Confused about Pluto

JUPITERASC

Well-known member


I don't get your point by stating the obvious.
What do you mean?


since you ask :smile:
the OP stated

Hi everyone,

I am very confused about Pluto after reading the following...
and what I can't understand or grasp
is why Pluto was assigned as ruler of Scorpio?
and so
since the focus on this thread is answering the OP's question
it is important to realise that
in answer to the OP's question

When Pluto is discovered
It is assigned to Aries
and there is a conference in Germany to discuss the matter more fully.
UNANIMOUS agreement dictates that Pluto rules Aries,
and the counter idea, that some were positing at the time,
that it should rule Scorpio
is quashed.

BUT THEN

someone beats them to print,
and wrote up the attributions of Pluto saying it rules Scorpio.

The author simply beat them to print
and published a successful book
and the rest is history.
It stuck,
and from that day forth Pluto magically started ruling Scorpio
 

AstroLogical

Well-known member
since you ask :smile:
the OP stated


and so
since the focus on this thread is answering the OP's question
it is important to realise that
in answer to the OP's question

When Pluto is discovered
It is assigned to Aries
and there is a conference in Germany to discuss the matter more fully.
UNANIMOUS agreement dictates that Pluto rules Aries,
and the counter idea, that some were positing at the time,
that it should rule Scorpio
is quashed.

BUT THEN

someone beats them to print,
and wrote up the attributions of Pluto saying it rules Scorpio.

The author simply beat them to print
and published a successful book
and the rest is history.
It stuck,
and from that day forth Pluto magically started ruling Scorpio

Thank you for the explanation and history lesson.
I've got to say though, it sounds like a "cosmic correction."
All those folks at the conference in Germany were headed west on a flat earth...
 

Dirius

Well-known member
And hopefully now with Dirius claiming that he feels this conversation is over, those of us wishing to explore Pluto in the horoscope (vs. re-hashing the old trad vs mod battle) will have some breathing space to do so.

And you are welcome to do so, no one forbids you from using pluto in your horoscope.

But as long as people like the OP keep asking questions about the things they clearly find inconsistent with pluto, we'll be here to teach them about the true ruler of Scorpio, Mars, so they can properly delineate their charts. :joyful:
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
The mods on this thread answered the OP's questions on multiple occasions. We aren't the ones trying to subvert a thread on Pluto into an assault on another school of astrology, using Pluto as a pretext.

Just to re-cap one point about rulership:

The hypothetical Pluto rulership of Aries is just a smokescreen. The only astrologers arguing this way on this thread are the neo-conservatives who wouldn't use Pluto as the ruler of Aries either. Apparently they enjoy this sort of confusion.

The Aries thing was based on the notion that:

(a) In Ptolemy's rulership system, the planets are arrayed according to their distance from the sun and moon (and summer solstice), in the following fashion (read the left-hand column down, and the right-hand column up to get the idea):

sun=Leo.....moon=Cancer
Mercury= Virgo......Gemini
Venus= Libra.........Taurus
Mars= Scorpio........Aries (then here we start over)
Jupiter=Sagiittarius..Pisces
Saturn=Capricorn...Aquarius

(b) Saturn was the outermost known planet prior to the discovery of Uranus,

(c) Uranus was beyond Saturn.

(d Capricorn and Aquarius both have Saturn as the traditional ruler, but the structure of Ptolemy's planet-sign rulerships could be kept intact if Uranus were assigned to Aquarius. The few Anglophone astrologers remaining, pre-modern astrology, tried to fit Uranus into the table of essential dignities early in the 1800s.

(d) Uranus did turn out to be a good fit with Aquarius, though not for the reasons initially postulated, namely that it was a malefic more or less like Saturn except more unpredictable. (There is a long thread over at Skyscript about this history. http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=86611&sid=7d4a60429fc87410408c06c5047a03fd)

(e) After Neptune was discovered in 1846, (during astrology's Dark Ages,) it had no rulership. During the late 19th/early 20th centuries, astrologers began to work on its astrological qualities and characteristics. Sometime after 1900, the Neptune rulership was adopted-- if you read Alan Leo's books, he shows an interesting evolution from simply finding Neptune-Pisces affinities to a more solid relationship. Somebody must have seen a Saturn/Capricorn, Uranus/Aquarius, Neptune/Pisces logic, but that didn't seem to be a key reason for one of the fathers of modern astrology. http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8566

(d) After Pluto was discovered and named in 1930, some astrologers made a case for an affiliation with Aries, not Scorpio-- but interestingly, often based on its perceived attributes (very modern!) as much as on its rank-order in Ptolemy's rulership scheme. (See Anton Jaks, Astrology Handbook, 2010, p. 22, available as a google book.)

Jaks decried the switch to Scorpio as based upon similarities between mythological Pluto, god of the dead, and the 8th house as the house of death, with Scorpio as the 8th sign. On the other hand, astrology was in full tilt prior to Ptolemy's system of rulership, with clear mythological associations between planetary gods and signs long before he developed his scheme.

My personal feeling is that the neo-traditionalists aren't going to use Pluto regardless, so it shouldn't make a bit of difference to them if other misguided souls go off and do their own thing. However, they do love their game of "Gotcha!" moments.

Further, we now know that Eris, a trans Neptunian object, is a dwarf planet (discovered in 2005) that may be larger than Pluto. Mythologically Eris was Mars's (Ares's) sister, and likewise was believed to cause a lot of strife. Once more is known about Eris, she might be a decent fit with Aries. Astronomically, Eris's inclined orbit sometimes puts it closer to the sun than Pluto, so it isn't an utter mismatch for lovers of Ptolemy's system of planet-sign rulerships. From Wikipedia:

"Unlike the eight planets, whose orbits all lie roughly in the same plane as the Earth's,
Eris's orbit is highly inclined: It is tilted at an angle of about 44 degrees to the ecliptic. In about 800 years, Eris will be closer to the Sun than Pluto for some time."

Intriguingly, Eris's orbit is so tilted that it often appears against non-zodiacal constellations. To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, maybe astrology is ready to move On Beyond Zebra.

The more we learn about asteroids and trans Neptunian objects, the more we can explore their astrological significance-- if any.

The above scheme doesn't fit identically into Ptolemy's, with Pluto still out-of-line; but then, modern astrologers can honour our traditional past without feeling straight-jacketed by it.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
And you are welcome to do so, no one forbids you from using pluto in your horoscope.

But as long as people like the OP keep asking questions about the things they clearly find inconsistent with pluto, we'll be here to teach them about the true ruler of Scorpio, Mars, so they can properly delineate their charts. :joyful:

Unbelievable. When you say a conversation is over, what do you really mean? Very passive aggressive-- and Scorpionic. To translate your remarks: "The good astrologers know that Pluto is meaningless, but lesser astrologers can use it in your ignorance."
 

Dirius

Well-known member
We are not assaulting another school of astrology.

But if in order to explain to someone like the op that Mars rules Scorpio, we need to show her why pluto can't rule Scorpio. If by doing that the flawed logics of pluto are exposed, that is not our fault.

"The good astrologers know that Pluto is meaningless, but lesser astrologers can use it in your ignorance."

Your words, not mine :pouty:
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
We aren't the ones trying to subvert a thread on Pluto into an assault on another school of astrology, using Pluto as a pretext.
You are kidding
methinks the lady doth protest too much!
particularly since you said
moments ago
that you're hooked on dialogue with Dirius as a form of 'entertainment'
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=601414&postcount=428

Dirius, buddy-- I will probably go into withdrawal symptoms when this thread ends.
What will I do without you for entertainment?
you'll be ok :smile:

by the way
rulership of Aries is clearly far from being 'a smokescreen'

Just to re-cap one point about rulership:

The hypothetical Pluto rulership of Aries is just a smokescreen.
The only astrologers arguing this way on this thread are the neo-conservatives who wouldn't use Pluto as the ruler of Aries either.
Apparently they enjoy this sort of confusion.
That's inaccurate
it is not 'just a smokescreen'
because

WEBSITE USING PLUTO RULES ARIES
http://www.astrologyonline.eu/Zodiac_Signs/Planets.asp
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
And you are welcome to do so,
no one forbids you from using pluto in your horoscope.

But as long as people like the OP keep asking questions about the things they clearly find inconsistent with pluto,
we'll be here to teach them about the true ruler of Scorpio, Mars, so they can properly delineate their charts. :joyful:
well said :smile:
 

waybread

Well-known member
Dirius, unfortunately, you are yet again reverting to mere repetition of your generalized thesis. Declaring your preferred system to be superior while ignoring evidence to the contrary doesn't make it superior. It just means that your mind was made up, regardless, and you had no intention of listening to opposing views. or reading the references offered to you. I don't think you've read very much about Pluto or worked with it in hundreds of natal charts, as some of us have.

To y'all:
Just to recap, the OP asked about Pluto's demotion to dwarf planet status, which happened in an international convention of astronomers in 2006; and its long orbital period.

First, astrology and astronomy shared a common history, but have parted in many of our ways during the past centuries. If astrology went by astronomy's rules, we would have no interest in applying planetary positions to human conduct, and would be using a heliocentric model of the solar system. A heavenly body or sensitive point can operate in astrology independently of its status or non-status in astronomy.

Of course, the trads' idea that Pluto is turfed out because of its astronomical dwarf planet status is another smokescreen. The neo-cons won't use Uranus or Neptune, either, and they are massive.

On the second point, there are two schools of thought. One is that Pluto wasn't operative in human history prior to its discovery in 1930, when it was in Cancer. By extension, we don't need to concern ourselves with Pluto before then. The other school is that we have tons of historical information and detailed biographies of people prior to 1930, so it is a simple enough job to match up events with Pluto's position.

On the generational issue, this isn't a problem. Most people have Pluto in contact with a natal planet or chart angle, and like you-- they feel it. Many aspects of our lives operate at a generational level, moreover. Pluto in Leo corresponded with major changes in the social construction of childhood; and an explosion of entertainment media.

Just to cite an example from a traditional planet, Saturn stays in one sign for over two years. Many "Woodstock generation" Aquarians and Pisceans experienced natal Saturn opposite sun. Saturn symbolizes older authority figures. Given other chart factors, this was the generation that protested authority, and coined the slogan, "Never trust anyone over 30."

Like MissScorpio, the OPer, many of us profoundly feel the effects of astrological Pluto in our lives. And we won't be inauthentic about it, regardless of what more Saturnian types think they know about it.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Dirius, unfortunately, you are yet again reverting to mere repetition of your generalized thesis.
Declaring your preferred system to be superior while ignoring evidence to the contrary doesn't make it superior.
It just means that your mind was made up, regardless, and you had no intention of listening to opposing views. or reading the references offered to you.
I don't think you've read very much about Pluto or worked with it in hundreds of natal charts, as some of us have.
That comment is meaningless without posting the 'hundreds of natal charts'
claimed to have 'been worked with'
:smile:
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Actually the first line in the OP's thread was:

Hi everyone,
I am very confused about Pluto after reading the following... and what I can't understand or grasp is why Pluto was assigned as ruler of Scorpio?

Pretty much our answer is: "it doesn't, Mars rules Scorpio"

Waybread, things attributed to pluto are so abstract it doesn't seem realistic at this point. It is like you just grab a few words, put them together, and say pluto corresponds to them:

"Pluto in Leo corresponded with major changes in the social construction of childhood; and an explosion of entertainment media."

To me it honestly seems like you can just asign anything that comes to mind to pluto. Let me try:

"Pluto rules the soft fur of new born baby panda bears; it also corresponds to the reflection provided by recently polished mirrors."

I mean....seriously... :pinched::pinched:

It doesn't matter how much random significance's you can give to the planet, because anyone can come up with any type. Obviously what you can't explain, you will asign to pluto.

In a way, it seems apparently that authors rather use pluto as some sort of complex spam folder, where things that no one knows how to explain end up in.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Due to the extremely slow and eccentric orbit of Pluto,
its effect on the individual personality has yet to be fully determined by astrologers.


It takes approximately 248 years
to make one complete round throughout the zodiac


to be realistic
it is unsurprising then that its effect on individual personality has yet to be fully determined by astrologers
because
it was only discovered almost 85 years ago in 1930

and another 163 years must pass before observation has been made during only ONE ORBIT of it around the sun!
and can spend between 15 and 20 years in a sign.
This is why those who argue against its use in delineating the personal horoscope, will say it is more generational than personal
No one ever experiences a pluto return

and
only those whose lifespans are at least 124 years
may experience an opposition of transiting pluto to natal pluto



as literally millions of people are born during its transit through one sign
.
This year alone
so far
almost eighteen million people have been born

and it's only mid-February 2015 :smile:

approximately 129,575,000 people are born YEARLY

therefore
since you have stated that pluto can spend between 15 and 20 YEARS IN A SIGN

then
at any given time,

approximately two and a half BILLION living people all have pluto in the same sign
 

waybread

Well-known member
Actually the first line in the OP's thread was:

"
Originally Posted by MissScorpio
Hi everyone,
I am very confused about Pluto after reading the following... and what I can't understand or grasp is why Pluto was assigned as ruler of Scorpio?"


Pretty much our answer is: "it doesn't, Mars rules Scorpio"
So far as I can determine your plural here refers to just to yourself and your echo. Konrad is no longer a member.

I and even Miss Scorpio at the bottom of her OP have repeatedly noted that we use Pluto because it works in modern chart interpretations. If you work extensively with house cusp rulers in natal chart interpretation, you too could see that Pluto works well as the modern ruler of Scorpio. But then again, since you haven't interpreted many charts using modern methods, I can see why you might be mystified.

Waybread, things attributed to pluto are so abstract it doesn't seem realistic at this point. It is like you just grab a few words, put them together, and say pluto corresponds to them:

"Pluto in Leo corresponded with major changes in the social construction of childhood; and an explosion of entertainment media."

To me it honestly seems like you can just asign anything that comes to mind to pluto. Let me try:

"Pluto rules the soft fur of new born baby panda bears; it also corresponds to the reflection provided by recently polished mirrors."

I mean....seriously... :pinched::pinched:
Dirius, it is getting increasingly difficult to deal with this level of either willful or accidental ignorance of Pluto in astrological signs. It seems increasingly difficult for you to post about Pluto without revealing how little you have studied it.

Then you have the temerity to demand that we do your Pluto homework for you. We all know that you have no intention, `a priori, of accepting anyone's examples or teaching moments. As my dad used to say about people who behave like this, "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up." Prejudice precisely means to pre-judge something, independently of the evidence.

Miss Scorpio, Dirius, and anyone else had multiple examples very early in this thread about how Pluto functions as the modern ruler of Scorpio and in the horoscope. Merely because you do not accept modern astrology, Dirius, doesn't mean these answers were not given. You might wish to return to the earlier pages of this thread.

And note your fallacy ad hominem. I am not making up this stuff as a solo practitioner, Dirius.

Let's talk about Leo. You are aware that Leo has been called "the sign of the child," and the sign of people who enjoy being "on stage," regardless of their walk of life. This list is by no means complete, however. Sakoian and Acker, in The Astrologer's Handbook, focused on Leo's power dimension, and Pluto's relation to the atomic bomb. Steven Forrest, in The Book of Pluto and Skye Alexander in Planets in Signs, focus on the Pluto-in-Leo generation's emphasis on creative self-expression. I don't know how much social history you've studied, but the major events that developed during the Pluto-in-Leo period speak for themselves. Television, more permissive attitudes towards child-reading (compare psychologist Alice Miller on pre-WWII with Benjamin Spock!) have no explanation in transits of the traditional planets.

A mixed bag? Yes, and no-- if you go through these delineations, you will see a Leonine emphasis that focuses on different dimensions of the sign.

And do read Robert Hand, Horoscope Symbols, p. 202 for his explanation on why Pluto belongs to Scorpio, having to do with Pluto's transpersonal attributes and Scorpio as one of the "social" signs.

It doesn't matter how much random significance's you can give to the planet, because anyone can come up with any type. Obviously what you can't explain, you will asign to pluto.
This is patently incorrect, as your reading of any modern astrology handbook would demonstrate. The problem, Dirius, is that you don't read modern astrology, and have no real background in it. This is no basis from which to launch an intelligent critique. You seem to persist in the mistaken belief that modern astrology has no standards.

The readings are not random, but relate to the planet's nature and the sign in which it appears.

In a way, it seems apparently that authors rather use pluto as some sort of complex spam folder, where things that no one knows how to explain end up in.
Dirius, I need no more convincing that you have little knowledge of modern astrology, yet happily criticize what you have not studied. Have you got a copy of Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book? Why don't you curl up with that book tonight, and then get back to me tomorrow with anything about his Scorpio and Pluto lists that you do not understand.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
And do read Robert Hand, Horoscope Symbols, p. 202
for his explanation on why Pluto belongs to Scorpio,
having to do with Pluto's transpersonal attributes and Scorpio as one of the "social" signs.
HOROSCOPE SYMBOLS was written in 1997 ~ almost twenty years ago
clearly opinions change


Robert Hand
has stated

QUOTE

'.....It is my opinion and experience
that the disuse and corruption of the traditional system regarding rulerships and essential dignities
was one of the most significant errors made by early-modern and modern astrologers.
These astrologers increasingly began to drop the use of terms, faces and even triplicity rulerships.
Then the problem was compounded by trying to fit first Uranus, then Neptune, and finally Pluto into the system.


As most of you know, Uranus was given Aquarius, Neptune Pisces, and Pluto was finally given Scorpio,
although there is a considerable party in Europe in favor of giving Aries to Pluto rather than Scorpio :smile:

This group does have some reason on its side
.....' Robert Hand
 

waybread

Well-known member
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=601632&posted=1#post601632

See the chart and bio-data posted at the top of the page. Click on the links on Elizabeth Smart's foundation website. You can also read the books written by and about her. Read up on Pluto in the horoscope, and its relationship to taboo sexuality, domination, and repression. Read up on Pluto's transformative potential.

Sorry, but this will take some homework on your part.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Not at all waybread. We've just extablished that pluto rules baby panda bears. So my mind can be changed. It is just that, like every other author out there, I have to add whatever comes into my mind into it.

We all know that you have no intention, `a priori, of accepting anyone's examples or teaching moments. As my dad used to say about people who behave like this, "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up." Prejudice precisely means to pre-judge something, independently of the evidence.
But you are not presenting facts. You are presenting opinions about some authors who believe pluto has certain amount of significance. You haven't presented a chart which couldn't be explained without pluto.

And the worst part is those significance can be easily created. IN fact from now on, using the methods you apply:

Pluto is the ruler of baby panda bears

I have made the theory, and I have done the reasearch on it. And I can certainly tell you pluto rules baby pandas. So from now one, rulership of baby pandas falls to pluto.

I can explain you the method it you want.

To be honest the case for pluto and the outers would be accepted probably by the whole of tradition, if you could actually prove the things claimed by delineating the charts with astrology.

Saying that pluto rules, for example, sexuality is kind of redundant, because of sexuality falling already under the rulership of Venus-Mars. Merely applying adjectives like "dominant, coercive, and taboo", is just trying to categorize it in order to make way for a theory, that it is ultimately wrong.

Any chart can be explained with other things that pluto, thus it is not needed.
 
Last edited:

muchacho

Well-known member
Waybread you said that pluto rules sexuality that is coercive, hidden, taboo, etc.

This is just putting some adjectives, and trying to make categories about how people experience sex.

Sex is represented by venus, has always been that way, will always be that way.

HOW people experience the sexual act, is given by venus primary state. Example:

- venus in dignity (taurus) - caring, lovabale
- venus in detriment (aries) - promiscuous
- venus in fall (virgo) - distant, unemotional
- venus in saturn dignity - frigid
- venus in aspect with benefic - faithfull, caring
- venus in aspect with X planet - depending the attributes of the planet

Taboo, forbideen, coercive etc, is all by the mixture of venus dginities and aspects. Pluto was never needed as "additional" information, or as a way to describe sub categories. They will always be there.

Most traditional astrologers have talked about this for over 2 thousand years. It is easy to understand.

Some extra information, can be taken from the ruler of 5th (what people "enjoy"). Particular aspects between Venus and this planet usually give a lot of information.

Saying that pluto who doesn't even get laid for most of the year has something to do with sexuality, is unplausible.
The difference I see between Mars sexuality and Scorpio sexuality is that Mars is not in control of his sexuality. Scorpio, however, can work with sexuality to unlock hidden potentials and tap into energies that by far go beyond what mere mortals typically have access to. That's where the connection to magic comes from, i.e transformation, a trait that is typically associated with Pluto. And so this is one more reason to consider Pluto as ruler of Scorpio instead of Mars.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
Thank you for the explanation and history lesson.
I've got to say though, it sounds like a "cosmic correction."
All those folks at the conference in Germany were headed west on a flat earth...
Yeah, it sounds like a bad conspiracy theory. I'm sure if they actually had a point, someone else would have taken it on board.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
The mods on this thread answered the OP's questions on multiple occasions. We aren't the ones trying to subvert a thread on Pluto into an assault on another school of astrology, using Pluto as a pretext.

Just to re-cap one point about rulership:

The hypothetical Pluto rulership of Aries is just a smokescreen. The only astrologers arguing this way on this thread are the neo-conservatives who wouldn't use Pluto as the ruler of Aries either. Apparently they enjoy this sort of confusion.
That's also my impression. There's too much effort spent on diverting attention from the elephant in the traditional room. Mars doesn't have much in common with Scorpio. Pluto doesn't have much in common with Aries. But all of the Mars qualities are in perfect alignment with Aries. And all of the Pluto qualities are also perfectly in alignment with Scorpio.
 
Top