Does pluto really matter?

I would draw the line at the point where our solar system ends. I.e. if the planet does not orbit our Sun than it is highly unlikely it will affect us individually, globally. Some literature promulgate that the ancient seers speak of a planet which is called Vulcan. Given it may not have been discovered yet (at least I don't think it has been), I would only consider it once it has been discovered and experts have given a domain to rule where they feel it is best suited.

Konrad said:

Dogmatic views are not good, but what of philosphical principles?

If visible light is a foundational philosphical principle in your practice, how can you then make room for Pluto or the myriad of other varying sizes of debris orbiting the Sun?

Where do you draw the line? How can you have a coherent system when there are presumably a number of yet-to-be discovered bodies in varying orbits?

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The_Saturnian said:

I would draw the line at the point where our solar system ends.

I.e. if the planet does not orbit our Sun than it is highly unlikely it will affect us individually, globally

Click to expand...

In gauging distant Dwarf Planet Pluto, orbiting our Sun, its orbit is so remote that it cannot reflect the light from our Sun.

Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn all reflect the light from the Sun

That's of major importance when one considers Basic Horary principles

- which, for example, -

require 'collection of light' as well as 'translation of light'

which are not possible unless the heavenly bodies under consideration reflect the light of the sun

I agree completely with The Saturnian. You draw the line where the solar system stops. To reiterate, The last planet comes first. Does anyone understand the multiple implications of that?

Let me put it in plain text. The inner planets are the material. The outer planets are the spiritual. Tiamat connected those two, but it shattered, turning our connection into a bunch of pieces.

Astrology is the way to bring the pieces together.

If someone denies the outer planets, they deny the spiritual, and thus.. are becoming a slave to the material.

And many people realize this and try to hide it from others.

JupiterASc, you keep mentioning the transference of light. What makes light have any importance in a horary? Can you actually back that up with astrological horary cases where light has sole and prevalent meaning to answer a question? I am waiting for you to grace us with your astrological expertise by showing your proof on this matter, because it seems to be the basis with which you go by your traditions.

Also answer me this. If light is so important, why is the sun not the only thing in a day time chart?

I am also waiting for you to show me the physics behind how the light actually transfers form one planet to another in a horary...

Phoenix Venus said:

I agree completely with The Saturnian. You draw the line where the solar system stops. To reiterate, The last planet comes first. Does anyone understand the multiple implications of that?

Let me put it in plain text. The inner planets are the material. The outer planets are the spiritual. Tiamat connected those two, but it shattered, turning our connection into a bunch of pieces.

Astrology is the way to bring the pieces together.

If someone denies the outer planets, they deny the spiritual, and thus.. are becoming a slave to the material.

And many people realize this and try to hide it from others.

JupiterASc, you keep mentioning the transference of light. What makes light have any importance in a horary? Can you actually back that up with astrological horary cases where light has sole and prevalent meaning to answer a question? I am waiting for you to grace us with your astrological expertise by showing your proof on this matter, because it seems to be the basis with which you go by your traditions.

Also answer me this. If light is so important, why is the sun not the only thing in a day time chart?

I am also waiting for you to show me the physics behind how the light actually transfers form one planet to another in a horary...

Click to expand...

FREE HORARY COURSE - your questions answered on translation of light, collection of light and many other horary techniques for FREE at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary_intro.html

HORARY QUESTIONS ANSWERED http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=7f1a9bf8b89a9b490eae2155cf15e91c

AW Horary Board at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=42

Yes, Pluto matters a great deal: to me, to modern western astrologers, and to some traditional astrologers.

If traditional western and Vedic astrologers happily get by with out it, more power to them. I know that my horoscope-reading ability would be hampered without Pluto in the repertory.

Positively: your capacity for self-transformation, often in the face of difficulties. How you respond with courage and conviction in the face of all the odds stacked against you. Cyclical sense of time, with rebirth following death: the phoenix archetype.

Negatively: How you get embroiled in inter-personal power struggles, how you attract ruthless people into your life (or become ruthless), how massive events beyond your control sweep you up in them.

If you have any doubts about Pluto, see if you can find charts of people you know with sun-square Pluto natally; or look to hard Pluto transits in your life so far.

Other dwarf planets are under investigation. I don't think the small amount of research on them has been conclusive. I've spent a fair bit of time studying Ceres, and so far I don't see it having the impact of Pluto.

Modern astrology has been around for over 120 years; and astrological Pluto, for over 80 years.

The_Saturnian said:

If Pluto is not classed as a planet, why do some books get published with material based on Pluto? Hence in my opinion if it orbits the Sun we do get influenced by it. There's absolutely no point in studying a subject if you're not going to accept the finer details and also adapt an "I'm always learning" attitude. Having a dogmatic view of things will never give you a deeper insight into anything, and therefore you may well remain in the dark about certain things.
....

Click to expand...

Although some of these books were published before Pluto's reclassification in 2006, the real reason is that astronomy and astrology define planets differently. Astrology defines the moon as a planet (subset luminary) but not the earth. Astronomy does not define the moon as a planet but does define the earth as a planet.

We have a lot of overlap with astronomers, as well as significant divergences.

JA, you wrote, "In gauging distant Dwarf Planet Pluto, orbiting our Sun, its orbit is so remote that it cannot reflect the light from our Sun."

This is incorrect for either astronomy or astrology. Pluto is not a so-called "naked eye" planet, but its reflectance of light was precisely how it could be detected with the telescopes available in 1930: they used photographic plates. Previously astronomers predicted a planet beyond Neptune based upon gravitational factors, but they needed photography to actually locate Pluto.

You can see these original photographs at:

http://jtgnew.sjrdesign.net/solsys_dwarfs_pluto.html (Look for the arrows pointing out its motion from one photo to the next.)

1. introduction to horary - searched word light, no hits.

2. & 3. forums that i'm not spending my time digging through at this time.

show me your own astrological abilities by backing up your claim of transference of light with a horary chart or know that you cannot.

Phoenix Venus said:

1. introduction to horary - searched word light, no hits.

2. & 3. forums that i'm not spending my time digging through at this time.

show me your own astrological abilities by backing up your claim of transference of light with a horary chart or know that you cannot.

Click to expand...

This is not an horary thread.

In fact there are gazillions of horary charts on our own AW forum discussing translation of light

....and since you say you could not find any definition despite searching then here's a definition of collection of light

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Collection of Light http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/collection.html

waybread said:

JA, you wrote, "In gauging distant Dwarf Planet Pluto, orbiting our Sun, its orbit is so remote that it cannot reflect the light from our Sun."

This is incorrect for either astronomy or astrology. Pluto is not a so-called "naked eye" planet, but its reflectance of light was precisely how it could be detected with the telescopes available in 1930: they used photographic plates. Previously astronomers predicted a planet beyond Neptune based upon gravitational factors, but they needed photography to actually locate Pluto.

You can see these original photographs at:

http://jtgnew.sjrdesign.net/solsys_dwarfs_pluto.html (Look for the arrows pointing out its motion from one photo to the next.)

Click to expand...

Thanks for that information - however, Pluto is so remote it cannot reflect the light from our Sun SUFFICIENTLY TO MAKE IT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE VIEWER ON PLANET EARTH although fair enough, telescopes can now detect dwarf planet Pluto.

Nevertheless, Pluto cannot reflect the light of the Sun in such a way as to make Pluto as visible as for example the Moon. The Moon of course is visible because it reflects the light of the Sun - unlike Pluto which is to remote to do so without the assistance of powerful telescopes to view

JA, I've heard the visibility argument argument (possibly from you) many times and I don't think it matters. As in, naked-eye visibility signifies.... exactly what? Hey, if you wanna be a traditional astrologer, be a traditional astrologer. Leave out Pluto. That's fine with me. Presumably if I want to use Pluto, that's OK with you, too. But just to elaborate.

1. Traditional astrologers use all kinds of horoscope factors that are not visible to the naked eye. Terms, faces, house cusps, Arabian parts, moon's nodes.... and even signs, which got decoupled from actual constellations by the Babylonians. So naked-eye visibility obviously isn't a key issue for traditional astrologers.

2. Traditional astrologers don't look at the night sky anyway to determine anything. Oftentimes the traditional planets would not be visible to the naked eye, even if they did. They would be "under" the horizon or too close to the sun. For the past 2000 years or so, astrologers have consulted an ephemeris and/or undertaken some advanced mathematical calculations (now easily done by **modern-day** computers) to locate points in the chart.

3. Pluto gives additional interpretive meaning in a horoscope-- at least in my skillful hands (cough, cough.)

4. Telescopes are No Bigs. You can bet that the ancient astrologers would have used them if they could have had them along with eye glasses and binoculars. Seriously-- if I can't see a rare species of bird at a distance without using binoculars or eye glasses, does that mean it doesn't exist or has no meaning? Telescopes were primitive by today's standards when Uranus, Neptune, and even Pluto were discovered. Under special conditions, Uranus can be seen with the naked eye.

4. The real problem with Pluto (or another "modern" planet/oid) for traditionalists is that it doesn't fit into the table of essential dignities that you posted, above. Fair enough. Since most modern astrologers don't go by this table anyway, we don't have a problem using Pluto.

I think we should consider what takes place beyond our little solar system. Some astrologers, whether modern or traditional, work with fixed stars.

I would like to distinguish "modern astrology" as an umbrella term from "modern psychological astrology," "spiritual astrology, "evolutionary astrology," "esoteric astrology," and so on. They are not identical-- as anyone who has explored modern astrology should know. Many modern astrologers are very down-to-earth (pun intended) and focus on people's rather ordinary material problems.

Psychological astrology had a heyday in the 1970s and 80s but few astrologers have any kind of background in psychology (aka behavioural science) so you don't see that expression used so often today.

Similarly, we could point to different sorts of traditional astrology (Hellenistic, Medieval, Arab, Christian, &c.)

Too few astrologers of any description spend time out-of-doors vewing planets in the pursuit of their practice of astrology.. And I doubt that most of them have done so for the past few thousand years. You really would be hard pressed to read degrees by gazing at the heavens!

(Speaking of degrees, they have to be another dimension of traditional astrology invisible to the naked eye.)

I don't think it actually has anything to do with whether or not Pluto is visible to the naked eye, though that is a direct result of the, to my understanding, real reason.

Traditionally, we talk about aspect theory and why it works, and planets cast rays. This is the ancient way of saying that planets reflect the light of the Sun, and bounce it off of each other. Casting rays is what makes the planets active and able to do something.

There are other, invisible to the naked eye, chart points that traditional astrologers use, like the angles and the lots, but those don't cast rays.

You know what are visible to the naked eye and still don't cast rays? Fixed stars. Which only makes sense because though obviously they are shining light, they are not shining the light of the Sun.

I know several traditional astrologers who do use Pluto, Neptune, etc. but they do so without assigning rulerships, and often treat them more like fixed stars.

Personally, I don't use them simply because I have enough to learn as it is, and because astrology did work, and work well, for millennia without them. I wanted to learn how. And this in no way is meant as a disparaging remark to those who practice modern astrology and use Pluto in thier work. Largly because it is used differently.

I would also like to say that I was very hesitant to post to this thread, especially since it started it's life in the traditional forum. Which seemed a rather odd place for a discussion of Pluto. Based on a few of the replies here, I can only hope we are not going down the path of once again opening the forum to a debate on whether or not traditional astrology has merit.

Phoenix Venus said:

show me your own astrological abilities by backing up your claim of transference of light with a horary chart or know that you cannot.

Click to expand...

It isn't nice to demand anything of anyone, especially to demand a detailed explanation for something if you don't wish to learn what it means for yourself and if your only intention for the demand is to ask that someone prove a point or idea that you have already closed your mind to.

If you are truly interested in learning about translation of light, and would like to see an example...

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65448

This however

Phoenix Venus said:

2. & 3. forums that i'm not spending my time digging through at this time.

Click to expand...

Demonstrates a lack of determination in discovering for yourself why it might matter. I have discovered that most of the members here aren't looking for an argument, and if we assume honest intentions we can possibly open our minds to why. That old saw about horses and water comes to mind.

Phoenix Venus said:

you keep mentioning the transference of light. What makes light have any importance in a horary?

Click to expand...

Because the physics of the reflection of the rays of the Sun as filtered through the lens of the planet's nature as well as the nature of where it is posited is what astrology means, and how it works. What makes light have any importance in horary, or natal, or mundane? Because it is the light that carries the energy, or communication, or what have you.

The physics of light is the physics of astrology. I'm no math/physics wiz, but I used to sell communications equipment to large ISP's and telecommunications companies. Are you familiar with dense wave division multiplexing?

Konrad said:

Dogmatic views are not good, but what of philosphical principles? If visible light is a foundational philosphical principle in your practice, how can you then make room for Pluto or the myriad of other varying sizes of debris orbiting the Sun? Where do you draw the line? How can you have a coherent system when there are presumably a number of yet-to-be discovered bodies in varying orbits?

Click to expand...

This whole thread got me wondering if we need to start considering all the man made satellites we have put into orbit, as well as the space station, then I remembered we need something in orbit around the Sun. So maybe if we launch a satellite into orbit around the Sun we will have to consider it astrologically.

Thanks to our Moderators for moving this thread to an appropriate Forum

+Regarding astrology being about planets: the Lunar Nodes are not planets, nor planetoids, nor asteroids, nor stars: yet they have been studied and have played at least a moderate role in Hellenistic, Medieval, Renaissance, Reformation and Modernist Western astrology; they have played a role equal to that of the 7 (actual) planets in all schools of Vedic astrology; and they have played a role in Chinese astrology as well, from the earliest times.

About planets and the reflecting of sunlight: the Lunar Nodes have no light, they have no material substance and so can neither absorb nor reflect light: are they then to be rejected as having no astrological influence because they reflect (or emit) no light?

+For the record: according to astronomical sites, and to numerous astronomical textbooks, and to NASA reports of Voyager flyby explorations of the solar system:
-Uranus, Neptune and Pluto reflect sunlight back toward the Sun and the Earth (Pluto has been found to be particularly "shiny" by deep space explorative probes)
-Uranus and Neptune have been found to be much warmer than anticipated, and the latest astronomical belief is that these planets have their own internal heat-generating mechanisms.
-Uranus, Neptune and Pluto all emit radio waves.
(Internet site addresses for all of the above statements will be posted if demanded-however all you have to do is goole, eg, "pluto radio waves", or google Uranus or Neptune or Pluto, and then go to the many dozens of internet sites that will come up, and read the astronomical information)

tsmall said:

I don't think it actually has anything to do with whether or not Pluto is visible to the naked eye, though that is a direct result of the, to my understanding, real reason.

Traditionally, we talk about aspect theory and why it works, and planets cast rays. This is the ancient way of saying that planets reflect the light of the Sun, and bounce it off of each other. Casting rays is what makes the planets active and able to do something.

There are other, invisible to the naked eye, chart points that traditional astrologers use, like the angles and the lots, but those don't cast rays.

You know what are visible to the naked eye and still don't cast rays? Fixed stars. Which only makes sense because though obviously they are shining light, they are not shining the light of the Sun.

I know several traditional astrologers who do use Pluto, Neptune, etc. but they do so without assigning rulerships, and often treat them more like fixed stars.

....

Because the physics of the reflection of the rays of the Sun as filtered through the lens of the planet's nature as well as the nature of where it is posited is what astrology means, and how it works. What makes light have any importance in horary, or natal, or mundane? Because it is the light that carries the energy, or communication, or what have you.

The physics of light is the physics of astrology. .....

This whole thread got me wondering if we need to start considering all the man made satellites we have put into orbit, as well as the space station, then I remembered we need something in orbit around the Sun. So maybe if we launch a satellite into orbit around the Sun we will have to consider it astrologically.

Click to expand...

As I and Dr. Farr posted above, traditional astrologers work with all kinds of invisible phenomena. They reflect no light, and have no orb. Consequently, the question is whether the light reflected by planets is somehow of such a different nature from the rest of the horoscope that naked-eye visibility really, really matters.

It does not. What does matter that traditional astrology is its own system, and you cannot shoehorn the outermost planets into the traditional system of essential dignities. Fair enough. If I learn to play the piano proficiently, I cannot shoehorn music written for the pipe organ or synthesizer into my Chopin repertoire.

Of course Pluto "casts rays." How else was it visible through telescopes? And compared to what? Looking at Saturn in the night sky hardly reveals an orb visible to the naked eye. If we want to check it out, find a planet (not the moon) on a clear dark night bereft of moonglow or urban light pollution, and take its quadrant. The entire night sky from a horizon to the zenith (admittedly the zenith is not the MC, but decently useable) will be 90 degrees. Visually divide it into thirds. Having identified approximately the range of a sign, see how much of this 30-degree sector the light cast by your planet occupies. Negligible, eh?

If a clear night sky isn't possible where you live, this photo will give you a good impression: http://www.space.com/2442-doorstep-astronomy-stars-planets-align.html

I doubt that "casting rays" is what enables planets to do things. Casting rays is hardly the "physics" of astrology, or we wouldn't be using any non-planetary or non-stellar points. "Casting rays" sounds more like the poetics of astrology.

The horoscope above all is a map of the human psyche. All of the planets are within you. Astronomically the idea that planets affect one another by casting rays is unsustainable. Astronomers since the 18th century mathematically calculated gravitational pulls from a given planet to its neighbour, not ray-casting. If planets were (metaphorically) only talking to one another, they wouldn't have an impact on human lives. They do so because we as human beings embody a map of the cosmos.

I don't buy the argument that there is "too much stuff out there," so let's leave out a heavenly body of known effectiveness that actually is simple to use. In a way, of course there is "too much stuff out there." But a traditional astrologer who declines to work with trans-Saturnians, harmonics, or asteroids somehow has no problem mastering the intracies of essential and accidental dignities, degree meanings, Arabian parts, feral planets, fixed stars, and the dynamic dance of planets with their respective speeds. Say what?

Certainly we could do an ephemeris for a space station, and then do the research to see whether iit impacts human lives. Why limit the extent of astrological curiosity?

If doing good astrology (as evidenced through practical application) demands that we learn more than we already know, then we should choose to learn more.

JUPITERASC said:

In gauging distant Dwarf Planet Pluto, orbiting our Sun, its orbit is so remote that it cannot reflect the light from our Sun.

Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn all reflect the light from the Sun

That's of major importance when one considers Basic Horary principles

- which, for example, -

require 'collection of light' as well as 'translation of light'

which are not possible unless the heavenly bodies under consideration reflect the light of the sun

Click to expand...

Yes this too is a valid point of view as well . However, I've been of the opinion that if it is orbiting our Solar System it affects us. My view is that since the Sun's gravitational field is so strong that it is able to hold Pluto (in it's eccentric orbital path) at such a distance, than surely it must affect us. Some people (like myself) class these celestial bodies to be celestial beings whose power affects us no matter how far they maybe away from us. Without contesting further, I do have but one question - Pluto cannot receive the 'collection of light'. How do we know this, since man has not set foot on Pluto as of yet? It's just an assumption based on scientific doctrines and the fact that our satellites are having to resort to infra red technology to see Pluto because light allegedly does not reach it's surface from the Sun. Still you do have a valid point of view too .

My sincere apologies in advance if I may sound rude and abrupt. Peace!

Phoenix Venus said:

I agree completely with The Saturnian. You draw the line where the solar system stops. To reiterate, The last planet comes first. Does anyone understand the multiple implications of that?

Let me put it in plain text. The inner planets are the material. The outer planets are the spiritual. Tiamat connected those two, but it shattered, turning our connection into a bunch of pieces.

Astrology is the way to bring the pieces together.

If someone denies the outer planets, they deny the spiritual, and thus.. are becoming a slave to the material.

And many people realize this and try to hide it from others.

Click to expand...

Minus the part about Tiamat (as I'm not familiar with this planet's history), I couldn't have put it better myself. I agree with your theory - You draw the line where the solar system stops.

Here are pictures of Pluto taken from the Hubble telescope. It sure looks like light to me.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Planets/PLUTOSLD.HTM

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/plutos_moons.html

The various astrological systems are whole system models (rather than reductionist scientific pursuits): the Modernist model is open-ended and will include "new data"; the Traditionalist, Vedic, Chinese models are completely established, and-to work and to work very well and effectively in delineation and prediction-they do not NEED to include/incorporate "new data". Traditionalist, Vedic and Chinese astrological models can be worked with the data they already have (and have had for 2000 years+) so long as the MECHANISMS OF THE PARTICULAR MODEL, are used faithfully and expertly, in accordance with dictates (rules) of that model.

Now in my opinion it all depends upon the MIND and "intellectual tastes/disposition" of each practitioner regarding the whole system astrological model that attracts them and that they will become expert in: some will be attracted and inspired by the open-ended Modernist model, others by the theoretically beautifully symmetrical Traditionalist model, others by the complexity and wonder of the Vedic model, and so on. Experts in each model will get excellent delineative and predictive results when faithfully following the mechanisms and rules of their respective model, regardless of what data (astronomical bodies, spatial points, etc) their model INCLUDES or EXCLUDES!

What about the few who have eclectic tastes and dispositions-like me?? Well that's really the only situation where each such person needs to evaluate what data they will use and what data they will exclude, because in a real sense each eclectic makes up their own "whole system model": for me, when I wish to look at a situation for a Traditionalist or a Vedic (albeit tropical zodiacal matrix Vedic!) insight, then I only use the methods and data (astronomical bodies and spatial points, and disregarding Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) as given IN THAT PARTICULAR MODEL; and when I desire to look at a situation for a Modernist astrological inslight, I use the "open-ended data" (astronomical bodies including Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, and spatial points such as Dark Moon Lilith) and techniques of the Modernist model. I have found that such an approach works very well for me (but that's because of my eclectic mental constitutional nature)-it would not work as well for others of a different intellectual nature.

What's needed is respect for all of these wonderful whole system delineative and predictive models, and avoidance of partisan attacks against one model or the other, or against the accepted data (accepted astronomical bodies and spatial points) and rules of practice of one model vs those of another.

Not traditional astrology. This thread should be moved.

RE the arguments...

If Pluto is found to be operative in charts
That is, if by transit to sensitive points of a given individual horoscope and in the absence of any other activating transit, it is found that Pluto "has effects," then its use should be considered.

If not it should be discarded.

The classification by the IAU is the business of astronomers, not astrologers. A rose is a rose is rose.... The reclassification of Pluto was a matter of housekeeping; so many new discoveries had accumulated that the existing system of classification had become unclear. Botanists and zoologists are constantly reclassifying plants and animals (changing their nomenclature at the very least). Such reclassification does not change the fact of the organism's existence and effects in the ecological system. Neither does reclassification change the fact of Pluto.

We can choose to either ignore Pluto astrologically in rigid adherence to dogma, or we can test its effectiveness as an astrological symbol in practice and base our choice on its demonstrated effectiveness or lack thereof.

greybeard said:

Not traditional astrology. This thread should be moved.

Click to expand...

Happily our wonderful AW Moderators have moved this thread to an appropriate Forum which will allow open discussion of this subject.