Are outer planets generational or personal?

Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are Generational Planets - Discuss

wilsontc said:

I have been thinking this over and it occurs to me that the reason why traditional astrologers tend not to use the outers while modern astrologers do is: prediction. Traditional astrologers are interested in accurately predicting what is going to happen. They want to "solve problems" in a practical, reliable, one answer per person way. And the outer planets don't work like that. So they don't fit into the idea of prediction and fated occurrences.

Click to expand...

What you have implied is incorrect. The actual reason traditional astrologers do not use the outer planets is far simpler: the real reason is because Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are invisible to the naked eye and may only be seen with the use of powerful telescopes. Since telescopes were unavailable thousands of years ago, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were invisible to the naked eye. So obviously traditional astrologers could not use Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are visible to the naked eye, therefore traditional astrologers used these seven visible planets thousands of years ago, just as traditional astrologers continue to. That is the reason traditional astrologers did not and do not use Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

wow how long has it been since we had this debate! too long and here it is again as merc rx.

what to say.

I would really like to believe that neptune(first house)plut conj uranus could be dropped from my chart. Trust me.

these planets are I think personalised in my chart. without them it would not be a full interpretation.

Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are Generational Planets - Discuss

Caro said:

wow how long has it been since we had this debate! too long and here it is again as merc rx.
what to say.
I would really like to believe that neptune(first house)plut conj uranus could be dropped from my chart. Trust me.
these planets are I think personalised in my chart. without them it would not be a full interpretation.

Click to expand...

Fair enough Caro, you are entitled to your opinion regarding the outer planets. But wilsontc has made an inaccurate observation:

wilsontc said:

MSO, I have been thinking this over and it occurs to me that the reason why traditional astrologers tend not to use the outers while modern astrologers do is: prediction. Traditional astrologers are interested in accurately predicting what is going to happen. They want to "solve problems" in a practical, reliable, one answer per person way. And the outer planets don't work like that. So they don't fit into the idea of prediction and fated occurrences.
Which is why the modern astrologers like them. You never quite know what you will get when an outer planet crosses a sensitive point in the chart. It isn't predictable and "pin-down-able". Uranus especially is known for its rebellion against predictability. And Neptune makes things vague and hard to see and understand. While Pluto blows everything up. Each outer planet in its own way is unpredictable and unknowable. "Wait and see" is what modern astrologers tend to say when asked what the effect will be on a person. "There will be some sort of rebellion, you will be confused in some way, something will die and be reborn" are the sort of answers modern astrologers give. And there is nothing that can be accurately predicted from that. If you are interested in predictability and accuracy in astrology, then it makes sense to avoid the outer planets, since they are anything but predictable. But if you don't believe our lives are fated, if you are interested in free will and choices, then you are most likely a modern astrologer and for you the outer planets can be fascinating.
Fascinated, Tim

Click to expand...

It is an inaccurate observation because it is not a matter of opinion but a fact that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto could not have been used by Traditional Astrologers because the Outer planets were invisible to the naked eye, therefore quite simply, thousands of years ago, when astrologers looked at the sky Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were invisible. Traditional astrologers did not have telescopes thousands of years ago. That's why Traditional Astrologers did not use and do not use the outer planets. Traditional Astrologers did not choose deliberately to "avoid using the outer planets" as wilsontc is implying!

Traditional Astrologers did not have telescopes so could not use Uranus, Neptune and Pluto In fact, Modern Astrologers are only able to use Uranus, Neptune & Pluto since they were discovered with the use of powerful telescopes. Uranus was discovered 13 March 1781, Neptune was discovered 23 September 1846 and Pluto was only discovered in 18 February 1930 So Modern Astrology depends upon the use of telescopes as well as upon the Traditional Astrology it is founded upon

Re: Traditional astrologers had no telescopes so Uranus, Neptune & Pluto invisible

Hmm, I've probably given my canned lecture #28 (or somesuch) a few too many times, but basically when you compare traditional, modern, and Vedic, we are dealing with issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of their predictions or character delineations.

1. To repeat my keyboard analogy, one guy loves to play baroque music on the harspichord; another prefers the piano, while musician #3 enjoys playing the electronic keyboard & synthesizer. Maybe somebody else is great playing the same melodies on the pipe organ. They are all good at what they do, and each could make a case for the drawbacks of the others' prefered instrument and the advantages of his own.

But fundamentally it comes down to a matter of preference. Are you a traditionalist? If so, how far back? Are you more present-day or even future-oriented? It is a matter of personal style and taste.

Each major branch of astrology has demonstrated that it can produce uncanny results in the hands of a skilled practitioner.

Frankly, I cannot imagine practicing astrology without using Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto; notably when these aspect the sun. Maybe somebody else can't imagine doing astrology without terms, sects, joys, and almutens.

Chocolate or vanilla?

Recently, I just looked at some things for traditional astrology and then for Vedic and compared them to modern in my head, and they all seem to use different things to say similar things at the same time. Vedic might say you're a Sun in Capricorn or Cancer instead of Aquarius or Leo respectively, but it also has a different definition for a Sun sign that modern astrology. Traditional astrology doesn't seem to use the sign a planet is in to determine that planet's behavior the same way Sun signs are used to determine how a person expresses themself. In modern astrology, I have a Saturn in Aries that is not very prominent because it is not aspected as much as other planets due to the presence of the 3 modern planets. But in traditional astrology, my Saturn is the most aspected planet, and it is still the ruler of Aquarius (and Capricorn by day? only) no matter where it is, and the Saturn fall in Aries description seems to be pretty accurate and nothing like, say, a Sun in Aries description for expression of individuality (however, the Sun is in detriment in Aquarius and fall in Libra.) Vedic astrology is even harder to learn about that traditional due to the number of things you can find on it (not many) but if I interpreted what I read once right, it basically uses 5 planets for the 5 elements and any one of them, not just the Sun, can be your expression, so there my aspected Saturn is definitely apparent, being able to be the planet of freedom as well as limits and simply associated with element air. So, no matter what system you use, if you're skilled, it works. Just use what you like. I like using Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, especially because I'm interested in the course of humanity in general and they seem to correlate, but other people might be more interested in something else. And if I'm wrong about any other system of astrology, please correct me because I'm just your know-it-all Aquarian who's trying to point out an observation but who'd rather not make any false statements about anybody/thing else.

"modern" traditional astrologers, to Jupiter

Jupiter,

You said:

JUPITERASC said:

What you have implied is incorrect. The actual reason traditional astrologers do not use the outer planets is far simpler: the real reason is because Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are invisible to the naked eye and may only be seen with the use of powerful telescopes.

Click to expand...

I worded that poorly. You are correct about the original traditional astrologers. I was talking about astrologers today who deliberately avoid the modern astrological methods and turn instead to traditional methods. For these astrologers the reason they choose traditional astrology is not because they can not see Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto in the sky, but because of something else. I am suggesting that it's the inability to predict precisely using the outers attracts those people who like to predict things to take up traditional astrology.

Guessing,

Tim

Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are Generational Planets - Discuss

wilsontc said:

Each outer planet in its own way is unpredictable and unknowable. "Wait and see" is what modern astrologers tend to say when asked what the effect will be on a person. "There will be some sort of rebellion, you will be confused in some way, something will die and be reborn" are the sort of answers modern astrologers give. And there is nothing that can be accurately predicted from that.

Click to expand...

You do not need to be an astrologer to tell someone that (1) "they will be confused in some way"... or that (2) "something will die and be reborn" because the fact that "something will die and be reborn" is a self-evident fact of life. "Something dies and is reborn" continuously on a daily basis for everyone in life. As for (3) "there will be some sort of rebellion" - when has there not been some sort of rebellion occurring somewhere - at all times? So you appear to be saying that modern astrologers tend to tell people that nothing can be accurately predicted from Uranus, Neptune and Pluto...

wilsontc said:

I worded that poorly. You are correct about the original traditional astrologers. I was talking about astrologers today who deliberately avoid the modern astrological methods and turn instead to traditional methods. For these astrologers the reason they choose traditional astrology is not because they can not see Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto in the sky, but because of something else. I am suggesting that it's the inability to predict precisely using the outers attracts those people who like to predict things to take up traditional astrology.Guessing, Tim

Click to expand...

The real question is, if Modern Astrologers are so critical of Traditional Astrologers why then do Modern astrologers use Traditional methods at all? Clearly the answer is obviously because Traditional techniques are tried and tested over thousands of years and work well and modern astrology could not survive without these ancient tried and tested methods. Modern Astrology is dependent upon the use of ancient, thousands of years old Traditional Astrological techniques such as solar arc direction, whereas Modern Astrologers using Pluto in delineations can only go back as far as 18 March 1930 which is when Pluto was discovered with the aid of a powerful telescope. That was 81 years ago and not even time for one complete Uranus return... Pluto orbits the Sun once every 248 years (so another 167 years shall have passed before Pluto returns to its discovery degree, which interestingly by the way is the time Neptune takes to travel once around the sun)... not long then... Is it so surprising then that Modern Astrologers can only continue, as wilsontc comments, guessing...

waybread said:

Hmm, I've probably given my canned lecture #28 (or somesuch) a few too many times, but basically when you compare traditional, modern, and Vedic, we are dealing with issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of their predictions or character delineations.

Click to expand...

Well there are many who would disagree! Are you saying that in general, in your view, astrology excludes accuracy of delineation? If that is so, why bother delineating... why bother drawing up a chart? Why not make a wild guess? Or are Modern Astrologers people who... guess? Vedic astrologers in contrast are famed for the specificity and accuracy of their delineations.

waybread said:

Frankly, I cannot imagine practicing astrology without using Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto; notably when these aspect the sun. Maybe somebody else can't imagine doing astrology without terms, sects, joys, and almutens

Click to expand...

Is Solar Arc Direction one of the thousand year old techniques that you use? Is Solar Return one of the techniques you use? Solar Return was designed before the discovery of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. What I am saying is that there is a clear and unequivocal demarcation between those who delineate natal charts using the seven visible planets and those who take the delineations of the past thousands of years of Traditional Astrology and tag Uranus, Neptune and Pluto onto those natal chart delineations.

MSO said:

I don't cling to any one system, I just go for what works. I can see some people on here are just plain fascinated with the outer planets. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people jump right into the outer planets when looking to solve a problem, completely ignoring the obvious indicators amongst the inner planets and refusing to listen to any logic developed over thousands of years.

Now I'm not a pro astrologer by any means, but like Bob, while reading the interpretations for each planet, I found I identified with the inner planets very strongly. When I started getting into the outer planets, it became more of a "I guess..." and eventually ended in "... that's just wrong."

For me, regardless of reason, the outer planets just don't work. I don't care if they can't be seen with the naked eye, I don't care if they're far away, I don't care if they're small or have weird orbits. They don't work. Period. I do acknowledge their usefulness in nation's charts. That I can't deny. But on a personal level, no, they do nothing significant for me, if anything at all. If they did do anything, it'd be something hidden and difficult to find. I can honestly say that I tried to give the outer planets a shot. I read articles and watched videos on them, I became pretty excited about the prospect of using them to elevate my subconscious or spiritual goals and the like. But when I went back to my chart, and tried to apply what I learned, I was very disappointed. My two cents.

Click to expand...

Interesting discussion... debate is always useful and everyone at all times is entitled to their own point of view

Re: Traditional astrologers had no telescopes so Uranus, Neptune & Pluto invisible

Jupiterasc, I've heard the argument that traditional astrologers do not use the outers because they are invisible to the naked eye, and I just don't buy it.

The horoscope is loaded with points that are invisible to the naked eye, and we are fine using them, such as the IC and fourth house. We can't see degrees. There is no rationale for privileging planets as deserving a unique criterion.

Most planets are invisible to the naked eye a lot of the time, notably during daylight hours and at night when they are under the horizon. Mercury is seldom visible due to its proximity to the sun. This is precisely why astrologers invented the ephemeris. But then it gives only an arbitrary, average position--perhaps based on noon GMT. There is no actual line showing a meridian passing around the globe.

Uranus actually is visible to the naked eye under ideal viewing conditions. So, occasionally, is the asteroid Vesta. Time to add them to the "naked eye astrology" repertory!

You can bet that if the scientifically-minded astrologers of the past like Ptolemy had access to telescopes, they would have used them to delineate the outer planets. They invented what instruments they could in their day (like the astrolabe) to better understand the heavens. We are talking about the limits of technology at periods in the past, not about anything intrinsic to the study of astrology.

Traditional astrologers often used fixed stars. Yet these are not visible to the naked eye in the sense of which we think of empirical observation. Remote stars are light years away from earth, so the light we see today actually emanated from them in the past. Regulus, for example, is about 77.5 light years away from earth. Depending upon whom you ask, Spica in Virgo is approximately 250 light years away from earth. Nobody living today was even born when the light we see from Spica was given off. Also, the earth and stars have moved positions relative to one another from the time their light is given off to the time it reaches earth, so they aren't even where we think they are today.

A telescope is little more than a tube holding an eye piece and a big lens. I can't see much in the night sky at all without my lenses--i.e., ordinary eyeglasses. Humans have been using tools to improve their acuity since the Stone Age. Pluto was discovered using a simple device of taking ordinary pictures of the heavens, and then tracing any movements on the pictures between photo shoots.

It makes little sense to me to focus upon one type of invention as logically delineating which planets to use and which ones to ignore. The irony, to me, is the traditionalists typing their messages on plastic computer keyboards plugged into an electrical outlet, and sending their messages via high speed Internet:-- in order to insist that the simple telescopes of the 18th and 19th centuries are one technological "bridge too far."

The only rationale, it seems to me, for not using the outers is that (a) you're happier without them, just as some keyboard musicians are happy reviving the harpsichord; and (b) you've seen no convincing evidence that they add anything to your personal chart interpretation capabilities.

Re: Traditional astrologers had no telescopes so Uranus, Neptune & Pluto invisible

JupiterAsc, just some comments on your other points.

1. Of course modern astrology is based upon traditional astrology! Just as the wheel invented by pre-historic Indo-Europeans was the basis for the Victorians' horse-drawn carriage and the 2011-model sports cars. But to compare an oxcart to a Lamborghini sort of misses the obvious changes/improvements/additions made over the centuries to wheeled vehicles.

We can honour our heritage without feeling restricted to it.

2. I believe you misunderstood my point about accuracy. What I said (or meant to) is that the 3 major astrological systems all seem to produce accurate results. The corollary is that if only one system (traditional western) were accurate, the others would fail to make accurate predictions because the are significantly different. But they are all capable of accurate delineations.

3. If you are referring to me personally, you apparently don't know my practices very well. Of course, I use a mix of practices that have been around for 2000 years (if not longer) as well as recent ones.

In fact, I wish the whole modern/traditional division would just go away. We need something sensible, like an eclectic astrology that uses the best of both systems.

I look at whether a planet is domiciled. I don't look at its terms or sect. I don't look at the hyleg. I use "lords" (accidental house cusp rulers.) I tend to treat solar returns more like everyday transit charts than something that shapes the rest of one's year. Sometimes I look at solar arcs. Depending upon the question of interest, I might look at the 7th harmonic chart, some mid-points, or judiciously selected asteroids. I think astrology has no place for death prediction. I think "modern psychological astrology" is a big misnomer for most of modern astrology today. I think aspects between planets (and the conjunction) are probably the most important part of chart interpretation. This is what I mean by an eclectic approach.

And please don't get me started on the utterly goofy and even pernicious bits from traditional astrology. Numerous examples from Hellenistic astrologers provided upon request. I've got the books upstairs. You wouldn't use this material, either.

4. But no, the outer planets are not "tacked on" as ungainly appendages to a transparently perfected system called traditional western astrology. They are as essential to my work as Saturn. They are not inner planets but if they aspect one, they will affect it. Where they aspect one another (such as the longstanding Neptune-Pluto sextile) I treat them as factors affecting the individual's generation. Their energies are different than those of the tranditional planets, and are in many ways more complex.

I do not do horary astrology, so I cannot comment on the outer planets' use (or not) there.

Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are Generational Planets - Discuss

waybread said:

Jupiterasc, I've heard the argument that traditional astrologers do not use the outers because they are invisible to the naked eye, and I just don't buy it. Traditional astrologers often used fixed stars. Yet these are not visible to the naked eye in the sense of which we think of empirical observation.

Click to expand...

Despite your assertion Waybread, it is a fact that the fixed stars ARE visible to the naked eye and as a matter of fact, the total number of fixed stars visible to the naked eye is about 6000!!!

QUOTE
The star catalogue compiled by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE lists 1,022 fixed stars visible from Alexandria. This became the standard number of stars in Western culture for hundreds of years. The total number of stars visible to the naked eye is about 6,000; only about half are visible at a given time of night from a given point on the Earth. (quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_stars )

waybread said:

Remote stars are light years away from earth, so the light we see today actually emanated from them in the past. Regulus, for example, is about 77.5 light years away from earth. Depending upon whom you ask, Spica in Virgo is approximately 250 light years away from earth. Nobody living today was even born when the light we see from Spica was given off. Also, the earth and stars have moved positions relative to one another from the time their light is given off to the time it reaches earth, so they aren't even where we think they are today.

Click to expand...

Regarding the time light takes to travel, well since light takes 8.333 minutes to reach us from our Sun are all horoscopes then incorrect by 8.333 minutes?

waybread said:

Uranus actually is visible to the naked eye under ideal viewing conditions. So, occasionally, is the asteroid Vesta. Time to add them to the "naked eye astrology" repertory!

Click to expand...

Indeed. I have indeed observed Uranus on one occasion and without the aid of any telescope.

waybread said:

You can bet that if the scientifically-minded astrologers of the past like Ptolemy had access to telescopes, they would have used them to delineate the outer planets. They invented what instruments they could in their day (like the astrolabe) to better understand the heavens.

Click to expand...

The facts are that Ptolemy did not see the Outer Planets and neither did his predecessors. Your comment is therefore a gamble and a guess. We could just as easily say that if Ptolomy had access to a television he would have watched Eastenders.

waybread said:

JupiterAsc, just some comments on your other points. 1. Of course modern astrology is based upon traditional astrology! Just as the wheel invented by pre-historic Indo-Europeans was the basis for the Victorians' horse-drawn carriage and the 2011-model sports cars. But to compare an oxcart to a Lamborghini sort of misses the obvious changes/improvements/additions made over the centuries to wheeled vehicles. We can honour our heritage without feeling restricted to it.

Click to expand...

Irrespective of Lamborghinis versus ox-carts, why throw out the wheels on which both are dependent? In any case neither a Lambourghini nor an ox-cart are in any sense comparable to the starry vault of a myriad scintillating suns and wandering stars

waybread said:

2. I believe you misunderstood my point about accuracy. What I said (or meant to) is that the 3 major astrological systems all seem to produce accurate results. The corollary is that if only one system (traditional western) were accurate, the others would fail to make accurate predictions because the are significantly different. But they are all capable of accurate delineations.

3. If you are referring to me personally, you apparently don't know my practices very well. Of course, I use a mix of practices that have been around for 2000 years (if not longer) as well as recent ones.

In fact, I wish the whole modern/traditional division would just go away. We need something sensible, like an eclectic astrology that uses the best of both systems.

I look at whether a planet is domiciled. I don't look at its terms or sect. I don't look at the hyleg. I use "lords" (accidental house cusp rulers.) I tend to treat solar returns more like everyday transit charts than something that shapes the rest of one's year. Sometimes I look at solar arcs. Depending upon the question of interest, I might look at the 7th harmonic chart, some mid-points, or judiciously selected asteroids. I think astrology has no place for death prediction. I think "modern psychological astrology" is a big misnomer for most of modern astrology today. I think aspects between planets (and the conjunction) are probably the most important part of chart interpretation. This is what I mean by an eclectic approach.

And please don't get me started on the utterly goofy and even pernicious bits from traditional astrology. Numerous examples from Hellenistic astrologers provided upon request. I've got the books upstairs. You wouldn't use this material, either.

4. But no, the outer planets are not "tacked on" as ungainly appendages to a transparently perfected system called traditional western astrology. They are as essential to my work as Saturn. They are not inner planets but if they aspect one, they will affect it. Where they aspect one another (such as the longstanding Neptune-Pluto sextile) I treat them as factors affecting the individual's generation. Their energies are different than those of the tranditional planets, and are in many ways more complex.

I do not do horary astrology, so I cannot comment on the outer planets' use (or not) there.

Click to expand...

It is interesting to read of your preferred practices and thank you for sharing that. You obviously are entitled to choose those practices that work best for you. This is an interesting debate - albeit, as Ruka has already wisely observed, each contributor has strong opinions

Re: Traditional astrologers had no telescopes so Uranus, Neptune & Pluto invisible

JupiterAsc, I think you misunderstood portions of my message.

1. I didn't say we don't "see stars" after a fashion, all 6000 of them. Rather,when we "see" stars, we cannot actually see them as they exist today, in terms of their intensity or location from a geocentric perspective.

Depending upon their distance from us, stars might be as few as several light years/parsecs, or even thousands of light years away. So a star could have vanished from the heavens a century ago, yet we would "see" it as though it were still burning brightly today. A variable star like Mira (200-400 light years away, in Cetus) is not varying with either the rate or timing at this moment with which we think we see it today. We are just a couple of centuries behind-hand.

Similarly, Mars isn't "red." If it were, it would be invisible to the naked eye against a black background. Its hue in the heavens is nothing like the primary colour. Rather, most languages didn't have a word for "orange" until actual citrus fruit oranges were introduced to them. So they used words like "red gold" or "yellow red"; and the colour red had to do duty for a wider hue spectrum than it does today.

So the eye plays tricks on us, via the physics of light transmission, and our culture-bound means of expression. The naked eye isn't some kind of faithful replicator of what actually occurs in the heavens. We could make a case for astrology as an imaginative system much like folklore, but then that isn't what traditional astrologers usually purport to do.

BTW, I've got a hard copy of Tetrabiblos and once checked out the Almagest, so feel free to cite Ptolemy chapter and verse (just in English, please, not Greek.)

2. I never even implied that Ptolemy or his predessors saw the outer planets! This isn't even relevant to my point. Which being, your argument is actually a History of Technology argument, not an argument based on anything intrinsic to the practice of astrology itself.

Ptolemy, interestingly, is viewed as the father of a lot of modern cartography, because he developed (based on some fore-runners) our modern system of latitude and longitude and made a map of the known world that was unsurpassed until the Renaissance. He was keenly curious about the realities beyond his immediate horizons. It is safe to assume that if he had access to telescopes, he would have used them. The prominent astrologers of the Hellenistic and Arab worlds were not adverse to technology: they embraced it.

Ptolemy used the astrolabe in his Tetrabiblos (invented ca. 150 BC), which took astrology to a level of sophistication in measurement that it lacked with mere "naked eye" observations. Before then, Greek astronomers/astrologers used instruments like the dioptra, which measured angles; and primitive astrolabe devices called "armillary spheres," which could show the sun's ecliptic and right ascension. Al Biruni (11th cent. AD) used a planisphere.

The telescope itself was invented in 1608, which is well within the time period attributed to traditional astrology.

3. I have not and would not suggest throwing out the traditional western astrology baby together with its bathwater. I am not sure, therefore, if you are arguing with me or with some hypothetical, generic "modern astrologer." I. e., with Not Me. But let's face it, there is a lot of bathwater there.

4. The real difficulty with the "outers" for traditional astrology is that a tidy system set forth by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD and subsequently refined until the 1600s is essentially a closed system. One can elaborate upon it, one can explore its nooks and crannies, one can pigeon-hole things differently, or devise different calculations within the same fixed parameters. But with its system of degree divisions, rulerships, &c. it had no more place for Uranus and Company than it had for the sun as the centre of the solar system.

And this is partly why traditional astrology vanished from European universities by the Enlightenment. Because once we learned that the universe was far different than Ptolemy conceived, there was no going back on our new knowledge.

Ptolomy copied from predecessors all based on Babylonian/Ancient Egyptian Astrology

waybread said:

JupiterAsc, I think you misunderstood portions of my message.

Click to expand...

You can think what you like Waybread and you probably shall

waybread said:

1. I didn't say we don't "see stars" after a fashion, all 6000 of them. Rather,when we "see" stars, we cannot actually see them as they exist today, in terms of their intensity or location from a geocentric perspective. Depending upon their distance from us, stars might be as few as several light years/parsecs, or even thousands of light years away. So a star could have vanished from the heavens a century ago, yet we would "see" it as though it were still burning brightly today. A variable star like Mira (200-400 light years away, in Cetus) is not varying with either the rate or timing at this moment with which we think we see it today. We are just a couple of centuries behind-hand. Similarly, Mars isn't "red." If it were, it would be invisible to the naked eye against a black background. Its hue in the heavens is nothing like the primary colour. Rather, most languages didn't have a word for "orange" until actual citrus fruit oranges were introduced to them. So they used words like "red gold" or "yellow red"; and the colour red had to do duty for a wider hue spectrum than it does today. So the eye plays tricks on us, via the physics of light transmission, and our culture-bound means of expression. The naked eye isn't some kind of faithful replicator of what actually occurs in the heavens. We could make a case for astrology as an imaginative system much like folklore, but then that isn't what traditional astrologers usually purport to do.

Click to expand...

What is interesting is that you appear to be under the impression that you are addressing a Kindergarten group: perhaps you are: regarding myself then, the above statement consists of elementary facts already noted. Your point? If you are saying that the outer planets are somehow comparable to the fixed stars then you are mistaken. Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are planets invisible to the naked eye, whereas the so-called fixed stars are suns, so far away that they may no longer exist, yet their light continues travelling over the vastness of space, therefore we can 'see' them. The distance from earth to Pluto varies due to it's eccentric and highly inclined orbit: not only does Pluto orbit the Sun but so does the Earth, so obviously the distance between them can vary. The minimum distance is 4.2 billion km or 0.000443949832 light years. The maximum distance is 7.5 billion km or 0.000792767558 light years. Pluto is less than one light year away from Earth, much nearer than the fixed stars some of which are several hundred or more light years away from Earth.

waybread said:

BTW, I've got a hard copy of Tetrabiblos and once checked out the Almagest, so feel free to cite Ptolemy chapter and verse (just in English, please, not Greek.)

Click to expand...

So you have never read the Greek, you are wise to remember that much is lost in translation - You apparently consider Ptolomy as the be-all and the end-all... Incidentally, I too can say I own at least one book - and have checked out at least one other. Ptolomy noted the techniques of his predecessors therefore one would be wise to take note of the predecessors Ptolomy copied. Ptolomy was not an astrologer.

waybread said:

2. I never even implied that Ptolemy or his predessors saw the outer planets! This isn't even relevant to my point. Which being, your argument is actually a History of Technology argument, not an argument based on anything intrinsic to the practice of astrology itself

Click to expand...

.
??? You are drifting Waybread...
You yourself stated that Ptolomy would have delineated the Uranus Neptune and Pluto if he had a telescope with which to view them. Remember?

waybread said:

You can bet that if the scientifically-minded astrologers of the past like Ptolemy had access to telescopes, they would have used them to delineate the outer planets.

Click to expand...

.
I replied that the comment you made is a gamble and a guess

waybread said:

Ptolemy, interestingly, is viewed as the father of a lot of modern cartography, because he developed (based on some fore-runners) our modern system of latitude and longitude and made a map of the known world that was unsurpassed until the Renaissance. He was keenly curious about the realities beyond his immediate horizons. It is safe to assume that if he had access to telescopes, he would have used them. The prominent astrologers of the Hellenistic and Arab worlds were not adverse to technology: they embraced it.

Click to expand...

Fascinating

waybread said:

Ptolemy used the astrolabe in his Tetrabiblos (invented ca. 150 BC), which took astrology to a level of sophistication in measurement that it lacked with mere "naked eye" observations. Before then, Greek astronomers/astrologers used instruments like the dioptra, which measured angles; and primitive astrolabe devices called "armillary spheres," which could show the sun's ecliptic and right ascension. Al Biruni (11th cent. AD) used a planisphere

Click to expand...

.
Ptolomy learned from the Egyptian Mystery Schools

waybread said:

The telescope itself was invented in 1608, which is well within the time period attributed to traditional astrology

Click to expand...

. .
Traditional Astrology itself did not appear suddenly in 1608, so-called Traditional Astrology is founded upon more ancient techniques originating with the Babylonians and Egyptians The ancient Egyptians began observing the skies, as did the Babylonians thousands of years before Ptolomy appeared on the scene, with or without a telescope and/or a portable television.

waybread said:

3. I have not and would not suggest throwing out the traditional western astrology baby together with its bathwater. I am not sure, therefore, if you are arguing with me or with some hypothetical, generic "modern astrologer." I. e., with Not Me. But let's face it, there is a lot of bathwater there.

Click to expand...

. .
Previously we had ox-carts and Lamborghinis now we have babies and bathwater. Bring back the Wheel, or is that old fashioned....

waybread said:

4. The real difficulty with the "outers" for traditional astrology is that a tidy system set forth by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD and subsequently refined until the 1600s is essentially a closed system. One can elaborate upon it, one can explore its nooks and crannies, one can pigeon-hole things differently, or devise different calculations within the same fixed parameters. But with its system of degree divisions, rulerships, &c. it had no more place for Uranus and Company than it had for the sun as the centre of the solar system. And this is partly why traditional astrology vanished from European universities by the Enlightenment. Because once we learned that the universe was far different than Ptolemy conceived, there was no going back on our new knowledge.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Ptolomy originated ALL astrology? Ptolomy copied the techniques of ancient astrologers, adding other ideas here and there, such as the 'closed system' you mentioned. You have consistently ignored Ancient Egyptian Astrology as well as Babylonian Astrology. Interesting viewpoint ... as you predicted Ruka_5 the thread continues...

Ummm the entire argument is irrelevant until we can undeniably (or even mostly) understand the premises/principles under which astrology functions... Until one of you can prove this it will be a **** pissing contest. Any one of the premises I've observed is weighted on your own theory of how this all works! Or random anecdotal evidence unconvincing to anyone but yourself.

BUT of course good luck proving how astrology works because if you do you will a legend! Most likely, the only way this will happen is through strict professional research which so far has suggested the practice illegitimate entirely.

Pisceanfool said:

Ummm the entire argument is irrelevant until we can undeniably (or even mostly) understand the premises/principles under which astrology functions... Until one of you can prove this it will be a **** pissing contest. Any one of the premises I've observed is weighted on your own theory of how this all works! Or random anecdotal evidence unconvincing to anyone but yourself.

BUT of course good luck proving how astrology works because if you do you will a legend! Most likely, the only way this will happen is through strict professional research which so far has suggested the practice illegitimate entirely.

Click to expand...

There is NO doubt in my mind that astrology does work and here are some links to research. What is debated here is the value 'if any' of the outers...

why does astrology work - resources
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=291766&postcount=12
http://www.magicalmiracles.com/astrology.htm
http://www.thedreamtime.com/Astrology/Why-Astrology-Works.html
http://www.thegreenduck.com/ka/astwork.shtml
http://www.islandnet.com/~licht/why_astrology.htm
http://www.miscellaneoustalk.com/misc/does-astrology-work/
http://www.llewellyn.com/blog/2010/09/does-astrology-really-work-how/

Good well I'd like to see specific research findings cited to support premises. If possible those published in academic journals and peer reviewed. That is what I would be interested in reading. Not to sound like a jerk just holding high standards

Alright I'll say it's somewhat unfair to hold these standards, but when people are getting this heated about it really it's the best option in my mind. Otherwise don't have an opinion. *shrug*

Pisceanfool said:

Good well I'd like to see specific research findings cited to support premises. If possible those published in academic journals and peer reviewed. That is what I would be interested in reading. Not to sound like a jerk just holding high standards

Click to expand...

If you cannot accept that astrology is an *Art, Science mixture* then perhaps astrology is not going to be your thing and that's fine. I'm sure others will cite megga books, sources, old ancient manuscripts and alike as evidence, but this thread is specifically about the validity of using outers. Not whether astrology works or not...

Pisceanfool said:

Alright I'll say it's somewhat unfair to hold these standards, but when people are getting this heated about it really it's the best option in my mind. Otherwise don't have an opinion. *shrug*

Click to expand...

this thread came about as certain members were adamant about trolling their views on many many threads and flooding the forums on their views about Traditional astrology being the ONLY valid delination, discounting Modern astrologers views on using outers ---hence this thread was created to specifically discuss this matter.

Modern astrology and the outers, to Jupiter

Jupiter,

You said:

JUPITERASC said:

You do not need to be an astrologer to tell someone that (1) "they will be confused in some way"... or that (2) "something will die and be reborn" because the fact that "something will die and be reborn" is a self-evident fact of life. "Something dies and is reborn" continuously on a daily basis for everyone in life. As for (3) "there will be some sort of rebellion" - when has there not been some sort of rebellion occurring somewhere - at all times?...The real question is, if Modern Astrologers are so critical of Traditional Astrologers...Modern Astrologers using Pluto in delineations can only go back as far as 18 March 1930 which is when Pluto was discovered with the aid of a powerful telescope. That was 81 years ago and not even time for one complete Uranus return... Pluto orbits the Sun once every 248 years (so another 167 years shall have passed before Pluto returns to its discovery degree, which interestingly by the way is the time Neptune takes to travel once around the sun)...Are you saying that in general, in your view, astrology excludes accuracy of delineation? If that is so, why bother delineating... why bother drawing up a chart?

Click to expand...

It seems to me you have just well-demonstrated how it is Traditional astrologers who are critical of Modern astrologers. I made a point about Modern astrologers not being about predicting and you as a Traditional astrologer made a point to criticize it! I am not critical of traditional astrologers personally, and think they do some amazing things in their astrology. I'm simply explaining why I use the outers and what I like about them...and trying to understand the arguments against using them. To each their own, as has been said many times in this thread, I'm just floating in the river of this discussion and seeing where it takes me.

Again you are bringing up the point of planetary returns (i.e., "not even time for one complete Uranus return", "another 167 years shall have passed before Pluto returns to its discovery degree", "the time Neptune takes to travel once around the sun") which have nothing to do with whether to use or not use modern planets, so that's confusing me about the topic again. If your point is that Traditional Astrological techniques are older than Modern Astrological techniques, then you could much more easily make that point by pointing out that Traditional astrology goes back to Babylonian times and Modern astrology goes back pretty much to the early 1900s with Alan Leo. No need to bring in planetary returns at all!

Which brings me to the fate vs. free will thing [collective groan]. Yes, I have to bring it up, because to me that's the main difference between Traditional and Modern astrology: Traditional astrology wants to find out what is GOING to happen (fate), while Modern astrology wants to find out what COULD happen and take steps to work with the possibility (free will). So in Modern Astrology understanding these "crisis points" in a person's life will give them more options than if they simply stumble through them and take the easiest option, which can lead to bad results.

And the outer planets fit right into this idea of helping people use their free will to mold events to help them. Understanding how to use the Uranus opposition time of rebellion in a helpful way, understanding the confusion that comes at the time of the Neptune square and using it to develop spiritual awareness, and at using the Pluto square for transforming and burning away the old no-longer-needed self to let the newly reborn self out. Going through these life-changing events with awareness can help see a person through to develop their life in a new, better way. It's about being aware through astrology, and then DOING something with that awareness.

This is completely different from the Traditional goal of finding out what is going to happen and then just accepting it, this is about boldly stepping into the energy and USING that energy to develop and build in life. And that's what I like about Modern Astrology and about the outer planets in particular.

Out there,

Tim

JA, please cut the sophomoric personalized sarcasm. It isn't the same as conducting a reasoned debate on the issues and I see no point in responding to it. I know what I wrote and what I intended. Possibly I didn't explain myself clearly, but since you think that I write at a "kindergarten level", this apparently was not the case.

And no, I do not imply much that I do not spell out. Certainly not the reductio ad absurdum reasoning that you suggest. Why engage in something so silly?

Look, we are both smart enough and old enough to know the differences between planets and fixed stars. 'Nuff said.

If you have read Ptolemy in Greek I take my hat off to you. I have the Loeb Classical Library edition: there are others out there. Of course, Mr. Pt was not the Be All and End All of traditional astrology. But his influence in traditional astrology was second to no one, so far as I know. Name someone else who surpassed his stature, if you like.

I have a fair interest in the history of astrology, but less so in adopting a lot of its practices. I will compare my home library with your home library of primary and secondary sources on the history of astrology with one hand tied behind my back, not counting sources available on-line. If you've not already read them, I highly recommend Nicolas Campion's 2-volume set on the history of astrology.

If you know the history of astrology, however, you will realize that some of the traditionally-oriented techniques that I use are first found in different traditional sources. Like Firmicus Maternus, for example.

There is a small cottage industry on ancient astronomy and astrology by classicists and historians of science. Mr. Pt appears to have been influenced by a range of sources available in his day, notably the Babylonians--which he acknowledges. As a Roman citizen, he assimilated a lot of Graeco-Roman knowledge--and instrumentation. He was a great compiler and synthesizer who really attempted to set forth astrology as a systematic body of knowledge.

My main point about him in your post's midsection is that if he had access to a telescope, you would have to make a pretty strong evidence-based case that he would not have used it. He used the technology available to him and attempted to put his knowledge on a more "scientific" (for his day) basis. Could he have discovered Pluto? Probably not. This discovery awaited the invention of sufficiently good photography to take sharp pictures of the night sky. Although Uranus and Neptune are observable more directly with telescopes, some of the discoveries of the 18th and 19th centuries also relied on the astronomy of gravitational pulls and the mathematics (Gauss, for example) to calculate orbits.

But the point really is that simply because math and science hadn't advanced to this point in ancient times, you cannot argue that astrology therefore owes allegiance to anti-technological Luddism that the ancient astrologers do not appear to have held. The counter-factual argument is that had traditional astrologers known about the outer planets, they would have ignored them. You really can't make this case.

I don't know what your point is about 1608, when the telescope was invented. Traditional astrology was the only kind practiced in the West until the late 19th century.

The other problem for you JA, is explaining why astrology got turfed out of the European universities in early modern times, if it was such a sound body of knowledge.