Is Pluto an astrological planet?

muchacho

Well-known member
However, I shall say that I believe that neglecting things that you don't see with your naked eyes is silly, because that doesn't help you solve any problems.
It's a rather naive and childish way of reasoning. Following that logic, radioactivity wouldn't have any influence on us either. And we all know that that's not the case.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
JA, having spent all afternoon fending off you and Oddity, let me just ask you to please re-read my salient points. Don't fire back off-the-cuff immediately. Take time to digest them.

Astrology is not astronomy. Astrologers are consumers of some scientific information, but we do not take our marching orders from the IAU.

As astrologers we are free to "consume" those parts of the IAU definition that we find helpful while ignoring the parts irrelevant to astrology. [I mean seriously, as a hypothetical counter-factual, if it should turn out that Mercury hadn't cleared its debris field, would this matter to a trad one iota?]
Don't forget Mars and Jupiter! They all haven't fully cleared their orbits yet. Even Earth. Should we begin demoting Earth, Mars and Jupiter now? :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Don't forget Mars and Jupiter! They all haven't fully cleared their orbits yet.
That's misinformed
On the contrary
Along with its moons, Jupiter's gravitational field
CONTROLS NUMEROUS ASTEROIDS

that have settled into the regions of the Lagrangian points
preceding and following Jupiter in its orbit around the Sun.

These are known as the Trojan asteroids, and are divided into Greek and Trojan "camps" to commemorate the Iliad.


InnerSolarSystem-en.png





This diagram shows the Trojan asteroids in Jupiter's orbit, as well as the main asteroid belt :smile:

Even Earth.
as has been stated Earth is not 'an astrological planet'
i.e.

Earth isn't an astrological planet.

Never has been, never will be... until we relocate to Mars, I guess.
and obviously, if we 'relocate to Mars'
then a 'Marscentred natal chart' would apply
not a 'Geocentric natal chart'

Should we begin demoting Earth, Mars and Jupiter now? :biggrin:
Earth is already not 'an astrological planet'
Earth is the perspective from which natal charts are studied
Jupiter's gravitational field controls numerous asteroids

ILLUSTRATION
dwarf planet pluto's 'gravitational field' cannot even begin to emulate Jupiter's gravitational field :smile:


size_of_earth_2.jpg
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
It isn't hard to understand how the modern astrological system works, it's just a matter of cause and effect!
If a new planet, planetoid, dwarf planet, or other point is discovered
then it is relatively easy to question the native
about what happened to them
when the astrological body becomes amplified by a progression or transit to an angle or a personal planet in their chart.
It really is that easy!
And even easier
to simply delineate the seven classical planets via traditional astrology :smile:
because
Finally, there is the issue with the meanings contemporary astrologers have given to them.

Mostly they either

1) don't make sense within their own context

or

2) are already taken by another planet.


About the first, a lot of the meanings of the planets have been assigned to them based on mythological interpretations
or perceived mundane events happening around the time of their discovery.
A lot of the mythological meanings are cherry picked and often nonsensical,
like Uranus ruling rebellion, but in the myth Ouranos is the tyrannical dictator, not the freedom fighter
.

The mundane events are definitely cherry picked
as there are many important events happening around the world at any given time.
Pluto was discovered in 1930 and has taken on an association with nuclear force,
but when I hear 1930s I think Great Depression
and I've never heard anyone associate Pluto with financial ruination.

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

If the terms "sex death and regeneration" result in a personal internal fear response then maybe modern astrology isn't for you.
And neither is traditional astrology
for multiple examples of 'a personal internal fear response to traditional astrological death prediction'
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=64628&highlight=morality
How does that saying go....When Bob says something horrible about Mary, it says more about Bob than it does Mary.:surprised:
How does that saying continue....
and when Mary then retorts something horrible about Bob,
yet claims her horrible comments are justified, whereas Bobs horrible comments are not,
it says more about Mary than it does Bob
:smile:
and so on and so forth, ad infinitum
 

Dirius

Well-known member
But the case point against the outer interpretation that they are astrologically relevant or not, isn't even explained much by modern astrological schools themselves, given that in many cases...most disagree on what they truly are.

A) There is a line of thinking within modern astrology that considers the outers as "transpersonal" planets, meaning that they do not affect personality or the life of the individual directly, and might only have a minor influence through tight aspect or conjunction with other planets (the 7 classical), by influencing them. They do no affect the individual by house placement, sign placement, or transit.


B) There is another line of thinking that they have direct influence over the individual, just as the other 7 planets do. That they "co-rule" signs, and affect the individual directly.

As it has been mention over and over then, there are lot of different schools of thoughts within modern astrology that seem to use very different techniques, concepts and associations for the same thing.

So that sort of hurts the case to be made for the outers, since there are so many authors that contradict each other on the matter.

To us, traditional astrologers, this is the reason why modern astrology seems a bit "quirky". None of us will argue with each other about what sign is ruled by what, or what meaning a planet has, or how it can influence it. There are different interpretations to everything of course, but pretty much all of them are the same among traditionalists.

So here is the question, from all the moderns posting, whats your position on the relevancy of the outers...??? Because clearly there is a difference between what, for example, waybread may believe or muchacho may believe.

And I don't mean this to create more argument, just to see exactly what definitions are we using.

In the case of Oddity, JUPASC and myself, while we belong to different schools of thought ourselves we sort of agree on most things. (I think Oddity mentioned he is more of medieval/persian line of thought, JUPASC eastern/persian, and myself Medieval/Hellenistic)**

**I think
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
But the case point against the outer interpretation that they are astrologically relevant or not, isn't even explained much by modern astrological schools themselves, given that in many cases...most disagree on what they truly are.

Dirius, you will also find disagreement in traditional astrology when you look for it. Or to put it more sweetly, traditional astrology evolved and changed over time and space. There no single unified tradition to which astrologers can turn and claim "the tradition." Deborah Houlding, owner of the traditional astrology site Skyscript, has written a lot of history of traditional astrology, notably in her book, Houses: Temples of the Sky. But see also her historical articles at Skyscript, such as: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html and http://www.skyscript.co.uk/terms.html .

From local histories and the writings of the "literary" astrologers, we know that there were a lot of pop-schlock traditional astrologers throughout history. http://www.skyscript.co.uk/reform.html We may not wish to admit the "street" astrologers into our ranks, but they were there and they were practising.

Shall I conclude from the pleasant fictions of "the tradition" [singular] despite the empirical history of traditional astrology that "most disagree on what they truly are"?

A) There is a line of thinking within modern astrology that considers the outers as "transpersonal" planets, meaning that they do not affect personality or the life of the individual directly, and might only have a minor influence through tight aspect or conjunction with other planets (the 7 classical), by influencing them. They do no affect the individual by house placement, sign placement, or transit.

Cite your sources, please. I think you're dated. The transpersonal, psycho-spiritual brand of astrology formulated by the theosophists, Dane Rudhyar, and Jeff Green isn't the one that many of us more applied astrologers practice, notably after 80 years of modern astrologers working with Pluto, let alone with Uranus and Neptune. What you posted reads like one of the decades-old discussions of Pluto, not the way it has been used for the past 30 years or so. See, for example, Steven Forrest, The Book of Pluto.

This isn't to argue that Pluto has no generational effect. I think it does. Pluto in Leo was different than Pluto in Scorpio. But modern astrologers no longer agree that Pluto has no personal influence "by house placement, sign placement, or transit." With Pluto opposite my sun, its effect in my life has been very real; and my Pluto square sun transit was so monumental that my sympathies go out to people born with this aspect.

B) There is another line of thinking that they have direct influence over the individual, just as the other 7 planets do. That they "co-rule" signs, and affect the individual directly.

Right, and this is the predominant view among modern astrologers today. Some even bump out the traditional rulers, but I am not of this opinion.


As it has been mention over and over then, there are lot of different schools of thoughts within modern astrology that seem to use very different techniques, concepts and associations for the same thing.

So that sort of hurts the case to be made for the outers, since there are so many authors that contradict each other on the matter.

If I admit your point (allowing for improvement in understanding of outers over time,) then what shall I make of other equally legitimate traditional astrologies, such as Vedic/jyotish, Chinese, and Tibetan? Not to mention the juxtaposition in Roman times of Hellenistic astrology, Mithraism, and astrology in Hermeticism and even black magic? What shall I make of the differences between Morin and Al-Biruni? Lilly and Ptolemy? Or of Galileo, who taught astrology at the University of Padua, while gazing through his (gasp, shock) telescope to discover the moons of Jupiter, and pondering what might be their astrological significance?

In sum, traditional astrology seems internally monolithic and consistent to people who haven't looked under the hood.

To us, traditional astrologers, this is the reason why modern astrology seems a bit "quirky". None of us will argue with each other about what sign is ruled by what, or what meaning a planet has, or how it can influence it. There are different interpretations to everything of course, but pretty much all of them are the same among traditionalists.

Not so, as I've demonstrated above. Moreover, a "different interpretation" of reception, orbs, or horary chart cautions-- as proposed by the astrological Great Ones of the past-- can give you a wildly different chart interpretation.

So here is the question, from all the moderns posting, whats your position on the relevancy of the outers...??? Because clearly there is a difference between what, for example, waybread may believe or muchacho may believe.

And I don't mean this to create more argument, just to see exactly what definitions are we using.

I'm OK with a lively debate. Which is what you've offered here.:cool: Personal attacks (posted by several others) are annoying: nothing more than a peevish digression.

In the case of Oddity, JUPASC and myself, while we belong to different schools of thought ourselves we sort of agree on most things. (I think Oddity mentioned he is more of medieval/persian line of thought, JUPASC eastern/persian, and myself Medieval/Hellenistic)**

**I think

Well, I recommend you guys read a little deeper into the history of
astrology. But no matter, I can't think of what you believe Muchacho and I disagree about. Possibly our main point of agreement would be that astrology didn't just ossify in 1680. Don't you ever ask yourself why it died out by 1700? Modern astrology is a living, growing, evolving discipline. :cool: Not a museum piece.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Dirius, you will also find disagreement in traditional astrology when you look for it. Or to put it more sweetly, traditional astrology evolved and changed over time and space. There no single unified tradition to which astrologers can turn and claim "the tradition." ....

Yes, of course there are some disagreements among traditionals too, but they are mostly technique based, on application, not really on definitions.
As I mentioned, most concept based things (like definitions for the Sun as "king", "husband", "succes", etc) and how it is defines in most charts (such as being the chart ruler, the house it rules, its influence, etc), are usually the same for almost every traditional that has indeed attained some level of practical knowledge.

This can be easily seen in the Horary chart section, most experienced people posting there usually come to the same conclusion regarding a chart outcome. There are rare cases in which this does not happen, but they are rare indeed, and like I mention, its mostly on the application of techniques, rather than a concept based disagreement.

Cite your sources, please. I think you're dated. The transpersonal, psycho-spiritual brand of astrology formulated by the theosophists, Dane Rudhyar, and Jeff Green isn't the one that many of us more applied astrologers practice, notably after 80 years of modern astrologers working with Pluto, let alone with Uranus and Neptune. What you posted reads like one of the decades-old discussions of Pluto, not the way it has been used for the past 30 years or so. See, for example, Steven Forrest, The Book of Pluto.

Of course I'm not saying this is the "majority" view, and it is possible it was a more prevailing opinion in decades past rather than now, but its still "one" of the views held regarding it, just mention it cause it seems to be the opinion of some.

Right, and this is the predominant view among modern astrologers today. Some even bump out the traditional rulers, but I am not of this opinion.

I do agree this is the prevailing view. But as you point out, it is not your opinion, so it isn't something thats held by everyone.

If I admit your point (allowing for improvement in understanding of outers over time,) then what shall I make of other equally legitimate traditional astrologies, such as Vedic/jyotish, Chinese, and Tibetan? Not to mention the juxtaposition in Roman times of Hellenistic astrology, Mithraism, and astrology in Hermeticism and even black magic? What shall I make of the differences between Morin and Al-Biruni? Lilly and Ptolemy? Or of Galileo, who taught astrology at the University of Padua, while gazing through his (gasp, shock) telescope to discover the moons of Jupiter, and pondering what might be their astrological significance?

In sum, traditional astrology seems internally monolithic and consistent to people who haven't looked under the hood.

However, most of concepts relating to all of those strains of western astrology do have a common base that can be seen in every author mentioned. What is found in Lilly, is found in Ptolomy, and is found in Al-Biruni.

Obviously each author contributes with its own discoveries, techniques and application. The best example is Vettius Vallens. In his anthologies, you can find a lot of personal techniques by Vallens, that you won't find in other authors, however most of the conceptual facts of planetary influence, dignity, aspect, etc, is exactly the same as every other author.

Not so, as I've demonstrated above. Moreover, a "different interpretation" of reception, orbs, or horary chart cautions-- as proposed by the astrological Great Ones of the past-- can give you a wildly different chart interpretation.

Not really, it is rather based on the lack of practical experience of the astrologer that missinterpret what this things really are. In the horary section we've had a lot of discussion regarding this, and I'll give you an example using horary chart cautions:

They are called "indications against judgement". What most noob astrologers take to believe is that this make a chart to be "invalid". The reality, is that they are mere indications of other factors. Lets take the Moon Void of Course as the best example.

A lot of so called "traditionals" will see a Moon VOC in an horary chart and will inmediatly say "nothing will come from the situation". What it actually means, is that despite the fact that you may find other testimonies for the situation to occur, the Moon (which represents the querent) will likely not do much to bring the situation foward.

This is why it is advised not to give judgement on this type of charts, because despite the possibility of something coming together, the querents own lack of action will most likely invalidate the chart itself.

Here on this forum you will see a lot of people jumping ahead and saying that a moon VOC nothing will happen. This isn't true. Its just that most people saying this stuff are either inexperienced, or don't understand the concept.



I'm OK with a lively debate. Which is what you've offered here.:cool: Personal attacks (posted by several others) are annoying: nothing more than a peevish digression.

Well, I recommend you guys read a little deeper into the history of
astrology. But no matter, I can't think of what you believe Muchacho and I disagree about. Possibly our main point of agreement would be that astrology didn't just ossify in 1680. Don't you ever ask yourself why it died out by 1700? Modern astrology is a living, growing, evolving discipline. :cool: Not a museum piece.

The reason I asked, is because, as I mention, despite belonging to different schools of astrology, most of us traditionals agree on concept based, testable theorems.

Do we disagree on techniques? of course we do. But you'll never find any of us arguiing about planetary placement, or house rulership.

We may disagree on complicated techniques like when you have to compare a Solar Return chart with the yearly Profection. And most of those disagreements will occur because one of the people involved is not really experienced on doing the technique.

I asked each other position, because most of the concepts posted here have been from other authors, or not explained. As you mention waybread, you don't exactly believe the same "mainstream" concept of the authors, which might be what muchacho or others may believe.

Its not that I try to create argument with this question, its rather I want to understand what exactly is everyone defending (for the debate purpose).
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Dirius, re: your latest to me.

First off, let's unpack your basic assumption, that traditional western astrology is superior to modern because traditional is more internally consistent, variations being on matter of technique only.

Little picture: not hardly. Astrology prior to 1700 attracted pantheists, stoics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, who had very different foundational beliefs about the meaning of a horoscope. Was the interpretation fated and irrevocable, or did it hinge on the will of Allah? Moreover, if you read Houlding's book on houses, you can see how house meanings varied, and this could make a huge difference in natal and horary chart interpretation.

The line between "definition" and "technique" is fuzzy indeed. What is a stricture in horary astrology? What are the strictures? What is the place of greatest signification in a horoscope? When do you turn the chart? This really depends upon whom you ask. And this makes a huge difference to chart interpretation or whether you even read the chart. Are you familiar Barbara Anna Dunn's compendium, Horary Astrology Re-examined? She has many examples of substantive differences among the traditional astrologers of the past.

You wrote:

However, most of concepts relating to all of those strains of western astrology do have a common base that can be seen in every author mentioned. What is found in Lilly, is found in Ptolomy, and is found in Al-Biruni.

Obviously each author contributes with its own discoveries, techniques and application. The best example is Vettius Vallens. In his anthologies, you can find a lot of personal techniques by Vallens, that you won't find in other authors, however most of the conceptual facts of planetary influence, dignity, aspect, etc, is exactly the same as every other author.

Dirius, this is not historically accurate. Ptolemy hardly used houses at all, and then he only named a couple of them. Valens, in contrast, compiled several different house systems. Mr. Pt pointed out different tables of terms in his own day, the Babylonian and Egyptian. Ptolemy favoured the Babylonian system, but others did not, and Houlding noted (article linked above) what seems to be an error in the logical order of term rulers. Barbara Dunn's book catalogues differences between various astrologers. To Ptolemy, aspects pertained by sign, not by degree. Orbs were irrelevant. Other astrologers developed systems of orbs for aspects. And so on.

Speaking of houses, the majority of systems (whole sign, Porphyry, Regiomontanus, Placidus, &c) were developed by trads, and trads don't agree on which one to use. This can make a huge difference of house cusp ruler, and thus chart interpretation. The fact that astrologers of the past disagreed on the "best" house system was not lost on astrology's critics, who used this disagreement to dispute astrology's purported empirical basis.

Big picture: So what if you trads think you agree on definitions and mods don't? Turn to any dictionary you like, and the majority of words will have more than one meaning. Do you speak English with a Yorkshire, Boston, or Aussie accent? Do you say "bag" or "sack"? What ingredients go into a true gazpacho soup? (It depends upon on the region of Spain and even the cook.) We have so many examples of variety of meanings in everyday life: the only important point is that where confusion might occur, define the term as you use it.

And to use your example, suppose I look at a man's chart, day birth. Is the sun his monarch or father? Or his disposition? Or his heart trouble?

Why is it so important to you about thinking you all march in lock step? A clever programmer could follow your rules, if you're that consistent and that accurate, write a horary astrology program; and do you out of a job. I might further counter that trads show a remarkable lack of creativity.

We must be reading different horary charts. Note that there is modern horary astrology, which doesn't rely on a lot of traditional bits and bytes, and may well use modern outers.

The idea that Pluto can't have personal meaning in a horoscope unless.... (fill in the blanks) is really outdated, and I don't think it was ever widely accepted. I pick up astrology books in used bookstores occasionally. I found one by Ellen McCaffery, Graphic Astrology, 1952, that gives Pluto personal meaning, even back then. It is the planet of transformation in peoples lives. I have a reprint of Marc Edmund Jones, Astrology: How and Why it Works (1945.) He takes a theosophical position (popular in the '40s) that Pluto symbolizes the "self assertion through the creation of illimitable potential for the orientation of self, rather than there mere communicating or messenger activity represented by Mercury, the other planet closest in nature to Pluto." (Apparently referring to Hermes, the psychopomp of Antiquity.) Even earlier (1940) Grant Lewi, in Astrology for the Millions, worked out a cookbook for Pluto transits.

I think we both agree that there are different interpretations of a VOC moon. To Olivia Barclay, it was a stricture. To many trads today, it's not, but it does give the chart a particular interpretation.

But then what, Dirius, exactly qualifies an amateur horary astrologer to be proficient?

Let me give you my example. At Astrodienst I once posted a question about the results of my impending colonoscopy, together with my interpretation and subsequent test results. The chart of my question looked really dire-- and I had the test in large part because my brother was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer. Even Paul (horary moderator at Skyscript) didn't like the looks of it. However, I studied up on medical astrology, and concluded that people were mistaking the 8th house (and turned 12th house) for a death sentence; whereas actually the 8th indicated the lower colon; and the 6th house, the colon more generally-- but not as generally as the 6th as the house of illness. Result? the actual colonoscopy results were inconclusive but good so far as they went; and a subsequent test showed that everything was normal.

So there are always higher levels of expertise to get to.

Frankly, I am underwhelmed at the idea of trads' supposed consistency, and on so many levels.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
It may be easier to only work with 7 planets,
but why would you want to restrict yourself to 7 influences
when there is more information available using the modern planets as well?
If you choose to 'work with' 700 asteroids and thousands of dwarf planets then that's your decision :smile:

I prefer to work with the 7 classical planets, fixed stars, eclipses, profections, time lords et al

People often don't make sense within their own context, "AS ABOVE....SO BELOW"?

The astrologers of yesteryear had to assign everything to seven planets, isn't it obvious to you that they didn't have the choice of using the then undiscovered planets?
So what else could they do besides try to cram everything in existence into the then known influences?
On the contrary
modern astrologers have simply purloined meanings
already assigned to the seven classical planets

You seem to have missed the point of that saying, it is really about WHY Bob is saying things about Mary in the first place, the underlying intention which may or may not be in Bobs conscious awareness.
And you seem to have missed the point of my response to that saying
I brought that up because I'm trying to figure out why you are denying the effect of Pluto, or any modern planet for that matter.
I at first suspected that maybe you were afraid of acknowledging and/or unlocking an intense manifestation of Plutonian (or Uranian) energy,
but now I'm wondering if you are actually researching Pluto and are using your anti-Pluto stance in order to receive replies demonstrating just how Pluto does work!
Then again, as modern astrology evolves, traditional astrology is stagnating, and can't effectively evolve much further because the traditionalist's are helmed in by the framework of yesteryears astrologers!
You wish
This situation must induce fear into the heart of those who have invested so much time and energy studying Trad. astrology,
if modern astrology keeps on evolving and improving what will you do?
that's hilarious

the fact is
pluto's demotion from planetary status
is causing many who have 'invested so much time and energy studying pluto'
to question the rationale of dwarf planet pluto being an 'astrological planet' at all
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
planet or not
based on my personal experience
hardcore Pluto transits are something you are never prepared for and can be very intense
so
Pluto is as force to be reckoned with
regardless what labels you put on it
that comment has the same flimsy foundation as the following comment :smile:
pluto is a planet
you know why pluto is a planet
because i said so !
this thread discussion
is to find the modern astrological standard
for what should be incorporated as 'a modern astrological planet'

 

Dirius

Well-known member
I really hate when we start debating, because our posts end up being just soooooo long :joyful:

...and you still haven't answered my question. It would be nice if you do.

Dirius, re: your latest to me.

First off, let's unpack your basic assumption, that traditional western astrology is superior to modern because traditional is more internally consistent, variations being on matter of technique only.

Little picture: not hardly. Astrology prior to 1700 attracted pantheists, stoics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, who had very different foundational beliefs about the meaning of a horoscope. Was the interpretation fated and irrevocable, or did it hinge on the will of Allah? Moreover, if you read Houlding's book on houses, you can see how house meanings varied, and this could make a huge difference in natal and horary chart interpretation.

Not sure what this paragraph has to offer to the discussion rather than simple deflection.

The phylosophical/religious background of the different astrologers doesn't really say much, given that most would obviously try to make their belief accepted by the society of the time.

Clearly an author writing in the medieval era couldn't just write a book:"astrology and the greek planets"...they would probably try to incorporate it to the actual social belief of the time.

Anyone with common sense can notice this, unlike people writing on the 20th century, you couldn't just speak your mind back then.

The line between "definition" and "technique" is fuzzy indeed. What is a stricture in horary astrology? What are the strictures? What is the place of greatest signification in a horoscope? When do you turn the chart? This really depends upon whom you ask. And this makes a huge difference to chart interpretation or whether you even read the chart. Are you familiar Barbara Anna Dunn's compendium, Horary Astrology Re-examined? She has many examples of substantive differences among the traditional astrologers of the past.

Actually it isn't fuzzy at all. And I can answer all those points:

- What is a stricture in horary astrology? for starters, understanding the question and the houses involved.
- What is the place of greatest signification in a horoscope? on a birth chart, depending what you are looking, for example, for marriage of a man the 7th/venus/moon,.t
- When do you turn the chart? on an horary when you are asking about something relating to someone else, on a birth chart, when you analyze something specifically towards in house ruler.

The fact that there exists discrepancies among "traditionalist" on how to apply a concept, does not say much, given that anyone can be wrong and missinterpret said technique. I answered this with the solar return to profection example...not everyone knows how to properly do it, yet some will argue about it.

A good example of this is andrea missinterpreting the concept of triplicity lord, on a question of death, on a recent forum post. She didn't apply the concept well, despite thinking she did, and got angry with other users for pointing out her mistake.

You can read the example here: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85109

You wrote:



Dirius, this is not historically accurate. Ptolemy hardly used houses at all, and then he only named a couple of them. Valens, in contrast, compiled several different house systems. Mr. Pt pointed out different tables of terms in his own day, the Babylonian and Egyptian. Ptolemy favoured the Babylonian system, but others did not, and Houlding noted (article linked above) what seems to be an error in the logical order of term rulers. Barbara Dunn's book catalogues differences between various astrologers. To Ptolemy, aspects pertained by sign, not by degree. Orbs were irrelevant. Other astrologers developed systems of orbs for aspects. And so on.

Actually the inaccuracy is saying that Ptolomy did not use houses, when he clearly did. First of all lets clear up that the house system employed by the greeks was Whole Signs, as you mention. Ptolomy identifies the Ascendant as the beginning of the chart, clearly markin the 1st sign. To the greeks, as you know, the signs where the houses, and what Ptolomy does is merely guide himself by the meaning of the sign, rather than that later given to the "houses".

What Ptolomy didn't write about was house specific meanings, rather focusing on planetary rulerships. Vettius vallens actually did pretty much the same, and didn't focus much on houses either (he writes little about them).

However most things found in Ptolomy are found in other authors. Did he pay attention to houses? not really, but that does not make true your testimony that there isn't a structure, given that what ptolomy wrote, still prevails on other authors. He just focused on what he prefered.

The whole sign aspect are actually something that you can find in every other authors. Orbs are one specific thing given to planets to determine a degree of influece on a certain aspect, but the concept of a beholding, applying and separating aspect is and has always been that of a whole sign.

So to be honest, I think this entire paragraph is just a missconception on your part.

Speaking of houses, the majority of systems (whole sign, Porphyry, Regiomontanus, Placidus, &c) were developed by trads, and trads don't agree on which one to use. This can make a huge difference of house cusp ruler, and thus chart interpretation. The fact that astrologers of the past disagreed on the "best" house system was not lost on astrology's critics, who used this disagreement to dispute astrology's purported empirical basis.
Not really. The first quadrant division was actually done for a Hyleg technique dividing the chart by 4, not really intended for "houses". This is what then later evolved for more quadrant techniques of house division.

Still, for example, in horary, we do give preference to the sign a planet is in, rather than a "house" positioning. An very good example is of a planet techniquly in the 12th house, but in the sign of the 1st house. It is usually treated as a 1st house planet, because its implication is withing the boundaries of the 1st sign, rather than the 12th.

But I do agree that the point of house divisions accordingly are a bit obscure.

Big picture: So what if you trads think you agree on definitions and mods don't? Turn to any dictionary you like, and the majority of words will have more than one meaning. Do you speak English with a Yorkshire, Boston, or Aussie accent? Do you say "bag" or "sack"? What ingredients go into a true gazpacho soup? (It depends upon on the region of Spain and even the cook.) We have so many examples of variety of meanings in everyday life: the only important point is that where confusion might occur, define the term as you use it.
This has no astrological implication rather than twisting my words waybread.

And to use your example, suppose I look at a man's chart, day birth. Is the sun his monarch or father? Or his disposition? Or his heart trouble?
Depends, which one of the 3 are you looking for, and what are you doing with that Sun? Are you applying the techniques described by authors to realise what you wish to realise of (for example) his father, or are you just looking at the Sun not understanding what to do..?

Like I say over and over, astrology isn't that simple that it is: look at the Sun, know about this, know about that.

Why is it so important to you about thinking you all march in lock step? A clever programmer could follow your rules, if you're that consistent and that accurate, write a horary astrology program; and do you out of a job. I might further counter that trads show a remarkable lack of creativity.
Its not that we lack creativty, we just try to be accurate. We take our art serious, thus we don't try to make up stuff. Embelishing words are not really needed.

We must be reading different horary charts. Note that there is modern horary astrology, which doesn't rely on a lot of traditional bits and bytes, and may well use modern outers.
Yes I remember horarymaster and his usually innacurate chart readings...and his aggresive outbursts when he got it wrong.

The idea that Pluto can't have personal meaning in a horoscope unless.... (fill in the blanks) is really outdated, and I don't think it was ever widely accepted. I pick up astrology books in used bookstores occasionally. I found one by Ellen McCaffery, Graphic Astrology, 1952, that gives Pluto personal meaning, even back then. It is the planet of transformation in peoples lives. I have a reprint of Marc Edmund Jones, Astrology: How and Why it Works (1945.) He takes a theosophical position (popular in the '40s) that Pluto symbolizes the "self assertion through the creation of illimitable potential for the orientation of self, rather than there mere communicating or messenger activity represented by Mercury, the other planet closest in nature to Pluto." (Apparently referring to Hermes, the psychopomp of Antiquity.) Even earlier (1940) Grant Lewi, in Astrology for the Millions, worked out a cookbook for Pluto transits.
I do not disagree on this, but its still one of the views held.

I think we both agree that there are different interpretations of a VOC moon. To Olivia Barclay, it was a stricture. To many trads today, it's not, but it does give the chart a particular interpretation.
It does, and is usually specific to the question that is ask. Clearly for different type of questions the Moon VOC means a different thing, but always retaining the implication it does, and this can be seen in most chart that are similar.

But then what, Dirius, exactly qualifies an amateur horary astrologer to be proficient?
Ha well...usually to get it right.

I mean if someone fails simple horary chart readings 90% of the time, they are clearly doing something wrong....:lol:

Not saying you can't miss chart readings, I do get a lot of chart wrongs, but most people that you condider to be "acceptable" horarist will usually get charts right, after gaining experience.

It mostly comes with experience, after analyzing different situations. Obviously the first time someone reads a new type of chart (lets say for example, a contest chart) you will probably get it wrong.

...but if after years and years of practice you fail most predictions...well, do you consider yourself a good horarist then?


Let me give you my example. At Astrodienst I once posted a question about the results of my impending colonoscopy, together with my interpretation and subsequent test results. The chart of my question looked really dire-- and I had the test in large part because my brother was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer. Even Paul (horary moderator at Skyscript) didn't like the looks of it. However, I studied up on medical astrology, and concluded that people were mistaking the 8th house (and turned 12th house) for a death sentence; whereas actually the 8th indicated the lower colon; and the 6th house, the colon more generally-- but not as generally as the 6th as the house of illness. Result? the actual colonoscopy results were inconclusive but good so far as they went; and a subsequent test showed that everything was normal.

So there are always higher levels of expertise to get to.

Frankly, I am underwhelmed at the idea of trads' supposed consistency, and on so many levels.
But this depends on what the type of chart they tried to read.

A medical horary the whole chart represents the body, so obviously as you mention, the 8th or 6th house meanings of death or illness do not apply.

But if your question was about possible dying from an illness, then the 8th or 6th house would represents their usual implications. It is an interesting thing, but depends what you are looking for in the chart, given that they are 2 separate techniques.

And not to mention, most people don't really practice medical horary (I myself know just the basics), and usually take those type of charts as "death" questions.
 
Last edited:

diamondbaby

Well-known member
To me, Pluto is an astrological planet. I prefer to assign an individual ruler to each zodiac sign.

I see planetary rulerships this way:
:aries: - Mars
:taurus: - Venus
:gemini: - Mercury
:cancer: - Moon
:leo: - Sun
:virgo: - Ceres
:libra: - Pallas
:scorpio: - Pluto
:sagittarius: - Jupiter
:capricorn: - Saturn
:aquarius: - Uranus
:pisces: - Neptune

Mercury ruling Virgo and Venus ruling Libra always seemed pretty off to me. However, I think that Ceres and Pallas are a perfect fit for those two signs. Ceres/Demeter is the goddess of harvest, agriculture and grain. Demeter is an earthy mother figure. Pallas/Minerva was the goddess of wisdom, strategy and truth. She is a perfect fit for Libra, a masculine, cardinal air sign. Air signs are mental.

But this is just my opinion. :smile:
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
.....
...and you still haven't answered my question. It would be nice if you do.

Is this your question? If so, I have answered it too many times on this thread, already.

So here is the question, from all the moderns posting, whats your position on the relevancy of the outers...???

I find them highly relevant.


Not sure what this paragraph has to offer to the discussion rather than simple deflection.

The phylosophical/religious background of the different astrologers doesn't really say much, given that most would obviously try to make their belief accepted by the society of the time.

Clearly an author writing in the medieval era couldn't just write a book:"astrology and the greek planets"...they would probably try to incorporate it to the actual social belief of the time.

Which just goes to refute your point, that traditional astrologers predominantly disagree/d on minor matters of technique.


...I can answer all those points:

- What is a stricture in horary astrology? for starters, understanding the question and the houses involved.
- What is the place of greatest signification in a horoscope? on a birth chart, depending what you are looking, for example, for marriage of a man the 7th/venus/moon,.t
- When do you turn the chart? on an horary when you are asking about something relating to someone else, on a birth chart, when you analyze something specifically towards in house ruler.

So you've not read Barbara Dunn's book, in which she delineates some major differences of opinion on these points. Does an early degree rising mean that the querent isn't serious-- and may even be testing the astrologer-- or that events haven't yet unfolded to the point where the answer may be known? Dunn's also got a lot of information on how different traditional astrologers interpret the question of the most important point. On to turn or not to turn a chart, what about this article?http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary1ea.html

The fact that there exists discrepancies among "traditionalist" on how to apply a concept, does not say much, given that anyone can be wrong and missinterpret said technique. I answered this with the solar return to profection example...not everyone knows how to properly do it, yet some will argue about it.

Well this is fascinating, Dirius! So now you're the final authority on correct and incorrect techniques? That takes a lot of hubris.

Actually the inaccuracy is saying that Ptolomy did not use houses, when he clearly did. First of all lets clear up that the house system employed by the greeks was Whole Signs, as you mention. Ptolomy identifies the Ascendant as the beginning of the chart, clearly markin the 1st sign. To the greeks, as you know, the signs where the houses, and what Ptolomy does is merely guide himself by the meaning of the sign, rather than that later given to the "houses".

Sorry, Dirius, but you're the one who is inaccurate. I've got the Loeb Classical Library translation of Tetrabiblos. So please quote me the book and chapter where Ptolemy discusses houses. Good luck with this. He mentions just a few, primarily in connection with a technique for death prediction. Most chart delineations, for which you or I would probably use houses, are described by other techniques in Tetrabiblos. Angles, yes-- but you cannot tell where he set his house cusps, except in one particular technique where he says to go in 5 degrees from 0 degrees of the sign III.10. Valens primarily used whole signs, but he describes another technique which was probably Porphyry. He also gives several different lists of thematic house meanings: his book was called Anthologies, after all.

Ptolemy's meanings of signs have nothing to do with our conventional house meanings. His signs are solsticial, bicorporeal, equinoctial, solid, masculine, feminine, commanding, obeying, &c. One thing the signs do not do in Tetrabiblos is to refer to marriage, money, siblings, &c.
What Ptolemy didn't write about was house specific meanings, rather focusing on planetary rulerships.

However most things found in Ptolomy are found in other authors. Did he pay attention to houses? not really, but that does not make true your testimony that there isn't a structure, given that what ptolomy wrote, still prevails on other authors. He just focused on what he prefered.

Where did I say that "there isn't a structure"?

Sorry, Dirius, but Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos dates from about 150 CE. Who else preceded him? Of our extant works in English translation, Manilius. And note that Dorotheus's account was heavily glossed by a Muslim translator. Valens gives a lot of information on astrologers who preceded him, like the legendary Nechepso and Petosiris. Of the latter Valens wrote that "he spoke in mystic riddles." Ptolemy was widely used by astrologers who followed him. Ptolemy had a specific plan in mind in Tetrabiblos, which was to make astrology more "scientific" according to the Aristotelian science of his day.

The whole sign aspect are actually something that you can find in every other authors.
Orbs are one specific thing given to planets to determine a degree of influece on a certain aspect, but the concept of a beholding, applying and separating aspect is and has always been that of a whole sign.

Oh, right. Like Porphyry, Alcibitus, Placidus, Regiomontanus, Morinus....

The first quadrant division was actually done for a Hyleg technique dividing the chart by 4, not really intended for "houses". This is what then later evolved for more quadrant techniques of house division.

Actually in some of the earliest horoscopes on record, the use of Egyptian names is striking: the 4th house is called the "Dwat", for example; the Egyptian name for the Osiris hall of judgement. (See the work of Otto Neugebauer and his associates.)

Still, for example, in horary, we do give preference to the sign a planet is in, rather than a "house" positioning. An very good example is of a planet techniquly in the 12th house, but in the sign of the 1st house. It is usually treated as a 1st house planet, because its implication is withing the boundaries of the 1st sign, rather than the 12th.

Not according to what I've read. What is your source on this? What about nativities? Electional astrology? Horary astrology is not the sum total of traditional astrology.

Depends, which one of the 3 are you looking for, and what are you doing with that Sun? Are you applying the techniques described by authors to realise what you wish to realise of (for example) his father, or are you just looking at the Sun not understanding what to do..?

You tell me, Dirius.

Its not that we lack creativty, we just try to be accurate. We take our art serious, thus we don't try to make up stuff. Embelishing words are not really needed.

Who's trying "to make up stuff"? Are you saying that modern astrologers who do financial advising and investing do not try to be accurate? What about those modern astrologers who time events or give career advice?

Clearly for different type of questions the Moon VOC means a different thing, but always retaining the implication it does, and this can be seen in most chart that are similar.

Ha well...usually to get it right.

Say what?

I mean if someone fails simple horary chart readings 90% of the time, they are clearly doing something wrong....:lol:

Not saying you can't miss chart readings, I do get a lot of chart wrongs, but most people that you condider to be "acceptable" horarist will usually get charts right, after gaining experience.

It mostly comes with experience, after analyzing different situations. Obviously the first time someone reads a new type of chart (lets say for example, a contest chart) you will probably get it wrong.

So much for accuracy.

A medical horary the whole chart represents the body, so obviously as you mention, the 8th or 6th house meanings of death or illness do not apply.

But if your question was about possible dying from an illness, then the 8th or 6th house would represents their usual implications. It is an interesting thing, but depends what you are looking for in the chart, given that they are 2 separate techniques.

This was a horary question, Dirius. And no, I wasn't asking about my demise, but about the outcome of a specific procedure. How would you read a medical horary chart?

And not to mention, most people don't really practice medical horary (I myself know just the basics), and usually take those type of charts as "death" questions.

This can't be correct. Death questions are not permitted at Astrodienst. Many astrologers decline to do them out of ethical concerns. Possibly because this is one area where traditional astrologers' methods vary so dramatically that they give different results.
 

dhundhun

Well-known member
I suggest astrologers to be aware of Pluto's strength and use in Chart accordingly.

One need to know, and make deliberate efforts - Pluto is not in itself active like Sun or Moon. I made deliberate efforts while it was transiting over my wife's ASC. She regenerated beyond medical possibilities.

Good luck to those, who can reap benefits of Pluto's transit by adding/supplementing with their own efforts.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Which just goes to refute your point, that traditional astrologers predominantly disagree/d on minor matters of technique.

I said they disagree on technique matters. You are just trying to make it seem as conceptual ones. Clearly you have a different opinion about what technique is, if any.


So you've not read Barbara Dunn's book, in which she delineates some major differences of opinion on these points. Does an early degree rising mean that the querent isn't serious-- and may even be testing the astrologer-- or that events haven't yet unfolded to the point where the answer may be known? Dunn's also got a lot of information on how different traditional astrologers interpret the question of the most important point. On to turn or not to turn a chart, what about this article?http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary1ea.html

It is actually rather simple thing to turn the chart when it is required to. The question itself asks that. Not sure what doubts exactly you have with chart turning, which is very simple, but by all means, I will answer if you ask.

Regarding the early ascendant, it states that the situation is still yet unclear on how it will develop. Again, another easy to understand factor.

The statement of the querent "not being serious enough", is because situations that aren't yet cleared, aren't really well thought, and thus are sort of questions asked just for the sake of asking.

...its like me asking: "Hey will I get into the university, that I haven't even applied yet, and is just my third option?"

So both definitions of "situation not clear" and "querent testing" go hand in hand: the question isn't very well thought.
Well not exactly, but I do understand what an early ascendant means.

No offense, but you clearly don't.


Sorry, Dirius, but you're the one who is inaccurate. I've got the Loeb Classical Library translation of Tetrabiblos. So please quote me the book and chapter where Ptolemy discusses houses. Good luck with this. He mentions just a few, primarily in connection with a technique for death prediction. Most chart delineations, for which you or I would probably use houses, are described by other techniques in Tetrabiblos. Angles, yes-- but you cannot tell where he set his house cusps, except in one particular technique where he says to go in 5 degrees from 0 degrees of the sign III.10. Valens primarily used whole signs, but he describes another technique which was probably Porphyry. He also gives several different lists of thematic house meanings: his book was called Anthologies, after all.

First you write: So please quote me the book and chapter where Ptolemy discusses houses.

Then you write: He mentions just a few, primarily in connection with a technique for death prediction....Angles, yes-- but you cannot tell where he set his house cusps, except in one particular technique where he says to go in 5 degrees from 0 degrees of the sign III.10.

So you pretty much answer yourself.

As I mention over and over, greeks use Whole sign system, without cusps.


Ptolemy's meanings of signs have nothing to do with our conventional house meanings. His signs are solsticial, bicorporeal, equinoctial, solid, masculine, feminine, commanding, obeying, &c. One thing the signs do not do in Tetrabiblos is to refer to marriage, money, siblings, &c.
What Ptolemy didn't write about was house specific meanings, rather focusing on planetary rulerships.

I never said they did. What I said was the Ptolomy focused on planets, and guided himself by the definitons of the signs, and how they affect the planets, for his techniques.

But I didn't imply that the signs position in the chart took the definitions from what we know to be the houses.

Not according to what I've read. What is your source on this? What about nativities? Electional astrology? Horary astrology is not the sum total of traditional astrology.
Horary isn't the sum total, I never said it was. And as you may see, I started the sentence with "for example in Horary..."You are seriously missreading my posts and jumping ahead with replies. If you didn't like the example because it counters your point, then by all means I can use another, but please take the time to read posts carefully. You seem to assume much.

Neither do I know "what you've read".

This is because the sign the planet is in, defines who its dispositor is. Clearly if a planet is in the sign of the 1st house, it is in the power of the ruler of that house, not in the power of the ruler of the 12th. While it may be in the 12th house within the cusp boundaries, its still ruled over by the planet that rules the sign the planet is placed in.

Its common sense for traditionals.

In an elective chart that requires agreement between Asc ruler and a certain planet, it works the same way, you would look for the planet or planets that represent the event you are trying to create to be in good placement with the ruler of the Ascendant. This works if the planets find themselves in the diginity and in aspect with the ruler of the Asc.

If your looking for an elective with a specific powerful position for a planet, you would look for that planet to be in angular position, in the sign of the ruler of the angular house.

If you choose an elective chart with the planet within the boundaries of the quadrant house, but in another sign, clearly the purpose of your elective chart will be a failure.

Who's trying "to make up stuff"? Are you saying that modern astrologers who do financial advising and investing do not try to be accurate? What about those modern astrologers who time events or give career advice?

Oh they try. They do lots of things in similar fashion to traditionalist.

However, most "modern" that end up being accurate simply use the traditional techniques. They add some pretty shiny stuff about the outers sometimes, but they are clearly unnecesary for most of those chart readings. If you cut the outers from those delineations, you usually get the same results. Because in reality, they outers don't really add anything.

So much for accuracy.
I get charts wrong. Never said I was perfect. But I clearly don't miss that often either.

This was a horary question, Dirius. And no, I wasn't asking about my demise, but about the outcome of a specific procedure. How would you read a medical horary chart?
Not sure really, I've read many of the different methods, but haven't yet judged a medical chart to see which one does work, so I wouldn't really be able to comment on it.

This can't be correct. Death questions are not permitted at Astrodienst. Many astrologers decline to do them out of ethical concerns. Possibly because this is one area where traditional astrologers' methods vary so dramatically that they give different results.

Doesn't mean they wouldn't read it like one.
 
Last edited:

muchacho

Well-known member
But the case point against the outer interpretation that they are astrologically relevant or not, isn't even explained much by modern astrological schools themselves, given that in many cases...most disagree on what they truly are.

A) There is a line of thinking within modern astrology that considers the outers as "transpersonal" planets, meaning that they do not affect personality or the life of the individual directly, and might only have a minor influence through tight aspect or conjunction with other planets (the 7 classical), by influencing them. They do no affect the individual by house placement, sign placement, or transit.


B) There is another line of thinking that they have direct influence over the individual, just as the other 7 planets do. That they "co-rule" signs, and affect the individual directly.

As it has been mention over and over then, there are lot of different schools of thoughts within modern astrology that seem to use very different techniques, concepts and associations for the same thing.

So that sort of hurts the case to be made for the outers, since there are so many authors that contradict each other on the matter.

To us, traditional astrologers, this is the reason why modern astrology seems a bit "quirky". None of us will argue with each other about what sign is ruled by what, or what meaning a planet has, or how it can influence it. There are different interpretations to everything of course, but pretty much all of them are the same among traditionalists.

So here is the question, from all the moderns posting, whats your position on the relevancy of the outers...??? Because clearly there is a difference between what, for example, waybread may believe or muchacho may believe.

And I don't mean this to create more argument, just to see exactly what definitions are we using.

In the case of Oddity, JUPASC and myself, while we belong to different schools of thought ourselves we sort of agree on most things. (I think Oddity mentioned he is more of medieval/persian line of thought, JUPASC eastern/persian, and myself Medieval/Hellenistic)**

**I think
Are you asking me a question or something? Or were you just philosophizing?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I suggest astrologers to be aware of Pluto's strength and use in Chart accordingly.

One need to know, and make deliberate efforts
- Pluto is not in itself active like Sun or Moon.
I made deliberate efforts while it was transiting over my wife's ASC.
She regenerated beyond medical possibilities.

Good luck to those, who can reap benefits of Pluto's transit by adding/supplementing with their own efforts.

Concerning the three specific phrases
would be useful if you would clarify your intended meaning :smile:


'and make deliberate efforts'.....
'I made deliberate efforts'......
'by adding/supplementing with their own efforts'...
 
Top