Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Other Astrology

Other Astrology Here, you can discuss anything else astrological that doesn't belong in the other boards. Includes medical astrology, mundane astrology, parts, sports astrology, research and development, degree symbols, fixed stars, asteroids, symbols systems, karma, and Aquarian astrology.


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Unread 02-24-2009, 06:54 PM
freedomlover's Avatar
freedomlover freedomlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Over the Hills and Far Away
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Yahoo to freedomlover
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Kai wrote:

Quote:
Yes and no. I don't see it written anywhere else where the study and the student are separated by two separate significators. The art and artist are Venus, the war and warrior are Mars, the religion and priest are Jupiter, etc, etc, etc.
No, Kai, you and I are saying the same thing.
Quote:
I see Uranus as representing the Astrologer, and the study of Astrology - as Uranus refers to intuition and the "higher mind". Uranus/Aquarius also rules "genius" - and, regardless of what other may think, Astrology brings out the "genius" in oneself.
I stated that the study of astrology and the person who studies are both signified by Uranus, from my viewpoint-- so that is "the study and the student", as you put it.


The other part I wrote was this:

Quote:
However, for the way Astrology works - for Astrology itself - the magnetism of energies that cause it to work ----- that, I would assign to Jupiter. This is because Jupiter rules Sagittarius, and I see Sagittarius as ruling these kinds of energies. Jupiter/Sagittarius also rules faith. When you truly have faith, you are aligned with Divine Will, and thus, with the natural realm- attracting what you desire.
However, Astrology, as it refers to the way it works - the magnetic energies at work- brings "God" or the "God-force" into the picture. This makes its ruler, Jupiter. If you study astrology, you can't deny that there is a Higher Power at work in the Universe that makes everything work the way it does.

Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.

FL

__________________
View My Chart

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Unread 02-24-2009, 07:12 PM
Kaiousei no Senshi's Avatar
Kaiousei no Senshi Kaiousei no Senshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richardson, TX, USA
Posts: 2,609
Send a message via MSN to Kaiousei no Senshi Send a message via Skype™ to Kaiousei no Senshi
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Quote:
.
I stated that the study of astrology and the person who studies are both signified by Uranus, from my viewpoint-- so that is "the study and the student", as you put it.
Right, but that's not what I'm saying. You're saying there are three things involved. The student, the study, and the art. I'm saying that's not right, the only thing that's there is the student and the art. The study of it is not something that stands by itself, but is only brought into existence when the student meets the art.

Basically what you're saying is that the student of astrology and the study of astrology are Uranus but that the art of astrology, astrology itself, is something different. That's what I was talking about. The student is never separated from their art and if you wanted to get technical the study of anything would be Mercury. The study of art would be Mercury, but the art itself is Venus. I think of it as a verb/noun thing. You may be studying (Mercury) but that's not the important part, the important part is what you're studying, art (Venus).

Hope that makes sense.
__________________
Coming events cast their shadows before them.

www.medievalastrologyguide.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Unread 02-24-2009, 07:21 PM
freedomlover's Avatar
freedomlover freedomlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Over the Hills and Far Away
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Yahoo to freedomlover
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Quote:
Right, but that's not what I'm saying. You're saying there are three things involved. The student, the study, and the art. I'm saying that's not right, the only thing that's there is the student and the art. The study of it is not something that stands by itself, but is only brought into existence when the student meets the art.

Basically what you're saying is that the student of astrology and the study of astrology are Uranus but that the art of astrology, astrology itself, is something different.
That's what I was talking about. The student is never separated from their art and if you wanted to get technical the study of anything would be Mercury. The study of art would be Mercury, but the art itself is Venus. I think of it as a verb/noun thing. You may be studying (Mercury) but that's not the important part, the important part is what you're studying, art (Venus).

Hope that makes sense.
Kai,

No, I'm afraid you still don't understand what I am saying. In an effort to clarify, let me say:

I am saying that there are 2 categories, not 3. I am saying the student, the study, and the art are one - both signified by Uranus ( although I can see the lower generalized significator of Mercury, as it refers to study and communication and learning.)

The third category you are saying I'm trying to make is saying that there are: 1) the student 2) the study 3) the art. I've already stated that these 3 are 1, which has already been covered. The "other" part, that you seem to not understand, is the "mechanics" of astrology. Maybe I shouldn't even call it "astrology". Maybe I should call it "what you are studying when you study astrology.". Yeah, that seems to fit.

Does that help your understanding of what I was trying to say?

FL
__________________
View My Chart

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Unread 02-24-2009, 07:56 PM
Kaiousei no Senshi's Avatar
Kaiousei no Senshi Kaiousei no Senshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richardson, TX, USA
Posts: 2,609
Send a message via MSN to Kaiousei no Senshi Send a message via Skype™ to Kaiousei no Senshi
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Quote:
Does that help your understanding of what I was trying to say?
*sigh* No, you just said it all over again, but this time you denied saying it first.

Quote:
I've already stated that these 3 are 1, which has already been covered.
Quote:
Maybe I should call it "what you are studying when you study astrology."
Quote:
However, for the way Astrology works - for Astrology itself - the magnetism of energies that cause it to work ----- that, I would assign to Jupiter.
The astrologer, the study of astrology, and astrology are all Uranus, but astrology itself and what you feel makes it work is Jupiter. Right. Gotcha.

Anyway, the topic is getting off track now that you and I have started our back and forth (well, actually it may have been the Ptolemy thing). I just think that assigning the student and the art two different significators is a bad way to go since the student isn't learning if they aren't even the same planet as their field. It's something that is seen time and time again in Lilly's sections on the qualities and professions of people signified by a planet. The person and the profession are the same planet and in the case of astrologers and astrology, it's quite clear that Mercury is the go-to-planet. After all, what are astrologers if not messengers of the heavens.
__________________
Coming events cast their shadows before them.

www.medievalastrologyguide.com
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Unread 02-24-2009, 11:06 PM
freedomlover's Avatar
freedomlover freedomlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Over the Hills and Far Away
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Yahoo to freedomlover
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Kai,

Quote:
*sigh* No, you just said it all over again, but this time you denied saying it first.
I'm sorry you don't get what I'm trying to say. I don't know any other way to try to explain it to you. What do you mean I "denied saying it first?" I don't understand what you are referring to.
Quote:
Anyway, the topic is getting off track now that you and I have started our back and forth (well, actually it may have been the Ptolemy thing).
I'm still talking about the planetary rulership of Astrology. However, this "back and forth we have" is getting very old.

Quote:
I just think that assigning the student and the art two different significators is a bad way to go since the student isn't learning if they aren't even the same planet as their field. It's something that is seen time and time again in Lilly's sections on the qualities and professions of people signified by a planet. The person and the profession are the same planet and in the ca
Sigh..... I've explained till I'm blue in the face. You just do not get what I am trying to say. (Either you do not get it or don't want to get it - not sure which.)
Quote:
it's quite clear that Mercury is the go-to-planet.
I do agree Mercury has merit, as a "catch-all" generalization for astrology, as I said before - although I believe it can be given clarity by the divisions I specified.

Quote:
After all, what are astrologers if not messengers of the heavens.
Something we can definitely agree on!

FL
__________________
View My Chart

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Unread 02-24-2009, 11:50 PM
Kaiousei no Senshi's Avatar
Kaiousei no Senshi Kaiousei no Senshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richardson, TX, USA
Posts: 2,609
Send a message via MSN to Kaiousei no Senshi Send a message via Skype™ to Kaiousei no Senshi
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Quote:
What do you mean I "denied saying it first?" I don't understand what you are referring to.
Sorry, the "first" was meant to show an order of things. As in, you saying they were all the same thing first, but then dividing it which contradicted your point.

Quote:
I do agree Mercury has merit, as a "catch-all" generalization for astrology, as I said before
Of course Mercury has merit, it only signified the art for thousands of years. I'm glad that you can respect that.

Quote:
although I believe it can be given clarity by the divisions I specified.
But why does it need to be divided in such a manner? In my opinion, nothing needs to be divided like that since it's more than just the sum of its parts. It's this sort of thing that bothers me about modern astrology. Didn't "types" of the same thing are put in different places and it causes way too much effort when it's really quite a simple thing. The art, the student, the study, the implications, etc, why does any of that even matter, and why give them all different significations? That just pulls them apart.

Quote:
Something we can definitely agree on!
Strange how you can agree with that but not see how intimately (and elegantly if I do say so myself) it connects with Mercury.
__________________
Coming events cast their shadows before them.

www.medievalastrologyguide.com
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Unread 02-24-2009, 11:58 PM
freedomlover's Avatar
freedomlover freedomlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Over the Hills and Far Away
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Yahoo to freedomlover
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Kai,
Quote:
Sorry, the "first" was meant to show an order of things. As in, you saying they were all the same thing first, but then dividing it which contradicted your point.
Okay, I see. But I did not contradict myself - you misunderstood. What I was saying is the "all the same" is this: The student, the study, and the art - which agrees with what you say, if I am understanding you correctly.


Quote:
But why does it need to be divided in such a manner? In my opinion, nothing needs to be divided like that since it's more than just the sum of its parts. It's this sort of thing that bothers me about modern astrology. Didn't "types" of the same thing are put in different places and it causes way too much effort when it's really quite a simple thing. The art, the student, the study, the implications, etc, why does any of that even matter, and why give them all different significations? That just pulls them apart.
The "dividing it" had to do with the "student,study,art" as Category 1 - and category 2 is something I tried to explain, but you didn't understand what I was talking about. So, to hold down on confusion, Kai. Let's leave it as this: I agree with you that "the student, the study, and the art" all fall under the same significator. I agree with you that Mercury is the general signifcator for this. I also say it can be further categorized by Uranus. Call them co-significators, if you like.

Quote:
Strange how you can agree with that but not see how intimately (and elegantly if I do say so myself) it connects with Mercury.
We actually agree on more than you give me credit for.

FL
__________________
View My Chart

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Unread 02-25-2009, 11:17 PM
astro.teacher astro.teacher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 648
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

waybread,

Quote:
If you think about it, it is kind of ironic for either a traditional or modern astrologer to insist upon scientific evidence as supporting their truth-claims.
This is a point I have often wrestled with because a lot of Traditional and Ancient Astrology relies so heavily on understanding philosophy, mythology & religion. I find that that is a point which many have a difficult task proving their case with. However, since we do have a current system laid out now, it is up to those who wish to change it to provide evidence it is contrary to what has been followed. Galileo, Copernicus, & many other Astronomers didnt just write books stating the earth was round and revolved around the Sun (which was actually believed by Pythagoras to be a fact). They showed calculations, observations and much data to prove their cases. So my question, where is the data, calculations, observations recorded that prove Uranus has dominion over Astrology? That is all I am truly asking for. If we did have true Philosophers/Astrologers in this time, these new Planets would be heavily studied and observed, and with the amount of data we have available, conclusions would be easily shown. I mean a true Astrologer is also a Philosopher and a Philosopher is someone who is obsessed with the persuit of knowledge (and even more important, new knowledge, things never before studied). We need more Philosophers and less parrots.

Now please do not think that I myself do not have the responsibility to also prove my case, and in fact it is quite a lot more difficult than research started from scratch but I am slowly trying to bring out reasoning and methods to people (which cannot happen simply in a forum discussion) through my research, my website and books. I am obsessed with knowledge, I am obsessed with obtaining it, and more importantly im obsessed with sharing it. Unfortunately, being that Astrology (especially Classical and Traditional) is very Philosophically based, it makes it difficult to "prove" my stance without specific data. I apologize for digressing from the Mercury/Uranus = Astrology issue.
__________________
Aaron Brody
www.antiquus-astrology.com
Antiquus Astrology
Astrology Books, Treatise, Readings & more!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Unread 02-26-2009, 02:21 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,842
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Wonderful, thoughtful response, astro.teacher!

As I suggested above, I think the attribution of Uranus to astrology is based in mythology: Uranus/Ouranos means "the heavens" or heavenly."

I don't think we can know today how much research the pre-modern (let alone classical) astrologers actually conducted. It seems to be a matter of faith among traditionalists that they did this. In that regard, I don't find traditional astrologers' assumptions so entirely different from modern astrologers' assumptions.

I suspect but cannot demonstrate (for now!) that Mercury was cited as the traditional ruler of astrology because....what other planet was there? None of the luminaries or planets used by traditional astrologers really fits. Not even Jupiter, because prior to the PC, constructing a chart required a lot of careful mathematical calculations. Possibly Saturn in a fatalistic sense, but he's too material and practical. The "as above, so below" meta-theory of astrology (pre-theosophists) seems especially suited to Mercury as the one god (of winged feet) who could freely travel between the underworld, surface world, and heavens/Mt. Olympus. (Cf. Greek Hermes, Egyptian Hermanubis.)

But you've raised an interesting point: if modern astrologers did research Uranus as a decent modern replacement for Mercury, who were they? I don't know. John Addey and R. Ebertin come to mind as men of an early generation of astrologers who did a lot of research. But hopefully someone on this thread knows more history of astrology than I do.

If astrology were reinstated as an academic subject, this would make a great grad student research paper!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Unread 02-26-2009, 02:25 AM
freedomlover's Avatar
freedomlover freedomlover is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Over the Hills and Far Away
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Yahoo to freedomlover
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Quote:
If astrology were reinstated as an academic subject, this would make a great grad student research paper!
Ah, yes, that is my dream - that they would offer at least basic astrology as a course in public schools.
__________________
View My Chart

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." ~Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Unread 02-26-2009, 04:19 AM
Kaiousei no Senshi's Avatar
Kaiousei no Senshi Kaiousei no Senshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richardson, TX, USA
Posts: 2,609
Send a message via MSN to Kaiousei no Senshi Send a message via Skype™ to Kaiousei no Senshi
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Quote:
I suspect but cannot demonstrate (for now!) that Mercury was cited as the traditional ruler of astrology because....what other planet was there?
Waybread, I'm pretty sure that that's how any and all significations are assigned. There's something that has to fit somewhere, so we go through a little thinking and decide that this planet must be it because no other compares.

War? Who else would rule war but Mars? There's no one else who can match well in the traditional planets, so I guess we'll just have to "settle" until something "better" comes along.
__________________
Coming events cast their shadows before them.

www.medievalastrologyguide.com
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Unread 02-26-2009, 10:43 AM
RayAustin's Avatar
RayAustin RayAustin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pluto
Posts: 2,434
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread
I don't think we can know today how much research the pre-modern (let alone classical) astrologers actually conducted. It seems to be a matter of faith among traditionalists that they did this. In that regard, I don't find traditional astrologers' assumptions so entirely different from modern astrologers' assumptions.
Hey Waybread, I just have to quote you on this out of curiosity--how is it a matter of faith that they did tests & calculations? I think there is a lot more proof like left behind documents and such that they did, than otherwise. That said, I wouldn't know where to specifically find either of them for whichever school.

Ray
__________________
Musician / Artist / Astrologer

“Famous are those persons in whose Nativities the Moon receives the light of many Planets.”
—Cardanus.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Unread 02-26-2009, 06:51 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,842
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Ray,

My comment was in response to Aaron's statement that:

"...since we do have a current system laid out now, it is up to those who wish to change it to provide evidence it is contrary to what has been followed. Galileo, Copernicus, & many other Astronomers didnt just write books stating the earth was round and revolved around the Sun (which was actually believed by Pythagoras to be a fact). They showed calculations, observations and much data to prove their cases. So my question, where is the data, calculations, observations recorded that prove Uranus has dominion over Astrology?"

I agree that a number of early astronomers (and some were both astronomers and astrologers) did lay out some of their mathematical calculations. I don't recall astrologers claiming Copernicus and Galileo among our number, but I may have missed something.

It seems harder to find evidence for rulerships based upon empirical data in astrology's foundational texts. A number of classical, medieval, and renaissance texts in astrology are available in English today in public or university libraries, googlebooks, Project Hindsight, or through used booksellers. The Loeb Classical Library publications include Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and Manilius. I have a tiny collection of historical material: I admit that I haven't read the majority of what's out there.

I haven't seen where these authors explain the evidence upon which their assumptions about rulerships or personality traits are based, which makes them comparable to modern authors who don't explain their evidence. As mentioned above, at least a few modern authors like John Addey, Reinhold Ebertin, and the Gauquelins did conduct their own research and indicate the basis for their conclusions (see also Garry Phillipson, Astrology in the Year Zero as a more recent summary), but I haven't seen a lot of this in modern works.

Manilius (Astronomica) for example attributes astrology to Mercury--phrased as a kind of praise or homage to the god of intelligence and learning; not based upon evidence gleaned from working with clients. Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos) doesn't give a ruler for astrology so far as I can tell, although he does say that Mercury rules human souls, which seems fitting in light of Hermes' repution as "the conductor." Aratus (Phaenomena) starts out with praise and homage to Zeus, not Mercury, as the creator of the heavens, which doesn't even quite jive with modern understanding of the pantheon. I guess one might conclude that rulership of astrology in classical Greence and Rome was based more upon the properties of the gods whose planets bore their names than upon evidence in an empirical sense of the term; and that classical astrologers disagreed as much as modern astrologers do about various facets of their discipline.

In Hellenized Egypt, however, Mercury becomes associated with the Egyptian god Toth, the scribe, who was believed to rule astronomy. So then you get the association of various occult practices with the mythical figure of Hermes Trismegistus, (Thrice-great Hermes). Hermetic texts, many written long after this period, infused occult and magical thinking in Europe during the Middle Ages and Dark Ages (Eugenio Garin, Astrology in the Renaissance), and was probably the reason for Mercury becoming standardized as the traditional ruler of astrology.

So my reply to Aaron was basically that I think modern and traditional astrologers are about at par, regarding his point, above, about factual evidence.

Last edited by waybread; 02-26-2009 at 06:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Unread 02-26-2009, 07:17 PM
RayAustin's Avatar
RayAustin RayAustin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pluto
Posts: 2,434
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Waybread, thanks for the very thorough and educating response.
You're saying their ascribement of astrology to Mercury had nothing to do with data, more like philosophical stuff. In that sense, I'd have to agree. I think the complexity of astrology is where the ascribement gets fuzzy, whereas things like love, and war, have very discreet planetary rulers.. Astrology can easily fall underneath Mercury, Jupiter..because of the intelligence required, and then the philosophy/study aspect of Jupiter. And perhaps, Uranus.

Ray
__________________
Musician / Artist / Astrologer

“Famous are those persons in whose Nativities the Moon receives the light of many Planets.”
—Cardanus.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Unread 02-26-2009, 07:21 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,842
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Ray, thanks.

Incidentally with my own Mercury "exalted" in Aquarius, and with my Uranus conjunct MC trine my Aquarian sun, I figure I've got both astrology rulers covered.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Unread 02-26-2009, 07:26 PM
RayAustin's Avatar
RayAustin RayAustin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pluto
Posts: 2,434
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread
Ray, thanks.

Incidentally with my own Mercury "exalted" in Aquarius, and with my Uranus conjunct MC trine my Aquarian sun, I figure I've got both astrology rulers covered.
That's funny.. I've got Uranus trine the MC, and a very strong Mercury in trine with Moon in the ninth (study/astrology).. I'd have to say I've got both rulers covered, too.
__________________
Musician / Artist / Astrologer

“Famous are those persons in whose Nativities the Moon receives the light of many Planets.”
—Cardanus.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Unread 02-27-2009, 05:58 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,842
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Olivia, thanks for the historic infill. [And I like the word "partile" as my Uranus/MC conjunction is partile, by Jove!]

Just a bit more historical infill of my own here, ultimately suggesting that there may be good reasons to retain Mercury as the ruler of astrology, but they seemingly have little to do with astrology's career as an academic subject.

Classical astrology took place prior to the development of universities, but some did develop in private academies of various sorts. The university as that term is understood today didn't really get a running start until the Middle Ages. Astronomy was part of the "quadrivium" of liberal arts subjects that students needed to study. Initially it apparently focused upon Ptolemy's Almagest, which is an astronomical work with hardly any astrological content.

Part of the problem of astrology in early medieval European universities was that most were linked to the church, which had been critical of astrology since the latter's inception. Also, a lot of the key classical sources weren't translated from the Arabic (where they had been preserved) until around the 11th-12th centuries.

When astrology per se does get adopted into medieval universities after that, it was typically as an adjunct to medicine (e. g. medical astrology), weather prediction, and alchemy. Well, a lot of this material by no means holds up to modern scrutiny today, because it was thoroughly imbued with sympathetic magic (the idea that like cures like.)

Jim Tester (A History of Western Astrology, 183) writes that although astrology became increasingly accepted in universities, any research was basically theoretical and inductive.

Unfortunately "vulgar empiricism" [Olivia's quote, above] is what has passed for scientific research for the last couple of centuries. During the Renaissance scholars in the sciences learned that the problem with arguing from first principles is that if one's assumptions are flawed, then the rest of the argument is flawed, also. As the nature of reasoning changed during the renaissance, astrology had difficulty shifting with it.

Astrology's university career ended with a whimper in the 18th century (with the last hold-out of which I am aware, ending astrology studies in 1817), for several additional reasons:
(1) As its sister-discipline of medicine began to do a better job of curing patients, astrology's truth-claims were too often wrong. Astrologers had gotten by saying, "Well, OK, we make mistakes, but so do doctors." But medicine was making strides that astrology couldn't match.
(2) Astrologers in the renaissance were concerned with predicting significant events like the manner and time of people's death, yet the problem of accurate house systems vexed them as much as it does modern astrologers--and it mattered a lot where one set the cusps of the 8th house. Wrong house cusps, wrong predictions--for very powerful people who were not amused.
(3) With the rumblings of the antecedants of modern science during the Renaissance, educated scholars as well as popular authors launched major criticizisms of astrology's assumptions and track record.
(4) The Ptolemaic system collapsed for astronomers with new evidence about the orbits of the earth and other planets around the sun, and the discovery of Uranus in 1781.
(5) Religious authorities began to take a hard line against astrology.

The debate among practitioners of various types of astrology: mundane vs. natal, traditional vs. modern, equal house vs. variable-width house systems, solar arcs vs. secondary progressions, &c., &c. often rests upon the truth-claim that their prefered branch is surprisingly accurate; while the practitioners of other branches haven't made their case.

While this position might be correct in some cases, unfortunately claims of accuracy on either side of a debate are generally based upon anecdotal evidence. They seem to depend more on the brilliance of a very small number of practitioners (like Lilly, possibly) not on the larger number of astrologers practicing at any given time. (Many are unknown today.)

So which glass is half empty? Whose glass is half full?

I think it's a toss-up. If people think using Mercury as astrology's ruler gives better results than Uranus, I have no problem with that.

Last edited by waybread; 02-27-2009 at 06:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Unread 02-27-2009, 06:21 AM
lillyjgc's Avatar
lillyjgc lillyjgc is offline
Senior Member, Educational board Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,930
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Hi-I'm wondering then, do we have any astrologers here who have no mercury aspects and only Uranus aspects to reflect their interest in astrology? I too have both mercury and uranus aspecting one another!.
Another problem: If we say that Uranus *rules* astrology, does this link astrology to house 11? How can we have *astrology* being a matter to do with h3/h9 axis but ruled by a planet primarily associated with the eleventh house?
A problem with modern practice is that once you start playing around with the rulerships, you have to also play around with the houses-which draws further away from thousands, not hundreds of years of astrological tradition.
Personally I doubt that I will ever engage in a more mercurial pursuit than a chart delineation!
Uranus has a slightly eccentric orbit-this is where all the assignations of rebellion and eccentricity come from, as associated traits of uranus. So then we take this highly unusual and irregular planet and connect it with a very meticulous process like chart analysis. I can't see the logic in it.
At the time Uranus was discovered, astrology was not generally regarded as a *fringe* (uranian) occupation-the royalty employed them, and the wealthy.The Church had a few problems with astrology,and this is why William Lilly called his book *Christian Astrology*.

I think a body of knowledge is an organic thing and we should not dismiss new knowledge (planets) etc per se, but I can see the logic of traditional methods, whilst with many modern practices such as giving outer planets rulerships of houses etc and calling sun signs rulers of houses etc, I can't see the basis for it, if indeed there is one.
I have a friend who is NOT into astrology who has the same mercury/ uranus aspect that I have and involving the same houses-but not the same signs.So I suspect theres a lot of factors to consider.As always.
Lillyjgc
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Unread 02-27-2009, 09:03 AM
you know it's Avatar
you know it you know it is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

If anyone is looking for information to do a study, then my chart is here for reference.


I have Uranus at 7.01 Scorpio trine the Part of Astrology at 6.13 Cancer, with an orb of (0.48). Uranus is trine the sun at 7.44 Pisces. The orb from the Sun to the Part of Astrology (1.31) is a little wide to count, from what I have read. The Part of Astrology is located in my 9th house. If you use the 3rd/9th house, then Mercury (13.27 Aquarius) is sextile the 3rd house cusp (10.20 Sagittarius), and sextile Neptune (13.53 Sagittarius) which is conjunct the 3rd house cusp (3.33 orb). Mercury is also square Uranus, and conjunct/parallel Venus (9.15 Aquarius), the Ascendant ruler. Mercury is trine the 9th house cusp (10.20 Gemini), while ruling the 9th house also.

Plus, both Mercury and Uranus are used in finding the Part of Astrology.
Ascendant + Uranus - Mercury = Part of Astrology

Even though most astrologers don't use the Arabic Parts, it is something worth investigating. Hopefully this info will be useful or helpful to someone.

Last edited by you know it; 02-27-2009 at 10:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Unread 02-27-2009, 08:18 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,842
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Lillygjc, regarding correspondences between planets, signs, and houses:

I do modern astrology, and I don't find a link to the 11th (or any) house relevant to the astrology rulership question. One of my pet peeves with **some** modern astrologers is that they conflate signs and houses, as if it made no difference whether somebody had Venus in the 4th house or Venus in Cancer. So I would not associate astrology with the 11th house at all, even though I am OK with Uranus (the sky god) as astrology's ruler. [Or Mercury.]

One handy desk reference that I use a lot is an AFA publication, Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book, which is based on a decent bibliography. Some entries in this compendium have house rulers, some don't. Interestingly, he gives astrology to Uranus and Aquarius, never mentions either Mercury or the 11th house, but then lists as secondary rulers Neptune, Pisces, and the 7th house! Well, Neptune and Pisces I get if one thinks of astrology as metaphysical rather than empirical and mathematical; but the 7th? Maybe this refers to one-on-one counselling, I don't know. But the point being that rulerships can have a sign and/or planetary ruler that have no accompanying house, or else that don't have the "natural" house relationship. Some do in his book, and some don't.

Lilly, I wouldn't recommend "playing around with rulerships" so much as someone (with more time and expertise than I have) doing some research. I don't do horary astrology (where I think the majority of astrologers wouldn't use modern planets anyway.) Other than that, we might consider where else the rulership problem actually matters. One area would be the use of so-called "accidental house cusp rulers" or "lords" of the signs on house cusps. This practice generally leaves out the problem of "natural house cusp rulers" where the affinity between Uranus and the 11th would lie. (Some modern astrologers would look at a house's "natural ruler.") Possibly the situation of Uranus vs. Mercury in a chart could suggest who's likely to be a good astrologer and who isn't.

Consequently, in terms of Mercury as the ruler of astrology, I also wouldn't see a necessary affilitation between the 3rd or the 6th house for astrological matters.

Olivia, it is interesting that the Catholic church had such a complex relationship with astrology. On the one hand they condemned it, but then clerics were responsible for translating many of the great classical astrology works into Greek and Latin from the Arabic, when the original versions were lost. The Church fostered astrology in medieval universities for some centuries, then came down very hard on it during the late Renaissance, when it was seen as a challenge to papal authority.

The fundamental problem with astrology to the Christian mind, I think, based upon biblical antecedants, is predictive astrology's danger of turning people away from faith in God. [Or one might argue, from faith in church leaders.]

From a secular perspective I think the more fundamental problem with traditional astrology and why it got dropped from university curricula, is that its determinism just didn't seem to fit new paradigms of thinking, criteria for evidence, and revolutionary discoveries in astronomy.

Intriguingly, "traditional astrology" was the only kind that was practiced, even in the US, through the early 20th century. When popular astrology makes a comeback, it is not through a scientific, academic approach, but through occult metaphysical circles like the Golden Dawn and the theosophists. They get picked up by people like Dane Rudhyar and "modern astrology" sort of takes off from there.

Andrew, you look like a natural! How does one calculate the Part of Astrology, and what does it mean?

Anyone here heard of the "astrologer's degree" at 11 degrees Virgo, or use the asteroid Urania (muse of astronomy/astrology)?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Unread 02-28-2009, 03:44 AM
you know it's Avatar
you know it you know it is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5
Re: Planetary ruler of Astrology

Waybread, to be honest, I am not sure why the Arabic parts work. It is something I am wanting to study, to see how it works mathematically and geometrically. Here is a website I found from another thread on this community. http://www.astrosoftware.com/ArabicParts.htm It explains a little bit about why Arabic Parts work. Here is another website from the same thread/forum. It helps calculate the Arabic Parts for you, and gives the equation if you want to calculate it on your own. http://www.noendpress.com/pvachier/a...arts/index.php
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
astrology, planetary, ruler

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
Calling all Vedic astrologers..... freedomlover Vedic Astrology 38 12-13-2011 12:14 PM
Examining Medical Astrology aquarius7000 Education Board 3 01-14-2009 01:47 PM
Learning to Interpret My Natal Chart Ang Natal Astrology 18 10-25-2008 06:34 AM
Looking for a TRADITIONAL natal reading Liquid Green Natal Astrology 16 12-17-2007 09:40 AM
Unexpected result from natal chart study Summery Joy Medical Astrology 19 10-28-2007 05:12 AM



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.