Is Pluto an astrological planet?

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Since we're suggesting Pluto's relationship with Mars, how about Lilith, the earth's second "moon"? It shares Pluto representative of negative virtues: death, abuse, violence and horror. :devil: Would Lilith be used to co-rule the 13th sign Ophiuchus in one new version of astrology? I have no idea, then we have to consider Charon (Pluto's moon) as a possible "dwarf planet" in its relative size to Pluto. Charon orbits around Pluto, not around the Sun, and I know little so far on what Charon represents in astrology.
We're questioning whether or not pluto is an astrological planet or not :smile:

frank-bertoldi-quote-since-ub313-is-decidedly-larger-than-pluto-it-is.jpg
 

Phoenix Venus

Well-known member
consider........
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn all reflect the light from the Sun

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

- which, for example, -

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

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


Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are clearly seen in night skies
because they CLEARLY STRONGLY REFLECT the light of the sun
to the extent that they are clearly seen with vision unaided by artificial aids of any kind
.


distant dwarf planet pluto, orbiting our Sun,
is too remote from our sun
to reflect the light of the Sun with sufficient strength
to render pluto visible from a geocentric perspective.


Moon STRONGLY reflects light of the Sun

i.e.

at night
when Sun is below the horizon and Moon is above the horizon
then Moonlight is sufficiently bright to illuminate the scene and also cast a shadow.
REMOTE DWARF PLANET PLUTO CANNOT DO THAT

Whaaaaaa.....?

2015-02-16-22-57-38--588381838_zps7k2ljc0o.jpeg


Pluto reflects the suns light.... We just cant see it with the naked eye....

If what you saw was all you got... We'd still be thinking the sun revolved around the earth..

[deleted off-topic comment - Moderator]

Pluto's a planet, yall.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

waybread

Well-known member
All of these threads on Pluto are making my head spin.

Bunraku, Pluto and Uranus have been squaring one another for some time now. Interestingly, Uranus is the modern ruler of Astrology and in independent Aries, and Pluto is in tradition-oriented, toe-the-line Capricorn. But ha! Just wait until Pluto transits into Aquarius.

I thought I would post a chart of and background information on someone who seems very Plutonian to me, in a good way: Elizabeth Smart.

Please read her story, read her chart (natal with transits for her abduction date,) and then see what you think about Pluto and its modern rulership of Scorpio!

I note that at the time of her kidnapping, Smart's solar arc Pluto had just crossed over her MC. This is not merely the career point, but the house cusp of public image and what you are known for. Solar arc Pluto, similarly, was just opposing Smart's IC, the 4th house cusp of one's home.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Smart,_Elizabeth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart
http://elizabethsmartfoundation.org/
 

Attachments

  • Elizabeth Cmart chart.gif
    Elizabeth Cmart chart.gif
    79.1 KB · Views: 31
  • Elizabeth-Smart.jpg
    Elizabeth-Smart.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 75
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
All of these threads on Pluto are making my head spin.

Bunraku, Pluto and Uranus have been squaring one another for some time now.

Interestingly, Uranus is the modern ruler of Astrology and in independent Aries, and Pluto is in tradition-oriented, toe-the-line Capricorn. But ha! Just wait until Pluto transits into Aquarius.

I thought I would post a chart of and background information on someone who seems very Plutonian to me, in a good way: Elizabeth Smart.

Please read her story, read her chart (natal with transits for her abduction date,) and then see what you think about Pluto and its modern rulership of Scorpio!

I note that at the time of her kidnapping, Smart's solar arc Pluto had just crossed over her MC. This is not merely the career point, but the house cusp of public image and what you are known for. Solar arc Pluto, similarly, was just opposing Smart's IC, the 4th house cusp of one's home.

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Smart,_Elizabeth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart
http://elizabethsmartfoundation.org/
Anyone born that day who had same MC angle had the same aspect
yet were not kidnapped
:smile:
To explain further, there are a few philosophical issues that arise when using the outer planets. It's true that many more classically oriented astrologers use them, but they tend to regard them as fainter fixed stars, so their importance and abilities tend to be scaled back or ignored unless they are on an angle or conjunct some important planet.

Dirius is correct in noting that the fact the outers carry no visible light is a major detriment to their inclusion into the classical framework.
Astrology evolved alongside ancient optical theories
and these theories still permeate astrological discourse to this day.
Planets in aspect are said to "see" or "regard" one another
and their light is often considered a transmitter of their influence
.



The word "planet" originally evolved from the Greek "planetes aster", or "wandering star"
and referred to the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Mars, and Saturn whose motion could be detected against the backdrop of fixed stars
that are stable in their relative distance from one another, but all move together as one large group.
Today we have redefined what a planet is to serve our own categorical needs. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's important to remember that we, as astrologers, have organizational needs that are different from those of astronomy.

Another issue with the outer planets in general is that they lack much of the tools that the classical planets have.
This isn't just referring to dignities (though that is a large part of it),
but they also lack nature, sect, gender, years, winds, orbs, signatures, etc.
This may all seem superfluous or unnecessary,
but its significance really cannot be overstated.
Without these associations, the outer planets are essentially blank orbs without instruction or meaning.


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.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Oh dont be such a dirty bird, jup. Pluto was exactly what i was talking about. :smile:

if size really mattered, the sun would comprise 99.8% of the horoscope. Guess the magazines got it right after all, huh?
Quite simply, pluto is not a planet :smile:

As for the sun - since you mention size compariosn

sun-etc.jpg
 
Astrology isn't about physical planets.
Astrology is an inner map of your own karma.
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
Planets are a mirror into yourself. They don't cause anything. Neither do they have to literally "exist" out in space, or be confirmed in a lab as a "planet" to have astrological relevance.

Study your own life, or anyone going through a period of misfortune and chaos. Look what Pluto is doing in the chart, then study a thousands charts like this and you'll see Pluto's relevance.

If somebody is thrown in prison for 10 years, did it correlate with a 5 day Mars transit? No. Mars moves too quick.
Look at the guy thrown in prison and see what Pluto was doing. Typically Pluto will be making a harsh aspect to the planet ruling his 4th.

Pluto was assigned as the slow moving "higher octave of Mars" after many years of astrological study: ie the study of charts and life phenomena (where all astrological law comes from)
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Astrology isn't about physical planets.
Astrology is an inner map of your own karma.
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
Planets are a mirror into yourself. They don't cause anything. Neither do they have to literally "exist" out in space, or be confirmed in a lab as a "planet" to have astrological relevance.

Study your own life, or anyone going through a period of misfortune and chaos. Look what Pluto is doing in the chart, then study a thousands charts like this and you'll see Pluto's relevance.

If somebody is thrown in prison for 10 years, did it correlate with a 5 day Mars transit? No. Mars moves too quick.
Look at the guy thrown in prison and see what Pluto was doing. Typically Pluto will be making a harsh aspect to the planet ruling his 4th.
you are suggesting that 'every time a guy is thrown in prison typically pluto will be making a harsh aspect to the planet ruling his 4th'

however

keep in mind that others are NOT thrown into prison when 'pluto will be making a harsh aspect to the planet ruling their 4th' as well

Pluto was assigned as the slow moving "higher octave of Mars"
after many years of astrological study:
ie the study of charts and life phenomena (where all astrological law comes from)
This is a common error and is misleading because

As Paul_ has explained:

Modern rulerships were assigned

not because of some arduous research and investigation


- as you often hear from many modern astrologers
:smile:

but instead

astrologers of the time,
cogniscant of the tradition of rulership,
basically went ahead and followed Ptolemy's logic,
by assigning the next planet out with the next sign out.
So flowing from the Sun is the rulership scheme which normally reflects back to the Moon,
but breaking this they just carried on projecting out from the sun.
So the next out from the Sun is Mercury, then Venus, then Mars, then Jupiter and then Saturn,
and then when Uranus was discovered we see astrologers explicitly invent the rulership to Aquarius
because Aquarius is the next sign out after Capricorn,
then when Neptune comes along it's assigned the next one out which is Pisces.


This is explicitly stated in the very earliest sources we have for modern rulership.

So the outer planetary rulerships came about by trying to stay true to the tradition at large,
and absolutely not by channelling
or study of numerous charts
.



In the context of rulership even the modern rulership scheme bows to the traditional logic as much as it can.
It does not reinvent anything,
instead it recognises the superiority of the traditional sche
 
you are suggesting that 'every time a guy is thrown in prison typically pluto will be making a harsh aspect to the planet ruling his 4th'

however

keep in mind that others are NOT thrown into prison when 'pluto will be making a harsh aspect to the planet ruling their 4th' as well
That's correct, because astrology doesn't predict solid "events", but more so conditions of life and the individual's responses to it. One person can be imprisoned while for another person the imprisonment is just sensed or is a condition in his life (imprisoned by a family situation, etc)

In fact, one guy can be imprisoned and have a higher quality of life than the other guy not imprisoned. Yet Pluto tends will create these themes -- whether literal or sensed -- when making harsh aspects to the 4th ruler.

Homelessness would be another theme. Couch-surfing in horrible places, getting caught up with criminals and horrible people. You don't physically need to be put in prison to experience those conditions. They are all Plutonian, though. From years of astrological study you can see negative Pluto themes manifest when he makes a harsh aspect in the chart.
 
Last edited:

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
One thing I can't recall having seen anyone on this thread do is offer a definition of what a "planet" is in such a way that would account for Pluto and not necessarily open up the flood gates for everything in space.

I've given two historical ones already, but am interested in hearing more ideas.
 

waybread

Well-known member
One thing I can't recall having seen anyone on this thread do is offer a definition of what a "planet" is in such a way that would account for Pluto and not necessarily open up the flood gates for everything in space.

I've given two historical ones already, but am interested in hearing more ideas.

For the most part, modern astrologers do follow the astronomers' list of gen-u-ine planets in our solar system if we back out the luminaries, although astronomers' definitions aren't ones that most astrologers would have even heard of. http://missionscience.nasa.gov/nasascience/what_is_a_planet.html In looking up the astronomical definition of planet, I found that astronomers didn't much worry about the definition till 2006, when they had to deal with Eris being larger than Pluto, and the knowledge of other trans-Neptunians in the solar system. Currently the only historically-designated planets that are not part of the astronomer's roster are Ceres (demoted after the discovery of Uranus and Neptune,) and Pluto.

2006 astronomical definition
1. A planet orbits the sun.
2. It is big enough for its gravity to pull it into a roughly spherical shape.
3. Its gravitational field clears space debris out of its orbital pathway.

This International Astronomical Union definition does not seem concerned with whether a planet is primarily gas, liquid, or solid.

Ceres was discovered and demoted during astrology's dark ages, and has never had a big astrological role apart from Magi astrology. Not so with Pluto. Both of them meet the first two astronomical criteria but not the third, hence the new classification "dwarf planet."

W's astrological definition.
1. An astrological planet has to work as a house cusp ruler in at least one branch of astrology, such as natal chart interpretation.

It's not hard to find all kinds of thematic affinities between heavenly bodies and various phenomena, especially when we invoke mythology. This is why I don't accept claims that Ceres rules Taurus or Chiron rules Virgo. I'd like to see the evidence that it works in the dictum that "The house over which a planet rules serves the purposes of the house I which the planet stands," (as per Karen Hamaker-Zondag on natal house cusp interpretation.)

With signs with both a traditional and modern ruler, I would look at both, with the caveat that horary astrology is about as traditional as modern astrology can get. Here I think we have to rely on the chart as a picture of the question being asked. With Pisces rising, for example, it makes a difference whether the question is about higher education or drug addiction.

A truism of modern astrology is that we look for patterns in the chart-- multiple testimonials. Do the modern and traditional sign rulers agree, or do they give conflicting evidence?

(I will give the caveat that I am in the process of learning more horary and traditional astrology, so I am focusing on traditional methods during this process. I don't see this as a permanent condition, so don't accuse me of ignoring poor old Neptune in a horary question this week!)

2. Planets' transits and progressions should have observable prediction value. Getting back to house cusps, if a planet transits from one house to another, then we should expect it to express its nature in keeping with the meaning of that house.

3. A planet is strong enough to operate through conjunctions and aspects of its own making. (Unlike fixed stars, or asteroid-to-asteroid aspects.)

I will debate people on this definition, provided they avoid the neo-conservative (dare I say knee-jerk?) reaction that automatically excludes modern outer planets simply because they are modern outer planets. Once upon a time, the new traditional astrologers mostly came from modern astrology backgrounds, and at least knew enough about modern planets through experience to make some discriminations. Lately I've come across neo-conservatives who have little or no facility in reading natal charts as modern astrologers. They don't understand the modern outers through using them in reading hundreds of charts, so far as I can determine.

And that's OK-- I am just losing my patience for engaging in Pluto debates with neo-cons who are inexperienced in modern astrology yet feel inexperience qualifies them to be experts on its alleged shortcomings.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
One thing I can't recall having seen anyone on this thread do
is offer a definition of what a "planet" is
in such a way that would account for Pluto
and not necessarily open up the flood gates for everything in space.

I've given two historical ones already, but am interested in hearing more ideas.
Another important factor is:

dwarf planet pluto's alleged 'transits'

should have observable prediction value that is not already predicable :smile:

i.e.
already predicable by Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, fixed stars, comets, eclipses, PoF/Arabic Parts/Lots et al
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
Waybread,

The issue I have with those proposed definitions is that they are terribly subjective criteria. They would work for one astrologer, but not for others in way that emphasizes the divide in a lot of astrological practice. They are some interesting, no-nonsense ideas though, but I think the restraint on them just describing or attempting to identify a body's astrological identity in isolation to anything else about it is pretty stiff.
 

waybread

Well-known member
What do you find subjective about them?

Do you read a lot of natal charts for people, or focus more on horary?

I just read what you wrote on natal chart reading here http://www.medievalastrologyguide.com/natal-astrology.html and you don't seem to have a high comfort level with it, especially apart from fortune-telling.

Not sure what you mean by your last phrase.

You didn't ask about a body's "astrological identity."
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I am starting to think that traditional western astrologers' problems with Pluto (but hello-- Uranus and Neptune??) go beyond the problem if fitting it into Ptolemy's table of essential dignities, which is key to this entire debate.

How ironic that neo-conservative astrologers try to suppress Pluto in the midst of a multi-year Pluto-Uranus square.

Pluto is a planet that works in cyclical time, and in an individual chart, a lot of its workings are at the subconscious level. It's not alone in this. Cf. the moon.

I hope anyone reading this thread will decide where on the traditional-modern continuum you lie, and then truthfully answer the following. 1 is low ("definitely not me") and 5 is high ("definitily me.")

1. I dislike ambiguity in life.

2. To the extent that I understand what subjectivity means, I don't think it is a good force in astrology.

3. I prefer horary to natal chart reading because the methods are more straightforward, and the outcome easier to test.

4. Human personalities and behaviour are inherently messy, despite decades of trying to understand them through pscyhologists' personality tests and astrology's temperaments (elements).

Modern astrologers should score low on this scale, and traditional astrologers, high.

If we go back and read "Saturn is to traditional as the modern outer planets are to modern astrologers," perhaps we can better delineate why the trads are so obsessed lately with wiping Pluto off the star charts.
 

waybread

Well-known member
But of course. Pluto works in cyclical time, although unlike Saturn, its changes tend to be massive and long-lasting. Consider that mythical Pluto (Hades) ruled volcanoes, that can spend long periods seemingly extinct or dormant, but that re-emerge in a new cycle of activity.

Saturn during traditional astrology's period of activity was typically personified as a poor old man, often lame. In the Bonatti pictures, he appears well-dressed, but carrying the scythe of the grim reaper. He rules old age and death as finality to life. In traditional astrology Saturn is the cold, dry, planet symbolizing the end of the solar system.

With transiting Pluto now in Capricorn, the Saturn-ruled and most tradition-oriented sign, it is unsurprising that we get a resurrection of traditional astrology based upon Saturn as the outer limits of the solar system-- yet with Pluto's sense of "take no prisoners, no holds barred" towards its brother modern astrology.

Indeed, Saturn was sextiling (key word: "excitement") Pluto in in its own sign of Scorpio ca. 1990 when neo-traditional astrology emerged from the ashes of about 2 centuries of morbidity.

What strikes me about the whole Pluto debate recently raging about this forum, is that the trads are not in a "live and let live" mode of "you do your thing, and I'll do my thing, and if we find each other, it's beautiful." It is soooo.... Plutonian and Capricornian to want to control others to the level of unwillingness to tolerate diversity.

It's not enough that some trads do not wish to use Pluto. They want to suppress anybody else who uses it.

Of course, globally, we are seeing the horrible impact of ISIS (IS, ISIL) and other Islamic extremists across southeast Asia and North Africa-- condoning sudden violence (Uranus in Aries) and repression (Pluto) in the name of a traditional faith (Capricorn)-- never mind its perversion of that faith and its inapt historical comparisons. The goal is to establish a caliphate (Capricorn as authority.)

Pluto rules taboo sexuality and its eruption into consciousness, and we are seeing the runaway popularity of Fifty Shades of Gray in North America as well as war zones with enslavement of devoutly modest veiled Muslim women as mere rape objects by supposedly religiously devout men. Hundreds of school girls being abducted in Nigeria by a terrorist organization no longer commands the world's outrage-- it is just one of many violations on an international scale.

Pluto mythologically ruled eruptions-- today metaphorically we have outbreaks of measles-- skin eruptions. Saturn, ruler of Capricorn, unsurprisingly rules the skin as an organ.

Pluto operates in history in specifically Plutonian ways. Does it really matter how we classify it?

Once upon a time, Babylonians thought the planets were gods or signs sent by the gods. Jews in the Old Testament called stars "the heavenly host"-- meaning armies. The Greeks called planets "wanderers," and thought they were attributes of their gods. They believed in a layer above the atmosphere called the ether, and 7 celestial spheres, with souls ascending and descending through the Cancer-Capricorn axis. Medieval Christian astrologers saw planets as creations of God set in the heavens for "signs and for seasons." In many languages the word for heaven as the physical sky and the metaphysical place where God dwells is identical.

The notion that defining Pluto as a planet or not somehow matters in the context of the long history of astrology is beyond me.
 

Attachments

  • Saturn Bonatti.png
    Saturn Bonatti.png
    78 KB · Views: 69
  • Saturn.jpg
    Saturn.jpg
    101.4 KB · Views: 27

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
Hi Waybread,

What do you find subjective about them?

Ah, sorry. It was getting late and I wanted to respond before I thought I responded but didn't. I guess it didn't work out that well. Let's just take it step by step, but perhaps a little bit out of order.

I am starting to think that traditional western astrologers' problems with Pluto (but hello-- Uranus and Neptune??) go beyond the problem if fitting it into Ptolemy's table of essential dignities, which is key to this entire debate.

I think Pluto struggles more in this specifically because of the astronomical demotion, but keep in mind that most all issues with Pluto could be easily discussed within the context of Uranus and Neptune. It's just easier to talk about one for brevity's sake and that is the topic of this thread. I was unaware there was a larger, communal effort from classical astrologers to get rid of Pluto.

Edited here: Also, I think the reason Pluto gets picked on so much is because it is literally all that ever gets blamed for anything. If I had a nickle everytime someone here or in any astrological community/group said they were going through something and someone blamed Pluto I wouldn't have to have consultations or students. It has just gotten overused to the point it's essentially become memetic within the astrological community itself. There is so much else going on in deeper and more complex levels of a chart, but I guess it is easier to just cast one and see Pluto somewhere and immediately designate it as a villain.

Do you read a lot of natal charts for people, or focus more on horary?

Do you read a lot of horary charts for people, or focus more on natal? The fact that you feel like these branches are so divisively different answers this question for me and is a flaw in your definition as a whole that we will get into later on. I guess it could be easily surmised as "If you think natal and horary astrology are so distinctly different that they share few conceptual or technical techniques, you might be a modern astrologer.

I just read what you wrote on natal chart reading here http://www.medievalastrologyguide.co...astrology.html and you don't seem to have a high comfort level with it, especially apart from fortune-telling.

An interesting yet misguided impression and ultimately irrelevant to the topic at hand. I don't appreciate your attempted technical assassination here.

1. An astrological planet has to work as a house cusp ruler in at least one branch of astrology, such as natal chart interpretation.

The first item you suggest is the one I have the strongest philosophical reaction towards. The idea that astrological pieces or techniques operate at fundamentally different ways in different branches of astrology is such a modern idea that it's laughable to discuss seriously. In fact, it seems like it's mentioned because saying it has to work as a house cusp ruler in all branches of astrology would clearly rule out the modern assignments as horary (and arguably electional) has demonstrated over and over with its success in utilizing the classical system. Therefore, according to this, it is easier then to dismiss horary as some other creature than to go back to the drawing board.

There is a fairly clear curriculum of learning in classical astrology where horary and electional are discussed first before natal and mundane. This is because the scopes are different, not because techniques or planetary significations are shuffled around, disassembled, reassigned, or ignored.

2. Planets' transits and progressions should have observable prediction value. Getting back to house cusps, if a planet transits from one house to another, then we should expect it to express its nature in keeping with the meaning of that house.

This one is pretty subjective in that it's only going to occur to those astrologers who utilize these techniques. The fact that modern astrologers typically use progressions while classical astrologers most likely utilize a combination of solar returns, profections, and directions is going to cause issues.

A planet is strong enough to operate through conjunctions and aspects of its own making.

This one I liked, but was a little confused about the "of its own making" part. Could you clarify this? I also noted you differentiated them between asteroid-asteroid aspects, but if an "asteroid" and a "planet" aspect and produce an effect, would that make the "asteroid" a "planet"? Why or why not?

You didn't ask about a body's "astrological identity."

That's true, but that's literally all you gave me. There's no mention of any kind of astronomical boundary that basically opens up the floodgates to anything, including exo-planets which is a whoooole other thing.

I appreciate your definition. I was a little surprised to get any kind of answer to the query at all. However, there are parts that are exceptionally weak because it sounds more like you're trying to ignore information that goes against your claim by simply removing them as factors.
 
Last edited:

Bunraku

Well-known member
Hey, I found this neat size chart of the celestial objects in the solar system

Wikipedia:
1024px-Graph_showing_relative_masses_2.png


This is a partial list of Solar System objects by size, arranged in descending order of mean volumetric radius, and subdivided into several size classes. These lists can also be sorted according to an object's mass and, for the largest objects, volume, density and surface gravity, insofar as these values are available. This list contains the Sun, the planets, dwarf planets, many of the larger small Solar System bodies (which includes the asteroids), all named natural satellites, and a number of smaller objects of historical or scientific interest, such as comets and near-Earth objects.
 

unique_astrology

Well-known member
The issue I have with those proposed definitions is that they are terribly subjective criteria.

[deleted off-topic comment - Moderator]

I believe the acceptance of all of the components used in astrology is a subjective matter. Indeed a belief in the practice itself, as with anything, is. (When Mercury goes retrograde [Huh?] things will go wrong and have to be done over; re-bake that cake, deliver that baby again, your paycheck is no good).

Prove the irrefutable efficacy of signs, houses, rulerships, exaltation or detriment of planets, or any number of components accepted by "astrologers". We all wear tin foil hats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

waybread

Well-known member
Hi Waybread,
Ah, sorry. It was getting late and I wanted to respond before I thought I responded but didn't. I guess it didn't work out that well. Let's just take it step by step, but perhaps a little bit out of order.

I think Pluto struggles more in this specifically because of the astronomical demotion, but keep in mind that most all issues with Pluto could be easily discussed within the context of Uranus and Neptune. It's just easier to talk about one for brevity's sake and that is the topic of this thread. I was unaware there was a larger, communal effort from classical astrologers to get rid of Pluto.

WWIII has broken out on a couple of other threads, and several traditional western nativity and horary primers are very anti-Pluto.

To me, the Pluto "demotion" by the International Astronomical Union is a red herring, because the hard-core trads didn't use or like Pluto before 2006. Who's to say that, as modern astrology progresses, we won't start interpreting dwarf planet Ceres or Trans-Neptunians? Astrology as a whole completely missed the Copernican revolution. So excuse my scepticism that this debate has anything to do with the IAU's new dwarf planet designation for Pluto.

Edited here: Also, I think the reason Pluto gets picked on so much is because it is literally all that ever gets blamed for anything. If I had a nickle everytime someone here or in any astrological community/group said they were going through something and someone blamed Pluto I wouldn't have to have consultations or students. It has just gotten overused to the point it's essentially become memetic within the astrological community itself. There is so much else going on in deeper and more complex levels of a chart, but I guess it is easier to just cast one and see Pluto somewhere and immediately designate it as a villain.

Again, another red herring. Pluto rules profound, inevitable sorts of change in which things seem to be (metaphorically) dead or dying, and in a hard transit it can be brutal about it. However, Pluto deals in cyclical time, so that "death" is eventually followed by new growth. A good metaphor is the phoenix who rises from the ashes.

Of course different people will experience Pluto differently, depending upon the houses and signs affected! Astrology tells us this much.

But I'm curious: did you ever look for commonalities in people's Pluto experiences? And if they had looked at Pluto natally and in transit/progressions, and you haven't, why should you assume that these people are mistaken?

And fair is fair. Mercury rules liars, thieves, accountants, lawyers (!), cross-roads, short-distance travel, speech, writing, neighbours, agents, advertising, ambassadors, astrologers (traditionally,) automobiles, schools, hermaphrodites, books, children, siblings, brain diseases, the pulmonary system, dogs, fingers, bad breath, and a whole slew of other things.

If I say, "Oh, vey-- my Mercury transit is killing me," you have no idea without a lot more information as to what precisely my problem is. Maybe there's a commonality in the above list-- but it deals in part with mythology, not in some kind of logic inherent to the planet itself. (Subjectivity? Could it be????)

Do you read a lot of horary charts for people, or focus more on natal? The fact that you feel like these branches are so divisively different answers this question for me and is a flaw in your definition as a whole that we will get into later on. I guess it could be easily surmised as "If you think natal and horary astrology are so distinctly different that they share few conceptual or technical techniques, you might be a modern astrologer.

I began studying astrology ca. 1990, when modern natal astrology was pretty much all there was. I spent a long time on natal charts only, until 2013 when I decided to learn horary astrology at the level of doing, and not just an acquaintance. These days I would say my readings are about 2/3 natal and its derivatives (like synastry) and about 1/3 horary.

I take exception to your assertion of a fallacy in my distinguishing between astrology's main branches-- it makes me wonder how much modern astrology you have studied and practiced. In modern astrology-- yes, these fields are different. Of course, there is some overlap between all branches of astrology: I would never say that they "share few conceptual or technical techniques". But just to cite some examples, the moon in horary typically has a unique role that it doesn't have in a natal chart interpretation. Modern natal chart interpretation is not concerned with the querent and the quesited, whether the moon is VOC or the ascendant early, and in-orb aspects pertain regardless of application or separation.

An interesting yet misguided impression and ultimately irrelevant to the topic at hand. I don't appreciate your attempted technical assassination here.

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by this statement.

The first item you suggest is the one I have the strongest philosophical reaction towards. The idea that astrological pieces or techniques operate at fundamentally different ways in different branches of astrology is such a modern idea that it's laughable to discuss seriously. In fact, it seems like it's mentioned because saying it has to work as a house cusp ruler in all branches of astrology would clearly rule out the modern assignments as horary (and arguably electional) has demonstrated over and over with its success in utilizing the classical system. Therefore, according to this, it is easier then to dismiss horary as some other creature than to go back to the drawing board.

Sorry, KnS, but perhaps you can explain what you mean. Who is dismissing horary astrology? Are you familiar with modern astrologers who do horary? It just makes me think that you haven't studied much modern astrology or used it extensively in natal chart interpretation.

You view the topic through traditional or even medieval lenses; and that's fine-- but traditional astrology is not the template through which other schools of astrology must be judged. Traditional astrology is not some kind of Procrustean Bed for modern astrology, any more than it is for Vedic or Chinese astrology.

Frankly, I think the modern outers as sign rulers work fine in all kinds of branches of astrology, but since I am not expert in some of them I hesitate to over-generalize.

Moreover, there are different approaches to horary astrology. You've probably read Karen Hamaker-Zondag's Handbook of Horary Astrology. She uses modern sign rulers to good effect. Olivia Barclay, the woman who did more than anyone to revitalize William Lilly's horary astrology in the UK, stuck with traditional sign rulers, but definitely used modern outers as supplementary data points in Horary Astrology Rediscovered. The neo-cons wouldn't touch the outers with a barge pole.

There is a fairly clear curriculum of learning in classical astrology where horary and electional are discussed first before natal and mundane. This is because the scopes are different, not because techniques or planetary significations are shuffled around, disassembled, reassigned, or ignored.

Well, wonderful. But modern astrology is different. Why should this be a problem for you? Modern astrology isn't straight-jacketed by Ptolemy's Table of Essential Dignities. What exactly do you see as "shuffled around, disassembled, reassigned"? And if rethinking the rules of astrology produces good results, why should this be a problem for you?

I personally look at both modern and traditional sign rulers. I look at sign rulers (domiciles) and mutual reception in natal chart interpretation, but that's about it. This is based on experience with hundreds of charts-- not some kind of an impromptu rabbit-out-of-a-hat.

This one is pretty subjective in that it's only going to occur to those astrologers who utilize these techniques. The fact that modern astrologers typically use progressions while classical astrologers most likely utilize a combination of solar returns, profections, and directions is going to cause issues.
KnS, surely you are aware of modern astrologers who use solar returns, profections, and directions!!! Especially solar returns. Would you like me to cite some books for you?

If there's some relevance to Pluto in this tangent, perhaps you can let me know what it is.

This one I liked, but was a little confused about the "of its own making" part. Could you clarify this? I also noted you differentiated them between asteroid-asteroid aspects, but if an "asteroid" and a "planet" aspect and produce an effect, would that make the "asteroid" a "planet"? Why or why not?

Let's just say that asteroids are not planets. They do not rule signs. Most of them are tiny. Neither modern or traditional astrology or NASA consider asteroids to be planets. To me their function is more like a fixed star. Conjunction, sure. Squares, no. But surely you have worked with asteroids, so that you can make up your mind about them based on your experience.

Modern astrologers use the Ptolemaic aspects, and some of us enjoy working with minor aspects and harmonics.

That's true, but that's literally all you gave me. There's no mention of any kind of astronomical boundary that basically opens up the floodgates to anything, including exo-planets which is a whoooole other thing.

KnS, this is soooo.... irksome. It has become a kind of mantra amongst trads that modern astrology has no standards. This is patently incorrect, yet trads repeat it so often that they seem to believe it as an article of faith. Let it go.

However, in principle modern astrologers are prepared to study trans-Neptunians to see whether they have an impact or not. Currently many modern astrologers use Chiron and Black Moon Lilith. Ceres, despite her discovery in 1801 and recent elevation to dwarf planet status remains illusory-- at least to me, and I've studied Ceres extensively. I just saw a new book on Eris, but no cookbook section in it-- apparently the author's research hadn't progressed that far.

I appreciate your definition. I was a little surprised to get any kind of answer to the query at all. However, there are parts that are exceptionally weak because it sounds more like you're trying to ignore information that goes against your claim by simply removing them as factors.

Thanks, but say what? I don't follow what information you think I'm ignoring.

Maybe you mean that modern astrologers streamlined some aspects of traditional astrology?
 
Top