Ok the posts are getting long
, but I'm going to try to break down the Pluto argument.
Dirius, I challenge you to show me how the orb of the planet Saturn, when visible in the night sky, equals 5 degrees, or whatever other value you choose to put on it.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspectorbs.html Here is a quick-and-dirty backyard astronomy guide to calculating degrees from a given point in the heavens, used by "backyard" or amateur astronomers:
http://oneminuteastronomer.com/860/measuring-sky/
Of course Pluto, Uranus, and Neptune (plus many asteroids) have "visible disks of light." Again, this is how they were actually discovered, not just theorized. However, they were discovered with the aid of telescopes. And we're not talking Hubble, here, either. Telescopes prior to the 20th century were not terribly sophisticated. If you own a beefy "backyard astronomy" telescope and camera, you, too, can observe Pluto; but the trick will be distinguishing it from the stars in its proximity. This article tells you how:
http://www.spaceanswers.com/astronomy/how-can-i-see-pluto/
1) Regarding the Light of planets:
a) Ok I think you are mistaking what i said about an "
orb", with the medieval concept of orb as
a degree of influence within the signs. But I agree it may be my fault, because it is a confusing subject.
The general term of orb, is the hellenic one, which is just the light around a planet (disk of light).
From hellenic perspective, for example, planets inside a water sign, are always in "aspect" with planets inside other water sign (trine), regardless if one is at the end, and the other at the beginning of said signs, the orb carries no influences.
The medieval astrologers invented the concept of "degree of influence within the orb", to try to establish a base for the aspect's strenght. But this is something that comes from the 9th century and so on, and isn't really used much.
b) The concept of an aspect, which is the purpose of having an "orb", and
this is important so everyone should read, is this: Aspects unite Signs, not planets. This is the traditional interpretation of an aspect. Basicly, aspect comes from the word "aspectum", which means to observe. A planet in aspect thus gives a testimony of the planet he is beholding.
A planet in aspect with another planet, testifies, or gives opinion, about the planet it aspects. And it is the
sign that modules the planets opinion regarding the other planet. And the medium in which such testimony is given, is by the "rays of light" the planets cast towards each other.
So in order for a planet to give a testimony regarding another planet, said planet must have an "argument" moduled by the sign. This is done through the essential dignities and debilities, and the reception among the planets.
If Pluto has
NO essential dignities, thus pluto can't act accordingly to the sign it is placed in. Thus, aside from not having any light, it also forms no opinion.
For example a mars in Virgo and a Jupiter in Cancer are in negative reception towards each other, and in sextile aspect (they recieve each other through detriment and fall). So, doesn't matter how good the aspect is, they won't be helping each other.
THIS IS WHY,
we don't consider fixed stars to cast aspects, and are only relevant through conjunction. Because fixed stars also can't be moduled by a sign, they don't rule any sign and have no essential dignities or debilities, thus their influence falls down only to their nature (benefic or malefic), and thus only influence the planet when they are extremely close to each other.
c) The point in argument regarding the light of the outer planets, falls down to an incompatibility with astrological system in general
It is mostly nit picking what to believe and what not.
As I showed above>
Aspects represent one thing (planets uniting signs). That is their use. A planet that has no sign, and no light, can't cast an aspect (I will further the topic on Pluto as ruler of nothing below).
Saying that outers indeed make aspects, "
just because", is choosing what do use and what not to, without basing the decision on the logical reasoning behind astrology.
Aspect are not just mathematical degrees uniting the planets, they have a certain significance. The concept of the outers doing that, goes against that meaning.
-----
2) The concept of Pluto:
And here is were the argument for Pluto can be broken down into why we consider it invalid.
a) The first thing we notice is how all, and I do mean all of pluto's attributes, belong to other planets in the first place. I'm going to name the most common ones. Lets analyze the association of pluto and what he represents:
sex, death, money, change, violence, revolution, etc.
Sex = Venus
Money = Jupiter
Change = Saturn
Violence = Mars
Death = Mars
The Venus being the natural ruler of sex is very well known, with its companion and opposite Mars being the representation of the sexual act. Jupiter as the great benefic, represents the concept of wealth, so money is something attributed to jupiter. Saturn, with its long cycles, and its "malefic" influence represents the change and stages we all go through life. Mars represents violence, war, anger and death.
So with all these attributes assigned to other planets, as natural rulerships, why do we need pluto?
The 7 hellenic lots, and what they do, is expand this concept. This is why each and every one of the parts is assigned to a specific planet.
b) The lack of essential dignities for pluto, as I said in point 1, means that pluto's nature can't be compared to that of the planets. Thus his nature can't be modulated for good or bad, and has to act solely through his natural attributes. But since he has no natural attributes (given the fact that they are all stolen from other planets), pluto's significance is meaningless.
c) The assignment of Pluto to Scorpio, aside from random, is imperfect because it goes against the natural essence of the table of dignities.
And this is not because of sign rulership or anything, but because of the triplicity system and the sect behind the signs.
Each planet rules a sign that belongs to a different sec: day and night.
Triplicity's divide themselves between day signs (fire and air) and night (water and earth). This is why the triplicities are ruled by specific planets, diurnal or nocturnal.
Lacking a sect (as either nocturnal or diurnal planet), can't also be assigned to the table of triplicities. Of course I understand modern astrology doesn't employ triplicity.
Yet triplicity and sect is one of the corner stones for astrology in general.
----------------------------
To sum up:
- Pluto doesn't fit with almost NONE of the astrological beliefs
- Each meaning pluto has can be assigned to another reason, established 2000 years ago
Of course, here the modern astrologer comes and claims:
"-But I don't believe in the triplicity system, or the concept of sect, or that aspects are because of signs. So I will use Pluito regardless."
Well, going by that, then we can question everything, then:
- why does the sun rules Leo?
- why are squares "bad" aspects and trines "good"?
- why is uranus malefic?
- why does venus represent love?
- why does the moon represent feelings?
- why is the 9th house, the one of higher learning?
- why is the 7th house the one of the spouse?
Why?
Modern astrology disregards a lot of astrological teachings, only for the sake of preference.
If one is to disregard a lot of this things, why not the rest? why keep some, and throw away the others?
I've actually said in many posts, what hurts the Pluto argument the most is the lack of reasoning on modern astrology.
I must say waybread, that by far, you are the most convincing and logical with the Pluto argument. I do give you that.
But the problem, at least for me, is that still the dissection of the astrological system ir order to make room for pluto, still lacks a logical perspective.
PS: I'm not trying to offend anyone with this post, just trying to put the argument together, and trying to show the reasoning behind the well established classical principles.
EDIT: just fixed a few things on the post, was pretty long and I missplaced some words/sentences.
