives through the larger generational and universal issues they incur
That said, I am truly impressed by Draco's knowledge and use of the traditional teachings and methods. At an astro. talk given by Joyce Hoen recently, she said to be concerned that astrology is once again going into decline. It's exhiliarating to know there are future astrologers of Draco's calibre in the making.
Gratifyingly refreshed,
F.
wilsontc said:Draco and Frisiangal,
It seems to me this disagreement comes down to a matter of absolutes. Draco says the outer planets do NOT have to do with people individually Frisiangal says the outer planets DO have to do with people individually. Perhaps this issue can be resolved by saying that the outer planets have to do with large, generational, universal issues (Draco) AND with people's individual, personal lives (Frisiangal). The challenge of the outer planets is that they "contain multitudes" (as someone once said!
Multitudinously outer (in an inner way),
Tim
Right on, Tim.
That how I see their influence; how they effect people's individual lives through the larger generational and universal issues they incur
That said, I am truly impressed by Draco's knowledge and use of the traditional teachings and methods. At an astro. talk given by Joyce Hoen recently, she said to be concerned that astrology is once again going into decline. It's exhiliarating to know there are future astrologers of Draco's calibre in the making.
Gratifyingly refreshed,
F.
Tim,
While I appreciate your trying to scupper the debate for the sake of being a mediating influence of good intention, I did not make such an absolutist assertion.
I said:
This is quite different from:
I have Neptune right upon the Midheaven, and configured by major aspect with the Sun and the Moon on Regulus. A case of the transpersonal becoming personal indeed. It's a shame I have no designs on becoming a cult leader, which would require one to hold sway over the masses. I must put that on my 'to do' list. :idea:
Frisiangal,
Naturally, me too. However, I never argued against this, so I fear that we are trying to skirt the issue about my point that the outer planets, representing forces so very large and universal, that they cannot reasonably have their all-permeating natures reduced to a reasonable representation or expression through a mere 30 degrees of the zodiac. That is why we can do without outer planet rulership and get back to basics, while having an astrology enriched by the outer planets but not distorted by them.
I am very flattered that you say so. However, when it comes to to the teachings and methods of tradition then I have only scratched the surface.
It is very pleasant of you to say so. Thankyou Frisiangal. Perhaps I can put those Neptunian configurations to some good use?
Draco
While I appreciate your trying to scupper the debate for the sake of being a mediating influence of good intention, I did not make such an absolutist assertion.
I said:
This is quite different from:
I have Neptune right upon the Midheaven, and configured by major aspect with the Sun and the Moon on Regulus. A case of the transpersonal becoming personal indeed. It's a shame I have no designs on becoming a cult leader, which would require one to hold sway over the masses. I must put that on my 'to do' list. :idea:
Frisiangal,
Naturally, me too. However, I never argued against this, so I fear that we are trying to skirt the issue about my point that the outer planets, representing forces so very large and universal, that they cannot reasonably have their all-permeating natures reduced to a reasonable representation or expression through a mere 30 degrees of the zodiac. That is why we can do without outer planet rulership and get back to basics, while having an astrology enriched by the outer planets but not distorted by them.
I am very flattered that you say so. However, when it comes to to the teachings and methods of tradition then I have only scratched the surface.
It is very pleasant of you to say so. Thankyou Frisiangal. Perhaps I can put those Neptunian configurations to some good use?
Draco
Lapis
Well-known member
I too have always felt that both sides of this belief system are true as I said in my first post. I feel that in the beginning the 'outer' planets work more on the masses at that level and the bigger question to this one is.....why? Could it possibly be that at that phase that's all that the masses can 'house' and safely cope with of these new and faster vibrating planetary energies :?:
And so.......after a few years or decades or lifetimes or however long it takes, then maybe one reaches a point where they can more directly, more individually interact with, live and house these different higher planetary energies and their archetypes in themselves :?:
To me this is what all the planets are there for anyway. For us to get so intimately familiar with that we've totally integrated Them and worked through all that They provide for us here. And then we move on to (discover) whatever exists next beyond Them........
I remember some great old saying (don't know by who) that went something like this -
"Never has there been a false word said because to someone somewhere it is truth!"
Draco remember that my Nodes are playing the Pisces (North Node) and Virgo (South Node) integration learning Game in this life! I really do get it at both sides of this consciousness fence and on those rare great days.....I can even reach a 3rd. point that is the combination of both.
And so.......after a few years or decades or lifetimes or however long it takes, then maybe one reaches a point where they can more directly, more individually interact with, live and house these different higher planetary energies and their archetypes in themselves :?:
To me this is what all the planets are there for anyway. For us to get so intimately familiar with that we've totally integrated Them and worked through all that They provide for us here. And then we move on to (discover) whatever exists next beyond Them........
I remember some great old saying (don't know by who) that went something like this -
"Never has there been a false word said because to someone somewhere it is truth!"
Draco remember that my Nodes are playing the Pisces (North Node) and Virgo (South Node) integration learning Game in this life! I really do get it at both sides of this consciousness fence and on those rare great days.....I can even reach a 3rd. point that is the combination of both.