Is Pluto an astrological planet?

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
kuiper-size-chart-aug2001-bg.jpg
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Okay, they're not really close orb your Asc.
I'll comment on your Chart-thread tomorrow night.
I've noticed something unusual from my own point of view.
As the OP I remind you that this is NOT a Read My Chart thread :smile:

this thread is titled IS PLUTO AN ASTROLOGICAL PLANET
and so
instead of hijacking this thread
via Hkk requesting your personal reading of natal chart
using your own invention the 12/12 system
which is an incomplete work in progress
that changes daily
are more appropriately posted

on Hkk natal chart reading request thread
at h https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127870




largest_known_Kuiper_Belt_objects.jpg
 

david starling

Well-known member
Is Pluto an asstrological planet?

J.A. is certain it's not, because it hasn't "cleared its orbit" of debris, and is smaller than our Moon.
Greybeard counters that it's a double-Planet, rather than a dwarf-planet with a huge Moon (Charon) relative to its own size; and, is therefore a unique, dynamic, astrological Influence.
To many Modernistic astrologers, it's on a level of importance akin to that of Jupiter and Saturn. In Mod, it's associated with Death, and the Afterlife, and rules H8.
Easy to know when H*'ll has frozen over, because that would mean J.A. had declared it "an astrological Planet of great importance"! :biggrin:
 

Blaze

Account Closed
J.A. is certain it's not, because it hasn't "cleared its orbit" of debris, and is smaller than our Moon.
Greybeard counters that it's a double-Planet, rather than a dwarf-planet with a huge Moon (Charon) relative to its own size; and, is therefore a unique, dynamic, astrological Influence.
To many Modernistic astrologers, it's on a level of importance akin to that of Jupiter and Saturn. In Mod, it's associated with Death, and the Afterlife, and rules H8.
Easy to know when H*'ll has frozen over, because that would mean J.A. had declared it "an astrological Planet of great importance"! :biggrin:

But is it an asstrological planet?

:lol:
 

david starling

Well-known member
But is it an asstrological planet?

:lol:

Missed it! :surprised:
From a Modernistic point of view, yes, because it rules matters relating to s*x, such as the size and shape of the booty. (Also the planet of pirate booty, btw.)
The junk in its orbit is symbolic of "junk in the trunk".
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Is Pluto an asstrological planet?
Furthermore it is the "excesive" usage of the outer planets by modernist that may be the reason it bothers us. Honestly every time I see a reading in the RMC section, most lines are about pluto/uranus/neptune....and the other planets are barely mentioned.

And it is easy to understand why: these 3 planets have been given very confusing and open attributes: revolution, mistery, change, etc. This attributes can be applied to pretty much EVERYTHING there is to a person's life...so they are constantly used for everything.

Rather than choosing specific planets, with specific attributes, the outer planets are used because it is so easy to interchange their nature.

Pretty much outer planet's description can be used to answer everything:

- You have economic problems: its the pluto square :pinched: (cause its malefic)
- You meet a hot girl: its the pluto transit :love: (cause he rules sex)
- You get a promotion: its pluto aspect :lol: (cause he is change)
- You get robbed: its the pluto placement :bandit: (cause he is violence)

And so on and so on. Pluto's description can answer everything.

Lets be honest, isn't that a little strange?


So perhaps when a traditionalist sees a chart analyzed this way, with the contradictions of pluto being both good and bad, and again good, and then bad....for apparently no reason, because an explanation is never given to why pluto can behave this way, I can understand why as a traditionalist you feel the need to say something about it.
In my opinion only, for the same reason that so many astrologers have chosen to disregard classical astrology. Modern astrology was basically born in the 20th century and bears little resemblance to traditional astrology. There are those who have no wish to understand astrology any further than the reliance on myth for signification; those who feel that anything old must surely be outdated; and those who are just to lazy to study the classical underpinnings of astrology.

I'm not suggesting they have no meaning. I would suggest that the reason you see traditional astrologers, especially horarists using them is because those astrologers want to be accepted by a broader base.

It does remain that there is no way to shoe-horn or retrofit the outer planets into the dignity scheme, for example, because it exists the way it does for a reason; that reasoning gives the foundations of astrology--and not just for the significations of the planets. Aspect meanings as well as the significations of the houses also rely on the seven traditional planets. They are intertwined in a way that looses signification if broken apart.

If we are to count Pluto as an astrological planet, then is it nocturnal or diurnal? What are it's terms? Decans? Is it masculine or feminine? Where is it exalted? Where does it fall? In which degree?
Agreed, especially as much of Pluto's signification, as well as that of the rest of the trans-Saturnian planets, comes from mythology (which is not the foundation of the significations of the planets in classical astrology), pure conjucture or speculation, or is stolen outright from the seven traditional planets.
Exactly.... dwarf planet pluto was noticed 18 February 1930
previously, for thousands of years
the 7 classical planets and fixed stars explained
and still explain today
anything dwarf planet pluto can :smile:
another quote from dr. farr on another thread
MODERN ASTROLOGY DIGNITIES AND DEBILITIES :smile:
at source:
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67385
Yes Paul correctly understood my perspective:

no, I do NOT consider Neptune, Uranus or Pluto to be dispositors ("rulers") of any sign

-but yes I do consider them to be affinitive to certain signs and dissonant with other signs:

for me, if X planet is in, say, Aquarius, then I consider SATURN to be dispositor of that planet,

PLUS I consider Uranus to have a relationship to that planet as well
(because of the affinity of Uranus with Aquarius),
but NOT at the same level (the level of dispositorship) that Saturn has.
To explain further, there are a few philosophical issues that arise when using the outer planets. It's true that many more classically oriented astrologers use them, but they tend to regard them as fainter fixed stars, so their importance and abilities tend to be scaled back or ignored unless they are on an angle or conjunct some important planet.

Dirius is correct in noting that the fact the outers carry no visible light is a major detriment to their inclusion into the classical framework. Astrology evolved alongside ancient optical theories and these theories still permeate astrological discourse to this day. Planets in aspect are said to "see" or "regard" one another and their light is often considered a transmitter of their influence.

The word "planet" originally evolved from the Greek "planetes aster", or "wandering star" and referred to the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn whose motion could be detected against the backdrop of fixed stars that are stable in their relative distance from one another, but all move together as one large group. Today we have redefined what a planet is to serve our own categorical needs. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's important to remember that we, as astrologers, have organizational needs that are different from those of astronomy.

Another issue with the outer planets in general is that they lack much of the tools that the classical planets have. This isn't just referring to dignities (though that is a large part of it), but they also lack nature, sect, gender, years, winds, orbs, signatures, etc. This may all seem superfluous or unnecessary, but its significance really cannot be overstated. Without these associations, the outer planets are essentially blank orbs without instruction or meaning.

Finally, there is the issue with the meanings contemporary astrologers have given to them. Mostly they either 1) don't make sense within their own context or 2) are already taken by another planet.


About the first, a lot of the meanings of the planets have been assigned to them based on mythological interpretations or perceived mundane events happening around the time of their discovery. A lot of the mythological meanings are cherry picked and often nonsensical, like Uranus ruling rebellion, but in the myth Ouranos is the tyrannical dictator, not the freedom fighter. The mundane events are definitely cherry picked as there are many important events happening around the world at any given time. Pluto was discovered in 1930 and has taken on an association with nuclear force, but when I hear 1930s I think Great Depression and I've never heard anyone associate Pluto with financial ruination.

About the second, each of the outer planets have significations that are more or less plucked from the classical planets. Uranus's reported instability and recklessness can be found in Mercury and Mars. Neptune's illusions and mysticism can be found in the Moon. Pluto's transformation and general heavy-handedness are the domains of Mercury and Saturn. Not only does this create strange, cross-breed planets, but it makes the classical planets into flat characters when their meanings and significations are much more multifaceted in the tradition.
 
Top