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?