waybread
Well-known member
Dirius, in response to your post of 7:02 this morning.
Most of the people at Astrologers Community are modern astrologers, but there is room for everyone, including traditional western, Vedic/jyotish, Chinese, or Uranian practitioners. We can all have friendly debates about which system works best. But just because you or I practice one form of astrology doesn't mean that we are entitled to trash another form of astrology, or to insist that we have found the only way that will ever work for anyone.
Please keep the necessary sense of respect for other members' preferred systems in mind. It's OK with me if you prefer traditional astrology, just as I am OK with drivers who prefer manual transmissions or antique cars, even though I like my automatic transmission.
In modern western astrology, subset English-language, Pluto is the modern ruler of Scorpio. If you don't practice modern western astrology, that's fine: apparently you get super results using Mars as the traditional ruler. I consider both Pluto and Mars as rulers of Scorpio in a natal chart reading. In horary astrology, I look at Mars; but with Pluto as potentially adding supplementary information.
The assignment of Pluto to Scorpio was not random. Initially following the Uranus/Aquarius and Neptune/Pisces assignments, some astrologers thought Pluto should belong to the next sign, Aries. But many modern astrologers did some research, and concluded that Pluto worked much better as the modern ruler of Scorpio. And I have to agree, based on my own readings of a few thousand charts.
I work extensively with house cusp rulers (lords) in natal chart interpretation, and Pluto works really well in this context. And again, if a house with Scorpio on the cusp is important for the reading at hand, I look at both Pluto's and Mars's situations.
Your wrote:
Dirius, I will happily debate you (with one hand tied behind my back) on Pluto for as long as this thread lasts. But notice how you framed the discussion in your bold type: modern vs. traditional astrology. Believe it or not, at something over 6000 posts here and on other forums, I have been through several of these "trads vs. mods" debates, and they can get pretty nasty. Typically the threads run like this thread does, with a trad taking potshots at a modern astrology he seemingly doesn't understand very well; and being largely unwilling to reconsider the rationale for his "evidence."
I have to stress, lest you run to your astrology collection and draw out some reasonably idiotic works in modern astrology; that yes-- they're out there. But traditional astrology has its share of idiotic works, as well; just as modern astrology has some really thoughtful authors.
To each her/his own? Or is so much diversity not good enough for you?
Thankfully, the tone of your post changes near the end to a more helpful position.
I am so delighted that you are finally clarifying your commitment to the traditional camp-- as such. Not simply as the way astrology works globally. Which is how your previous posts come across.
For anyone else unclear on traditional western astrology: I have in my collection and highly recommend Avelar and Ribeiro's primer on traditional astrology On the Heavenly Spheres. They give an easy-to-follow explanation of essential dignities and other methods sloughed off by modern astrology-- and without John Frawley's offensive sarcasm. Another good primer is J. Lee Lehman's Classical Astrology for Modern Living. For people who like to read works in the original, Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos (ca. 150 CE) is readable, still, and it influenced so much of the astrology that came after him in subsequent periods. The Skyscript website http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ managed by and for traditional astrologers has many helpful articles, threads, definitions, and lessons. Some of the prominent traditional astrologers like Chris Brennan and Benjamin Dykes, have their own websites. Kevin Burk's Understanding the Birth Chart is a blend of traditional and modern.
Most of the people at Astrologers Community are modern astrologers, but there is room for everyone, including traditional western, Vedic/jyotish, Chinese, or Uranian practitioners. We can all have friendly debates about which system works best. But just because you or I practice one form of astrology doesn't mean that we are entitled to trash another form of astrology, or to insist that we have found the only way that will ever work for anyone.
Please keep the necessary sense of respect for other members' preferred systems in mind. It's OK with me if you prefer traditional astrology, just as I am OK with drivers who prefer manual transmissions or antique cars, even though I like my automatic transmission.
In modern western astrology, subset English-language, Pluto is the modern ruler of Scorpio. If you don't practice modern western astrology, that's fine: apparently you get super results using Mars as the traditional ruler. I consider both Pluto and Mars as rulers of Scorpio in a natal chart reading. In horary astrology, I look at Mars; but with Pluto as potentially adding supplementary information.
The assignment of Pluto to Scorpio was not random. Initially following the Uranus/Aquarius and Neptune/Pisces assignments, some astrologers thought Pluto should belong to the next sign, Aries. But many modern astrologers did some research, and concluded that Pluto worked much better as the modern ruler of Scorpio. And I have to agree, based on my own readings of a few thousand charts.
I work extensively with house cusp rulers (lords) in natal chart interpretation, and Pluto works really well in this context. And again, if a house with Scorpio on the cusp is important for the reading at hand, I look at both Pluto's and Mars's situations.
Your wrote:
I have no disagreement with this statement. But indeed, you said a whole lot more than this about Pluto, in order to discourage anybody from using Pluto, even if they don't practice traditional astrology.I said that pluto, according to traditional astrology, is meaningless.
Dirius, I will happily debate you (with one hand tied behind my back) on Pluto for as long as this thread lasts. But notice how you framed the discussion in your bold type: modern vs. traditional astrology. Believe it or not, at something over 6000 posts here and on other forums, I have been through several of these "trads vs. mods" debates, and they can get pretty nasty. Typically the threads run like this thread does, with a trad taking potshots at a modern astrology he seemingly doesn't understand very well; and being largely unwilling to reconsider the rationale for his "evidence."
I have to stress, lest you run to your astrology collection and draw out some reasonably idiotic works in modern astrology; that yes-- they're out there. But traditional astrology has its share of idiotic works, as well; just as modern astrology has some really thoughtful authors.
To each her/his own? Or is so much diversity not good enough for you?
Thankfully, the tone of your post changes near the end to a more helpful position.
I am so delighted that you are finally clarifying your commitment to the traditional camp-- as such. Not simply as the way astrology works globally. Which is how your previous posts come across.
For anyone else unclear on traditional western astrology: I have in my collection and highly recommend Avelar and Ribeiro's primer on traditional astrology On the Heavenly Spheres. They give an easy-to-follow explanation of essential dignities and other methods sloughed off by modern astrology-- and without John Frawley's offensive sarcasm. Another good primer is J. Lee Lehman's Classical Astrology for Modern Living. For people who like to read works in the original, Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos (ca. 150 CE) is readable, still, and it influenced so much of the astrology that came after him in subsequent periods. The Skyscript website http://www.skyscript.co.uk/ managed by and for traditional astrologers has many helpful articles, threads, definitions, and lessons. Some of the prominent traditional astrologers like Chris Brennan and Benjamin Dykes, have their own websites. Kevin Burk's Understanding the Birth Chart is a blend of traditional and modern.
Last edited: