david starling
Well-known member
Jung's take on the Age of Aquarius, for which he risked his reputation to promote, was that the Age of Aquarius will bring the Collective Unconscious into the Collective Consciousness.
Thoughts on Dane Rudhyar?
- Thread starter AppLeo
- Start date
Jung's take on the Age of Aquarius, for which he risked his reputation to promote, was that the Age of Aquarius will bring the Collective Unconscious into the Collective Consciousness.
Our astrology is most often the case probably.
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Which sounds more in line with my understanding of what Jung said regarding the archetypes. One cannot "heal" an archetype seeing as how these structures are much more fundamental and intrinsic to our being, than the part of us that we believe is the prime mover of our being. Rather, one can only hope to come to terms with them, giving them space in your life for their manifestation and a shift in perspective that allows one to get on with life, in spite of the archetypal forces in one's life.
david starling
Well-known member
May Zeus be with you!
https://books.google.bg/books?id=Zg...ewKHfv1Bb4Q6AEwBHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
It can be found in the anthology of Vettius Valens 6.9.
The "problem" with Rudhyar, as I see it, is that he over-reacted to the fatalistic astrology of his times and offered us a philosophy in which "free will" reigns supreme. It seems strange to me that among all of the creations of the universe only the human being has been blessed with the gift of free will. The conceit of humankind is boundless.
AppLeo
Well-known member
But animals don't have free will. lol
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
Read what he said again
AppLeo
Well-known member
conspiracy theorist
Well-known member
He's saying the opposite of what you think he meant
david starling
Well-known member
We're the only species clueless enough to need it.
waybread
Well-known member
It must be hard for you to discuss Dane Rudhyar without actually reading what he wrote.
I don't take him as an "authority" although he was extremely influential among modern astrologers of a more spiritual persuasion, such as Alan Oken. Rudhar was also taken with planetary orbits as astrologically meaningful cycles. See, for example, Alexander Ruperti, Cycles of Becoming.
Every single thing we do, think or create is nothing more or less than the projection of our inner self. Rudhyar couldn't help himself anymore than you or I can.
I am my own authority. But that doesn't stop me from listening to others who may have something I need. Rejection -- or blind acceptance -- of "authority" simply because they do not wholly agree with the way I think things ought to be is foolish.
I am my own authority. But that doesn't stop me from listening to others who may have something I need. Rejection -- or blind acceptance -- of "authority" simply because they do not wholly agree with the way I think things ought to be is foolish.
david starling
Well-known member
I have my own template, and some input fits and some doesn't. If something seems right intuitively and/or empirically, and doesn't fit my template, I adjust the template accordingly. So much is solely personal opinion-based though, I can't use it, and that much screening wears me out. I need comprehensive patterns and an overview.
Example of projection of inner self:
Some years ago I read a little book called "Think on These Things" (a worthwhile read) by Jeddu Krishnamurti. I told a friend, not an astrologer, that I thought the man must have a very potent Uranus in his chart.
About a year later I bumped into his horoscope. Lo and behold -- Aquarius rising with Uranus rx as most elevated planet, conjunct MC in the 9th, the house of philosophy, opp Sun.
Krishnamurti's primary thesis is "internal revolution". Uranus retrograde. A secondary feature of his teachings he calls "The Mirror of Relationships". And there is the Moon (mirrors) opposing Venus (relationships), the opposition bringing the mirror of relationships to full awareness.
Everything we do, think or create is simply the projection of our inner self.
Some years ago I read a little book called "Think on These Things" (a worthwhile read) by Jeddu Krishnamurti. I told a friend, not an astrologer, that I thought the man must have a very potent Uranus in his chart.
About a year later I bumped into his horoscope. Lo and behold -- Aquarius rising with Uranus rx as most elevated planet, conjunct MC in the 9th, the house of philosophy, opp Sun.
Krishnamurti's primary thesis is "internal revolution". Uranus retrograde. A secondary feature of his teachings he calls "The Mirror of Relationships". And there is the Moon (mirrors) opposing Venus (relationships), the opposition bringing the mirror of relationships to full awareness.
Everything we do, think or create is simply the projection of our inner self.
david starling
Well-known member
I never said that. In 46 years of studying astrology, with the exception of 2 or 3 years when I experimented with using only the Chaldean planets, I have always used the outers. They add depth and detail.
I do give rulership to the old rulers, except when I think the chart asks for the modern planet to take the rulership.
Example of this, from a chart I looked at recently:
Saturn is lord of the horoscope with Capricorn rising and he is closely conjunct the IC. So he's powerful and I would normally give him rulership of Aquarius. But Uranus is posited in Aquarius. Therefore he holds dominion of that sign.
Saturn, clearly a powerful figure in the chart, still influences Aquarius but his influence is less direct, more "back-door". This idea, or situation will influence the way I interpret the chart.
I do give rulership to the old rulers, except when I think the chart asks for the modern planet to take the rulership.
Example of this, from a chart I looked at recently:
Saturn is lord of the horoscope with Capricorn rising and he is closely conjunct the IC. So he's powerful and I would normally give him rulership of Aquarius. But Uranus is posited in Aquarius. Therefore he holds dominion of that sign.
Saturn, clearly a powerful figure in the chart, still influences Aquarius but his influence is less direct, more "back-door". This idea, or situation will influence the way I interpret the chart.
Last edited:
david starling
Well-known member
So when you wrote "seven planets is sufficient" , you meant unless there are extenuating circumstances. Understood!