Dirius
Well-known member
I actually did comment. I see the influence of Pluto but I disagree with a lot of what the modern interpretations say about what that influence actually is. That's why I said the notion to see Pluto as just a mixture of Mars and Saturn is interesting but not actually valid. I can see, however, how folks can come to that conclusion after reading the usual modern cook books. So in that sense, I can understand the traditionalists and appreciate your (plural 'you') comments. Current definitions of Pluto in astrology are not very satisfying. Point taken. To then say that Pluto is irrelevant and doesn't have anything to add because it doesn't fit into the tried and tested models is a rather bold statement, especially since no one here knows with absolute certainty why astrology actually works (myself included), we all just know how it works, and Pluto (and the other outer planets) force us to rethink our model and approach. With the emergence of the electric universe model, the old cosmological models seem to be outdated now, and with it the old astrological models. So, there's a lot of research and development to do.
But the assertion that you are making is that we at least know how it works. And that working knowledge comes from the old classical teachings we traditionalists are defending. Granted you are not defending pluto, rather stating that it could "perhaps" mean something, and we shouldn't disregard it just because we have no evidence of what it might be doing.
But if we accept that what we are doing within the traditional framework is indeed something that works in the practical sense, adding pluto or any outer wouldn't really give us much more new information that we couldn't actually get from the planets we are already employing.
Thus, my statement: pluto has no relevance. Perhaps it might carry some particular significance for some specific issue, so far this is unkown (because I agree with you that modern definitions are indeed biased), but at least for the time in which life on earth continues the way it does, whatever significance pluto could have is still irrelevant.
Astrology within the traditional sense can already pretty much predict/describe anything, given that astrology is in essence, a symbolic practice.
I think it was me who described the modern attributes of pluto as Mars/Saturn mix. But I wasn't saying those are attributes pluto has. I was just saying that, a lot of the modern attributes given to pluto, are combinations of mars/saturn, stolen from other planets in an attempt to make pluto relevant.
Last edited: