Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Natal Astrology

Natal Astrology A place to discuss yours and others' birth charts (after you post your own birth chart interpretation). Includes psychological and relocation astrology, houses, aspects, and planetary dignity and debility.


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Unread 08-16-2011, 06:18 PM
astrologer50's Avatar
astrologer50 astrologer50 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 13,695
Re: Are outer planets generational or personal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kannon
The outer planets are both generational and personal. They are most personal when in more personal points or areas of the birth horoscope, but also when making very tight aspects to other planets..
JupiterAsc
Quote:
Having a cake and eating it too


I agree with Kannon, they are BOTH

At *some point* trad astrologers had to take a 'leap of faith' and had to have used a certain amount of guesswork. Modern astrologers, prominent, world renown, publishes have delinated to great effect and proven their theories work and warrant acceptable!

Reply With Quote
  #52  
Unread 08-16-2011, 06:21 PM
astrologer50's Avatar
astrologer50 astrologer50 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 13,695
Re: what about squares and oppostions? to Jupiter

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsontc View Post
Jupiter,

You said:


I may be missing the point here. If you mean (as a50 suggests in her posting) that the lack of a return in a birth chart indicates Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto are not personal or not "relevant", then I think there are other things to look at. Particularly with the outer planets, look at the squares and oppositions. When Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto square one of the four points in the chart (Ascendant, Descendant, Midheaven, and IC), there usually is a STRONG effect. This is even stronger when Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto conjunct a point. Also when Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto square a personal planet (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, or Mars) there can be a very strong personal effect.

Or maybe your comment on the outer planets not having planetary returns is making a different point?

Confused,

Tim
I would go even further to included Jupiter -also as I've seen pluto conj saturn be effective, saturn conj neptune play out and even saturn conj uranus be effective to.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Unread 08-16-2011, 09:52 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,365
Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are Generational Planets - Discuss

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrologer50 View Post
At *some point* trad astrologers had to take a 'leap of faith' and had to have used a certain amount of guesswork
Post some evidence for the statement you have made
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsontc View Post
You said:
I may be missing the point here. If you mean (as a50 suggests in her posting) that the lack of a return in a birth chart indicates Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto are not personal or not "relevant", then I think there are other things to look at. Particularly with the outer planets, look at the squares and oppositions. When Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto square one of the four points in the chart (Ascendant, Descendant, Midheaven, and IC), there usually is a STRONG effect. This is even stronger when Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto conjunct a point. Also when Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto square a personal planet (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, or Mars) there can be a very strong personal effect.
Or maybe your comment on the outer planets not having planetary returns is making a different point?
Confused, Tim
Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are invisible to the naked eye and require a telescope to be viewed. Traditional Astrology is concerned with the seven visible planets and therefore takes no note of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto... thus - with regard to this particular matter in any event - there is no confusion for Traditional Astrologers...
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf

Last edited by JUPITERASC; 08-19-2011 at 08:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Unread 08-17-2011, 10:19 AM
astrologer50's Avatar
astrologer50 astrologer50 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 13,695
Re: what about squares and oppostions? to Jupiter

Just because you cannot see something with the naked eye does NOT make the invalid!!
You only have to read modern astrologer books to see where they are coming from. Have you ever read any?

Yep, I could say the same thing! There is NO confusion to modern astrologers either!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Unread 08-17-2011, 10:41 AM
MSO's Avatar
MSO MSO is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Currently retrograde.
Posts: 696
Send a message via AIM to MSO Send a message via Yahoo to MSO
Re: what about squares and oppostions? to Jupiter

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MSO For This Useful Post:
AppLeo (05-05-2016)
  #56  
Unread 08-17-2011, 04:17 PM
wilsontc's Avatar
wilsontc wilsontc is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,687
agree that traditional astrologers don't use outers, to Jupiter

Jupiter,

You said:
Quote:
of the entire world population, few experience a Uranus Return, none experience a Neptune Return, none experience a Pluto Return...Traditional Astrology is concerned with the seven visible planets and therefore takes no note of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto...there is no confusion for Traditional Astrologers
I agree that Traditional astrologers don't use the outer planets. I have no confusion about that. I'm confused about what point you are making by mentioning that most people don't live long enough to have a planetary return of the outers. This has nothing to do with why traditional astrologers don't use the outer planets and doesn't disprove the usage of outer planets by modern astrologers.

Still confused about the return issue,

Tim
__________________
To learn basic astrological chart interpretation for your chart see:
http://learnaboutyourastrochart.jimdo.com/
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Unread 08-17-2011, 10:21 PM
Ruka_5 Ruka_5 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 386
Re: Are outer planets generational or personal?

...Okay, it's clear that everybody thinks what they're going to think and that isn't going to change. So obviously it makes more sense to just agree to disagree and leave the whole thing be, but the thread is still active - why?

Honestly, I think it's because a lot of people can't accept that people don't share their views on this, and that all this back-and-forth is essentially an attempt to browbeat those who don't into agree into coming over to their side and sharing their views. It's an ultimately pointless exercise, especially when both sides feel they have evidence supporting their stance, plus if anything all the arguing and hostility does is alienate people and push them further in the opposite direction, it's not going to make someone suddenly agree with you. For all the snark directed at me, I still include the outers in my charts and interpret them, so there you go.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Unread 08-17-2011, 10:52 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,365
Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are Generational Planets - Discuss

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsontc View Post
You said:
I agree that Traditional astrologers don't use the outer planets. I have no confusion about that. I'm confused about what point you are making by mentioning that most people don't live long enough to have a planetary return of the outers. This has nothing to do with why traditional astrologers don't use the outer planets and doesn't disprove the usage of outer planets by modern astrologers. Still confused about the return issue, Tim
You have said that you are confused, wilsontc. Nevertheless, the fact that you say you are confused regarding what I have written does not invalidate my statement. In addition. was it not crystal clear when I said that obviously Uranus, Neptune and Pluto can have no significance within traditional astrology for the reasons I have already mentioned:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JUPITERASC View Post
Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are invisible to the naked eye and require a telescope to be viewed. Traditional Astrology is concerned with the seven visible planets and therefore takes no note of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto... thus - with regard to this particular matter in any event - there is no confusion for Traditional Astrologers...
furthermore

Quote:
Originally Posted by JUPITERASC View Post
As to whether "a Uranus, Neptune or Pluto return is irrelevant" is easy to say because quite simply neither you nor anyone for that matter shall experience either a Neptune or a Pluto return
All I have said is that the outer planets are generational. You'll find many who disagree with my statement, as well as many who agree with my statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSO View Post
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.
Good point, well made MSO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruka_5 View Post
...Okay, it's clear that everybody thinks what they're going to think and that isn't going to change. So obviously it makes more sense to just agree to disagree and leave the whole thing be, but the thread is still active - why?

Honestly, I think it's because a lot of people can't accept that people don't share their views on this, and that all this back-and-forth is essentially an attempt to browbeat those who don't into agree into coming over to their side and sharing their views. It's an ultimately pointless exercise, especially when both sides feel they have evidence supporting their stance, plus if anything all the arguing and hostility does is alienate people and push them further in the opposite direction, it's not going to make someone suddenly agree with you. For all the snark directed at me, I still include the outers in my charts and interpret them, so there you go.
Good point, Ruka, there is room for many points of view in astrology, and it is on that basis that I declare my own point of view, whilst debating with others who wish to debate their point of view. However, regarding this particular thread it appears to be going nowhere fast and your point of view has much merit
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf

Last edited by JUPITERASC; 08-19-2011 at 08:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Unread 08-18-2011, 05:15 PM
wilsontc's Avatar
wilsontc wilsontc is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,687
predictive vs. non-predictive, to MSO

MSO,

You said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSO View Post
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...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...the outer planets just don't work.
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
__________________
To learn basic astrological chart interpretation for your chart see:
http://learnaboutyourastrochart.jimdo.com/
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Unread 08-18-2011, 05:35 PM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: Are outer planets generational or personal?

The outer planets are generational only to the majority. However, some outer planets are assigned to rule signs or can aspect personal planets, which gives them a strong personal effect. Uranus was by far the strongest planet on my natal chart, and now all my progressed planets are making easy aspects or conjunctions to my natal Uranus. The outer planets are sort of the awesome ones, the "transcendental planets," governing not only our petty personal affairs but the ones of humanity, and ruling things like revolution, illusion, and transformation at that, but traditional astrologers don't like them and they have every right to that just as anybody else has every right to like them. There are lots of different systems, and they're all somewhat wrong and that's why we need them all, to put them together and get the wrong parts to cancel out and yield correct results.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Unread 08-18-2011, 07:08 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,365
Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are Generational Planets - Discuss

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsontc View Post
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.
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.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf

Last edited by JUPITERASC; 08-19-2011 at 08:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Unread 08-18-2011, 07:20 PM
Caro's Avatar
Caro Caro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: By the sea
Posts: 1,732
Re: Are outer planets generational or personal?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Unread 08-18-2011, 07:49 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,365
Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are Generational Planets - Discuss

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caro View Post
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.
Fair enough Caro, you are entitled to your opinion regarding the outer planets. But wilsontc has made an inaccurate observation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsontc View Post
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
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
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf

Last edited by JUPITERASC; 08-19-2011 at 08:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Unread 08-18-2011, 08:23 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,280
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?
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Unread 08-18-2011, 08:45 PM
Rebel Uranian's Avatar
Rebel Uranian Rebel Uranian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: My natural habitat
Posts: 2,090
Re: Are outer planets generational or personal?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Unread 08-18-2011, 08:51 PM
wilsontc's Avatar
wilsontc wilsontc is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,687
"modern" traditional astrologers, to Jupiter

Jupiter,

You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JUPITERASC View Post
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.
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
__________________
To learn basic astrological chart interpretation for your chart see:
http://learnaboutyourastrochart.jimdo.com/
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Unread 08-18-2011, 10:03 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,365
Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are Generational Planets - Discuss

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsontc View Post
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.
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsontc View Post
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
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSO View Post
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.
Interesting discussion... debate is always useful and everyone at all times is entitled to their own point of view
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf

Last edited by JUPITERASC; 08-19-2011 at 08:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Unread 08-18-2011, 11:21 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,280
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.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Unread 08-18-2011, 11:58 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,280
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.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Unread 08-19-2011, 12:17 AM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,365
Uranus, Neptune & Pluto are Generational Planets - Discuss

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
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 )

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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!
Indeed. I have indeed observed Uranus on one occasion and without the aid of any telescope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
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
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf

Last edited by JUPITERASC; 08-19-2011 at 08:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Unread 08-19-2011, 01:34 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,280
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.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Unread 08-19-2011, 03:28 AM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 50,365
Ptolomy copied from predecessors all based on Babylonian/Ancient Egyptian Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
JupiterAsc, I think you misunderstood portions of my message.
You can think what you like Waybread and you probably shall

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.)
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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
.
??? 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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
.
I replied that the comment you made is a gamble and a guess
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
Fascinating
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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
.
Ptolomy learned from the Egyptian Mystery Schools
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
The telescope itself was invented in 1608, which is well within the time period attributed to traditional astrology
. .
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
. .
Previously we had ox-carts and Lamborghinis now we have babies and bathwater. Bring back the Wheel, or is that old fashioned....
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
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.
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...
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf

Last edited by JUPITERASC; 08-19-2011 at 03:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JUPITERASC For This Useful Post:
SunConjunctUranus (01-10-2019)
  #73  
Unread 08-19-2011, 11:16 AM
Pisceanfool's Avatar
Pisceanfool Pisceanfool is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Funky Town
Posts: 334
Re: Are outer planets generational or personal?

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.
__________________
"one side of the river is light and the other is gravity and as it comes together it forms disillusion"

Last edited by Pisceanfool; 08-19-2011 at 11:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Unread 08-19-2011, 11:22 AM
astrologer50's Avatar
astrologer50 astrologer50 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 13,695
Re: Are outer planets generational or personal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pisceanfool View Post
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.
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/
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Unread 08-19-2011, 11:28 AM
Pisceanfool's Avatar
Pisceanfool Pisceanfool is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Funky Town
Posts: 334
Re: Are outer planets generational or personal?

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
__________________
"one side of the river is light and the other is gravity and as it comes together it forms disillusion"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
generational, outer, personal, planets

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Number of marriages and outer planets virgo18 Natal Astrology 15 07-22-2011 08:58 AM
how is it with outer planets as ascendant rulers? gimzo23 Dignities & debilities 8 05-22-2009 05:45 PM
Unaspected Personal Planets Inside Out Orange Aspects & configurations 23 04-08-2009 09:39 AM
Outer planets Aspects in Synastry... Junke Relational Astrology 0 06-08-2008 08:12 AM
Retrograde Outer Planets Lulu-B Karmic Astrology 12 01-13-2008 10:26 AM



All times are GMT. The time now is 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.