Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > General Astrology > Other Astrology > Research and Development

Research and Development This is a forum designed for applying scientific methods and understanding to all approaches of astrology, cooperative formulation and testing of new ideas, re-examination of known methods of delineation and interpretation, and the exploration of new astrological methods of all kinds (e.g. heliocentric models, planetary nodes and apogees, etc.).


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 02-22-2015, 04:18 PM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,768
Confused about Uranus

The traditionalists argued in the Pluto threads that Pluto shouldn't be an astrological Planet because:

1) Pluto is just a dwarf planet, much smaller than the traditional planets.

2) We can't see Pluto with the naked eye like the traditional planets.

3) Pluto has just recently been discovered, in 1930, about 85 years ago and with an orbital period of about 248 years, we couldn't observe its effect in all the signs yet. So it can't be said anything definite about Pluto's actual influence yet.

4) With such a long orbital period, no human being will ever experience a full Pluto return, therefore it's irrelevant.

5) The traditional system with the 5 planets is already perfect and tried and tested. There's no need for any modifications.

6) What Pluto adds to the chart can be fully explained with the traditional planets alone. So there's no need for additional planets.






Interestingly though, points 1-4 don't actually work with Uranus and points 5-6 aren't valid either, because:


1) Uranus is really big, in terms of radius, it's the 3rd largest planet in the solar system, in terms of mass #4, in terms of volume, Uranus is 63 times bigger than Earth!

2) Uranus is visible to the naked eye, its apparent magnitude is between +5.9 and +5.3 - (naked eye limit up to +8)!

3) Uranus has been discovered in 1781, about 234 years ago. Since then Uranus has moved through every sign at least twice!

4) Uranus orbital period is 84 years. Overall life expectancy in Japan is 85 years, Hong Kong 84 years, Sweden 83 years. There are millions of people who experience their Uranus return!

5) & 6) 5) The traditional system has several elephants in the room! The 5 energies of the 5 traditional planets only match one sign perfectly, the second sign that has been assigned to them, they don't match very well, specifically: Mars matches Aries perfectly, but not Scorpio; Venus matches Taurus perfectly, but not Libra; Mercury matches Gemini perfectly, but not Virgo; Jupiter matches Sagittarius perfectly, but not Pisces; Saturn matches Capricorn perfectly, but not Aquarius. On the other hand, the energies of Pluto match Scorpio perfectly, the energies of Uranus match Aquarius perfectly and the energies of Neptune match Pisces perfectly.




So, what to do with Uranus?

__________________
“Millionaires don't use Astrology, billionaires do.” ― J.P. Morgan
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to muchacho For This Useful Post:
astralrabbit (02-22-2015), StillOne (02-22-2015)
  #2  
Unread 02-22-2015, 05:44 PM
astralrabbit astralrabbit is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 365
Re: Confused about Uranus

Sometimes seen with the naked eye, sometimes not....
Could this be why he is attributed with "erratic" energy?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to astralrabbit For This Useful Post:
StillOne (02-22-2015)
  #3  
Unread 02-22-2015, 05:58 PM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,982
Re: Confused about Uranus

Ok. What sect is Uranus? What is its nature? Hot, cold, wet, dry? Just to start.

The traditional system of rulerships gives the king and queen of the heavens (Sun and Moon) one sign each, and then two signs to the other classical planets in a symmetrical pattern. Saturn is the coldest, and a malefic, so rules the signs that oppose the sun and moon. Jupiter is the next in, a benefic, warm and wet, and has the next two signs, which apply to the houses of the sun and moon by trine. Mars, a hot and dry malefic comes after Jupiter, and gets the next two signs, which square the houses of the sun and moon. The lesser benefic, Venus, is warm and wet, and gets the next two signs in by sextile to the houses of the sun and moon. Mercury is always in service to the sun, so rules the signs right next to the houses of the sun and moon.

The 'differences in nature' you may be seeing is that you aren't taking into account the differences between a planet's day house and its night house. Mars in Scorpio doesn't express quite the same way as Mars in Aries, but they're both definitely Mars. Part of the problem may be that modern astrology wants to assign rulership of signs to planets by affinity while classical astrology assigns rulership by the relationship of the planets to the sun and moon. It's a huge difference.

If you're asking for the traditional perspective, using the outer planets as sign rulers simply doesn't work, either in theory or in practise. Some traditionally minded astrologers use them as kind of 'malefic fixed objects', but in my own practice I've not found that to be terribly helpful - sometimes they might confirm what you already see in the chart, and sometimes they seem to do nothing at all.

Modern astrologers, of course, will see things quite differently.

Sue Ward, who practises traditonal horary astrology, wrote a very nice research paper on the history of how the outer planets got worked into modern astrology. It's available for a modest fee at: http://www.sue-ward.co.uk/ and is probably worth reading if you're legitimately curious about this.

Last edited by Oddity; 02-22-2015 at 07:03 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Oddity For This Useful Post:
astralrabbit (02-22-2015), muchacho (02-23-2015), StillOne (02-22-2015)
  #4  
Unread 02-22-2015, 06:02 PM
StillOne's Avatar
StillOne StillOne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Coastal Mountains
Posts: 2,596
Re: Confused about Uranus

dr. farr comments on Uranus:

Quote:
-Uranus (for me) = Mercury+Mars, with some admixture of the Sun
source: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...16&postcount=8
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 02-22-2015, 09:18 PM
Arena Arena is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,138
Re: Confused about Uranus

Although I do like traditional methods, I do use the outers as well.

Uranus for one thing definetly has impact on my own life and is acting on me with immense force right now.

Uranus opposes the natal Uranus around the age of 42-44 for all people and does that "mid-life-crisis" thing. I'm going through that now.

Uranus is currently angular on my solar return, on the IC and MC and I moved houses for the first time in 11 yrs just after it kicked in after my birthday. Also took on alternative jobs, so finding more sources of income than my regular job.

Uranus is without a doubt a great influence in our lives.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Arena For This Useful Post:
astralrabbit (02-22-2015), StillOne (02-22-2015)
  #6  
Unread 02-23-2015, 04:25 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,768
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
Ok. What sect is Uranus? What is its nature? Hot, cold, wet, dry? Just to start.

The traditional system of rulerships gives the king and queen of the heavens (Sun and Moon) one sign each, and then two signs to the other classical planets in a symmetrical pattern. Saturn is the coldest, and a malefic, so rules the signs that oppose the sun and moon. Jupiter is the next in, a benefic, warm and wet, and has the next two signs, which apply to the houses of the sun and moon by trine. Mars, a hot and dry malefic comes after Jupiter, and gets the next two signs, which square the houses of the sun and moon. The lesser benefic, Venus, is warm and wet, and gets the next two signs in by sextile to the houses of the sun and moon. Mercury is always in service to the sun, so rules the signs right next to the houses of the sun and moon.

The 'differences in nature' you may be seeing is that you aren't taking into account the differences between a planet's day house and its night house. Mars in Scorpio doesn't express quite the same way as Mars in Aries, but they're both definitely Mars. Part of the problem may be that modern astrology wants to assign rulership of signs to planets by affinity while classical astrology assigns rulership by the relationship of the planets to the sun and moon. It's a huge difference.
Thanks, Oddity, that's very helpful. I don't buy into malefic/benefic.

And yes, Mars in Scorpio is different from Mars in Aries. Does nocturnal Mars exhibit all Scorpio qualities and diurnal Mars all the Aries qualities only, are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
If you're asking for the traditional perspective, using the outer planets as sign rulers simply doesn't work, either in theory or in practise. Some traditionally minded astrologers use them as kind of 'malefic fixed objects', but in my own practice I've not found that to be terribly helpful - sometimes they might confirm what you already see in the chart, and sometimes they seem to do nothing at all.

Modern astrologers, of course, will see things quite differently.

Sue Ward, who practises traditonal horary astrology, wrote a very nice research paper on the history of how the outer planets got worked into modern astrology. It's available for a modest fee at: http://www.sue-ward.co.uk/ and is probably worth reading if you're legitimately curious about this.
Yes, I was asking for the traditional perspective. And as you say, there's no way that the outer planets could ever get integrated into the traditional system, which is a closed system. That's the way I see it too.

The arguments why Pluto shouldn't be used in astrology are about a closed system. And the outer planets would cause the collapse of the traditional system. That's why they have to be rejected by the traditionalists.

I think the fundamental difference between the traditional approach and the modern approach is one of general world view. The traditional view is leaning extremely into the direction of an assertion based model of the universe, the modern view is leaning more into the direction of an attraction based model of the universe. That's why the traditional system is so complex and the modern system much simpler.

[deleted attacking remarks - Moderator]
__________________
“Millionaires don't use Astrology, billionaires do.” ― J.P. Morgan

Last edited by wilsontc; 02-23-2015 at 02:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to muchacho For This Useful Post:
astralrabbit (02-23-2015)
  #7  
Unread 02-23-2015, 04:37 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,768
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by StillOne View Post
dr. farr comments on Uranus:


source: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...16&postcount=8
Yeah, Uranus (air) or Aquarius (air) have much more in common with Mercury (air) than Saturn (earth).

But you won't ever replace Aquarius with Aries, Taurus and Leo. It's an interesting thought though, to see what qualities a sign or planet has in common with other signs and planets. And it's necessary to get to an accurate description of Uranus and the other outer planets, to see what their unique qualities actually are.
__________________
“Millionaires don't use Astrology, billionaires do.” ― J.P. Morgan

Last edited by muchacho; 02-23-2015 at 04:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 02-23-2015, 04:37 AM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,982
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by muchacho View Post


Yes, I was asking for the traditional perspective. And as you say, there's no way that the outer planets could ever get integrated into the traditional system, which is a closed system. That's the way I see it too.

The arguments why Pluto shouldn't be used in astrology are about a closed system. And the outer planets would cause the collapse of the traditional system. That's why they have to be rejected by the traditionalists.

I think the fundamental difference between the traditional approach and the modern approach is one of general world view. The traditional view is leaning extremely into the direction of an assertion based model of the universe, the modern view is leaning more into the direction of an attraction based model of the universe. That's why the traditional system is so complex and the modern system much simpler.

[deleted attacking remarks - Moderator]


I was trying to explain the traditional perspective. The other things you mention like the outers not casting light also have relevance because that kind of keeps them from even the status of fixed stars, though some traditional astrologers use them something like that.

Mostly what I was trying to get across was the relationship of the planets to the lights - that is how rulerships were made. Modernists like rulership by affinity, so if they don't know the relationships, the classical rulerships won't make any kind of sense. As far as affinity rulerships of things in the world, those are and always were used by traditionalists. And if you study rulerships, both traditional and modern, you'll find that many, many of the rulerships ascribed to the outer planets by moderns already had traditional rulers that worked just fine.

I sort of get it. To all of us, modern astrology isn't new. It's what I learned first because that was all that was on offer in the 1960s. Astrology seemed so terribly elegant that I knew it just had to work somehow, but I had a lot of questions that modern astrologers couldn't answer to my satisfaction. I tried to work it out for the better part of twenty-some years, but it just didn't reconcile. It wasn't until the 'trad revolution' (people who actually went without, or had enough money so that they could translate ancient and medieval texts as a labour of love, because you make nothing from it) that I saw an astrology that did make sense, and that didn't happen until the early 1990s.

Trad astrology is the 'new kid on the block'. It took a nap of almost three hundred years.

[deleted response to attacking post - Moderator]

Last edited by wilsontc; 02-23-2015 at 02:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Oddity For This Useful Post:
astralrabbit (02-23-2015)
  #9  
Unread 02-23-2015, 05:04 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,768
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
I was trying to explain the traditional perspective. The other things you mention like the outers not casting light also have relevance because that kind of keeps them from even the status of fixed stars, though some traditional astrologers use them something like that.

Mostly what I was trying to get across was the relationship of the planets to the lights - that is how rulerships were made. Modernists like rulership by affinity, so if they don't know the relationships, the classical rulerships won't make any kind of sense. As far as affinity rulerships of things in the world, those are and always were used by traditionalists. And if you study rulerships, both traditional and modern, you'll find that many, many of the rulerships ascribed to the outer planets by moderns already had traditional rulers that worked just fine.

Strangely enough, I did NOT post to attack or to be attacked. But I guess my prefrences in astrology make me some kind of 'hardcore fundamentalist'?

I think I'm beginning to understand why there are so few astrologers who use traditional techniques posting on this board, and we lost another one during the fracas in the recent thread.

I sort of get it. To all of us, modern astrology isn't new. It's what I learned first because that was all that was on offer in the 1960s. Astrology seemed so terribly elegant that I knew it just had to work somehow, but I had a lot of questions that modern astrologers couldn't answer to my satisfaction. I tried to work it out for the better part of twenty-some years, but it just didn't reconcile. It wasn't until the 'trad revolution' (people who actually went without, or had enough money so that they could translate ancient and medieval texts as a labour of love, because you make nothing from it) that I saw an astrology that did make sense, and that didn't happen until the early 1990s.

Trad astrology is the 'new kid on the block'. It took a nap of almost three hundred years. [deleted response to attacking post - Moderator]
So, if you have a 'live and let live' attitude towards all the different astrological systems, then you wouldn't qualify as a hardcore fundamentalist. You only become one if you think your system is the true system, which in the case of astrology is ridiculous because we only know how astrology works but not why it works as it does. We are all just speculating.

I also started with modern astrology, but found it to be too vague and then turned to vedic astrology which made a lot more sense at that time. Similar to your story, I had question that I couldn't find answers to, so I put astrology aside for a few years. Then I came across Law of Attraction and finally I got all the missing answers. A couple of years ago I went back to astrology, but this time looking at it from a Law of Attraction background, i.e. attraction based - not assertion based; and astrology suddenly did make a lot more sense too. That's why you will find me on the extreme attraction based end of the modern model.

Anyway, what I've noticed during my short time here on the forum, the type of astrology people choose is usually a match to their general outlook on life. And in that sense, it's all good.

[deleted off-topic comments - Moderator]
__________________
“Millionaires don't use Astrology, billionaires do.” ― J.P. Morgan

Last edited by wilsontc; 02-23-2015 at 02:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to muchacho For This Useful Post:
astralrabbit (02-23-2015)
  #10  
Unread 02-23-2015, 06:15 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 15,393
Re: Confused about Uranus

Good move, muchacho.

Could I just say to Oddity or any other trads who find this thread: if you love traditional astrology, that's super. If you don't "need" the modern outers to do good work, good for you! If you have a specific way in which astrology makes sense to you and none other, hey, no problem.

What **a few** traditional astrologers on this forum try to do, unfortunately, is to deny anybody else the right to practice some other form of astrology. Some of us are too Uranian to put up with that, and politely ask that such trads cut it out.

Modern astrologers are not concerned with Ptolemy's entire essential table of dignities, nor the Aristotelian humours so far as planets are concerned. That doesn't make modern astrology bad traditional astrology. It's not trying to be traditional astrology.

I believe that everyone is familiar with the traditional astrology forum at Skyscript. It may be a more congenial forum for anyone with a strong aversion to modern astrology.

Muchacho, just to address your OP:

1. Not only are Uranus and Neptune really big; but the whole dwarf planet designation is less than a decade old. More trans-Neptunians are being discovered. At some point more will be known about the solar system. Till then, the modern outers of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto have enormous interpretive value.

But if the conservatives don't want to use them, that's their call.

2. Not only is Uranus visible to the naked eye under specific viewing conditions, but "backyard" amateur astronomers with a decent telescope and camera. can learn to spot Neptune and Pluto, as well.. The whole "naked eye" argument is hypocritical. People use various sorts of lenses and magnifications all the time, or benefit from those who do; whether it's your pair of eyeglasses or the lab technician who does your blood work.

3. We have all kinds of published histories, biographies, and historical records like archived newspapers. It just takes a little research to delineate the impact of planets in signs one hasn't witnessed first hand.

4. Ditto.

5. Many trads are actually unfamiliar with the history of astrology. It died out ca. 1700 in western Europe, with the exception of a few minor astrologers and farmers' almanacs. It was dropped as a university subject. You can't blame the Catholic church, which had a long on-again, off-again relationship with astrology. Why did traditional astrology die out, if it were so terribly accurate?

6. (for Oddity) Of course the modern outer planets reflect light! That's how they were discovered: Uranus and Neptune with direct telescope observations; and Pluto, by comparing photographs of a section of the sky over several nights. Moreover, astrological orbs are far bigger than visual orbs if you go out and watch planets in the night sky.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

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

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by waybread; 02-23-2015 at 06:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to waybread For This Useful Post:
astralrabbit (02-23-2015), StillOne (03-08-2015)
  #11  
Unread 02-23-2015, 06:44 AM
astralrabbit astralrabbit is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 365
Re: Confused about Uranus

In childhood, I would reflect deeply upon questions pertaining to why I was much different than my peers; being able to see and understand human emotion in the purest and deepest of manners that most adults do not ever care to see. I never understood this, and had a hard time accepting my difference all the way up , until I started learning astrology; only realizing then how in tune I specifically am with the outer planetary energies. How I resonated deeply with the oddity of my natal planet Uranus. Growing up in small town USA knowing that you are different and accepting of people of different skin color and sexual preference is big taboo....lol.... But the energy of Uranus in my Ninth house affords me the insight needed when it is time to bring all parties from different tables together in an effort to ascertain peace for a common universal truth. It's energy enables me to think outside of the box and for my curiosity to prevail when it is time to listen to others whether I think I know it all or not. Oddity, I appreciate what you have to say about Traditional Astrology and it sparks my curiosity to the point that I am studying more of the traditional methods now as we speak. I know that these planets that are beyond the 7 classical planets can be worked into the scheme of things; for they are there exerting there influence already. It is possible. I tire of hearing people say well you can't work it in.......Yes we can ...given some time and patience.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to astralrabbit For This Useful Post:
StillOne (02-23-2015)
  #12  
Unread 02-23-2015, 06:50 AM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,982
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
6. (for Oddity) Of course the modern outer planets reflect light! That's how they were discovered: Uranus and Neptune with direct telescope observations; and Pluto, by comparing photographs of a section of the sky over several nights. Moreover, astrological orbs are far bigger than visual orbs if you go out and watch planets in the night sky.
They don't if they aren't visible to the naked eye (per classical theory) and even Uranus is pretty dicey on that scale. You may also have noticed that the faint fixed stars don't get used in astrology either, even though they are quite visible. Their light isn't enough for them to have an impact. The outers can't even be seen without a telescope.

This is not the view of modern astrology and I don't believe I'm being a hypocrite or stating otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 02-23-2015, 06:59 AM
astralrabbit astralrabbit is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 365
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
They don't if they aren't visible to the naked eye (per classical theory) and even Uranus is pretty dicey on that scale. You may also have noticed that the faint fixed stars don't get used in astrology either, even though they are quite visible. Their light isn't enough for them to have an impact. The outers can't even be seen without a telescope.

This is not the view of modern astrology and I don't believe I'm being a hypocrite or stating otherwise.
You know it is said that the Indians did not see the pilgrims ships out in the sea sitting of the coast, because it was never a part of what their mind could fathom. What if we are looking but we cant see because our minds are closed in this same fashion? We depend upon light to see, yes, but those who can see no light see much deeper than those of us who can. Their truth is of something totally foreign to us; But we can see just like them, if we so chose.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 02-23-2015, 07:11 AM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,982
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by astralrabbit View Post
In childhood, I would reflect deeply upon questions pertaining to why I was much different than my peers; being able to see and understand human emotion in the purest and deepest of manners that most adults do not ever care to see. I never understood this, and had a hard time accepting my difference all the way up , until I started learning astrology; only realizing then how in tune I specifically am with the outer planetary energies. How I resonated deeply with the oddity of my natal planet Uranus. Growing up in small town USA knowing that you are different and accepting of people of different skin color and sexual preference is big taboo....lol.... But the energy of Uranus in my Ninth house affords me the insight needed when it is time to bring all parties from different tables together in an effort to ascertain peace for a common universal truth. It's energy enables me to think outside of the box and for my curiosity to prevail when it is time to listen to others whether I think I know it all or not. Oddity, I appreciate what you have to say about Traditional Astrology and it sparks my curiosity to the point that I am studying more of the traditional methods now as we speak. I know that these planets that are beyond the 7 classical planets can be worked into the scheme of things; for they are there exerting there influence already. It is possible. I tire of hearing people say well you can't work it in.......Yes we can ...given some time and patience.
The thing is, there's no need to work the outer planets into classical astrology. They don't add anything to it. And I don't say that to knock you or your beliefs.

If you look at the history of astrology, and how the outers were assigned meaning, you'll see that anything that pertains to the real world was simply lifted from the rulerships of the classical planets and tacked onto the outers. The rest came from theosophy, which I find a dicey belief system, at best, and horribly racist. It's not something I can ascribe to, especially how they conned their own members into believing things. Basically, if you're 'spiritually advanced' you can feel the 'spiritual vibrations' of the outer planets, and if not - you can't. As far as I can tell, 'spiritually advanced' in the theosophical lexicon was/is synonymous with 'upper middle class white Englishman'.

Even I learnt that when I first started studying astrology. Not the white English guys bit, but that spiritual advancement meant you felt the outer planets. I, meanwhile, was destined to reincarnate as plankton.

But what that really did was to take the onus of being correct off the astrologer. If the client didn't feel what they were supposed to feel it wasn't that the astrologer was reading the chart wrongly, it was that the client simply wasn't advanced enough to respond to it.

And for all that people talk about rigourous research going into what the outer planets mean it's surprising that their answers are so remarkably similar to all that channelled material from the theosophists. Blavatsky's friend Franz used to stand on a chair behind a curtain at theosophical society meetings and drop letters (coming directly from astral spirits, of course) down on her so that she could communicate their (her own) wisdom to the flock.

It's not the first time astrologers have done that. In the early 1500s, we had the honour of being the first professional group to produce - pulp fiction! There was a stellium in Pisces and street astrologers were flogging their 'build your ark now!' pamphlets. To be fair though, the professionals stayed out of it.

The thing about the theosophists is that they were the professionals of the time. And I don't trust them as a source, nor did I find the outer planets to be useful at all in divination.

That doesn't mean you can't be a good astrologer if you use them, though, because I've met a lot of folks who are good astrologers who use the outers.

And here's a thing. We're a pretty small group, astrologers, and you'd think with the way we're ridiculed in general, we'd find more in common than not.

[deleted off-topic comments - Moderator]

Last edited by wilsontc; 02-23-2015 at 02:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 02-23-2015, 07:47 AM
Arena Arena is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,138
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by astralrabbit View Post
Growing up in small town USA knowing that you are different and accepting of people of different skin color and sexual preference is big taboo....lol.... But the energy of Uranus in my Ninth house affords me the insight needed when it is time to bring all parties from different tables together in an effort to ascertain peace for a common universal truth. It's energy enables me to think outside of the box and for my curiosity to prevail when it is time to listen to others whether I think I know it all or not.
Angularity is what makes the planets influence us the most.
Is your Uranus angular on your MC? That would make a much greater impact on you than if it weren't.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 02-23-2015, 02:17 PM
astralrabbit astralrabbit is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 365
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
Quote:
The thing is, there's no need to work the outer planets into classical astrology. They don't add anything to it. And I don't say that to knock you or your beliefs.
Beliefs are subject to the creation of an idea that was born out of prejudice.
As I stated above I resonate with their movements in the skies as of now. I can give a Plethora of evidence as testimony of the disruptive events that mirror the transit or progression or the transiting planet to the progression. I observe and then reflect what I observe. No need to create more fluff.






Quote:
Even I learnt that when I first started studying astrology. Not the white English guys bit, but that spiritual advancement meant you felt the outer planets. I, meanwhile, was destined to reincarnate as plankton.
Ummm, okay, man I sometimes forget that certain generations went through some strange drug induced coma. What you are saying here is foreign to me and I just hope that you are not projecting out on to me or people similar in nature an idea based upon your experience. Feeling the outers? No. Let go of all prejudice and listen to what a lot of folks report. It is what we observe that we speak on. Watch someone go through a Pluto Sun transit or a Pluto Mercury transit and then ask them how they feel during the transit and afterwards and then lets talk about the outers. Not based upon idea, but real world observation.


Quote:
The thing about the theosophists is that they were the professionals of the time. And I don't trust them as a source, nor did I find the outer planets to be useful at all in divination.
Hmm, I guess it all depends on what you the astrologer has to offer.


That doesn't mean you can't be a good astrologer if you use them, though, because I've met a lot of folks who are good astrologers who use the outers.

And here's a thing. We're a pretty small group, astrologers, and you'd think with the way we're ridiculed in general, we'd find more in common than not.

[deleted off-topic comments - Moderator]
I think Waybread stated it beautifully above pertaining to the energy of this whole issue between traditional and modern. I find her to present this argument most wisely and without shoving it down anyone's throat.
Thank you Waybread for that~

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arena View Post
Angularity is what makes the planets influence us the most.
Is your Uranus angular on your MC? That would make a much greater impact on you than if it weren't.
It is square my Asc and trine Mars, oh yep...lol...square my moon too!

Last edited by wilsontc; 02-23-2015 at 02:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to astralrabbit For This Useful Post:
StillOne (03-08-2015)
  #17  
Unread 02-23-2015, 02:41 PM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,768
Re: Confused about Uranus

[deleted attacking comments - Moderator]

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
5. Many trads are actually unfamiliar with the history of astrology. It died out ca. 1700 in western Europe, with the exception of a few minor astrologers and farmers' almanacs. It was dropped as a university subject. You can't blame the Catholic church, which had a long on-again, off-again relationship with astrology. Why did traditional astrology die out, if it were so terribly accurate?
I'd like to hear more about that. Was it because it represented the mindset of a bygone era that had no value anymore in light of present day discoveries?
__________________
“Millionaires don't use Astrology, billionaires do.” ― J.P. Morgan

Last edited by wilsontc; 02-23-2015 at 02:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to muchacho For This Useful Post:
StillOne (03-08-2015)
  #18  
Unread 02-23-2015, 02:52 PM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,768
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by astralrabbit View Post
In childhood, I would reflect deeply upon questions pertaining to why I was much different than my peers; being able to see and understand human emotion in the purest and deepest of manners that most adults do not ever care to see. I never understood this, and had a hard time accepting my difference all the way up , until I started learning astrology; only realizing then how in tune I specifically am with the outer planetary energies. How I resonated deeply with the oddity of my natal planet Uranus. Growing up in small town USA knowing that you are different and accepting of people of different skin color and sexual preference is big taboo....lol.... But the energy of Uranus in my Ninth house affords me the insight needed when it is time to bring all parties from different tables together in an effort to ascertain peace for a common universal truth. It's energy enables me to think outside of the box and for my curiosity to prevail when it is time to listen to others whether I think I know it all or not. Oddity, I appreciate what you have to say about Traditional Astrology and it sparks my curiosity to the point that I am studying more of the traditional methods now as we speak. I know that these planets that are beyond the 7 classical planets can be worked into the scheme of things; for they are there exerting there influence already. It is possible. I tire of hearing people say well you can't work it in.......Yes we can ...given some time and patience.
Yes we can. But not with the old framework and mindset.
__________________
“Millionaires don't use Astrology, billionaires do.” ― J.P. Morgan
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 02-23-2015, 02:55 PM
wilsontc's Avatar
wilsontc wilsontc is offline
Senior Member, Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,828
Get back on topic

All,

Please get back to astrology. If you generally want to debate an astrological concept or if you have some confusion, post your ideas without attacking each other personally or attacking each other's astrological methods. If you can't do that, don't post.

Back on topic,

Tim
__________________
To learn basic astrological chart interpretation for your chart see:
http://learnaboutyourastrochart.jimdo.com/
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 02-23-2015, 03:05 PM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,768
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
The thing is, there's no need to work the outer planets into classical astrology. They don't add anything to it. And I don't say that to knock you or your beliefs.

If you look at the history of astrology, and how the outers were assigned meaning, you'll see that anything that pertains to the real world was simply lifted from the rulerships of the classical planets and tacked onto the outers. The rest came from theosophy, which I find a dicey belief system, at best, and horribly racist. It's not something I can ascribe to, especially how they conned their own members into believing things. Basically, if you're 'spiritually advanced' you can feel the 'spiritual vibrations' of the outer planets, and if not - you can't. As far as I can tell, 'spiritually advanced' in the theosophical lexicon was/is synonymous with 'upper middle class white Englishman'.

Even I learnt that when I first started studying astrology. Not the white English guys bit, but that spiritual advancement meant you felt the outer planets. I, meanwhile, was destined to reincarnate as plankton.

But what that really did was to take the onus of being correct off the astrologer. If the client didn't feel what they were supposed to feel it wasn't that the astrologer was reading the chart wrongly, it was that the client simply wasn't advanced enough to respond to it.

And for all that people talk about rigourous research going into what the outer planets mean it's surprising that their answers are so remarkably similar to all that channelled material from the theosophists. Blavatsky's friend Franz used to stand on a chair behind a curtain at theosophical society meetings and drop letters (coming directly from astral spirits, of course) down on her so that she could communicate their (her own) wisdom to the flock.

It's not the first time astrologers have done that. In the early 1500s, we had the honour of being the first professional group to produce - pulp fiction! There was a stellium in Pisces and street astrologers were flogging their 'build your ark now!' pamphlets. To be fair though, the professionals stayed out of it.

The thing about the theosophists is that they were the professionals of the time. And I don't trust them as a source, nor did I find the outer planets to be useful at all in divination.

That doesn't mean you can't be a good astrologer if you use them, though, because I've met a lot of folks who are good astrologers who use the outers.

And here's a thing. We're a pretty small group, astrologers, and you'd think with the way we're ridiculed in general, we'd find more in common than not.

[deleted off-topic comments - Moderator]
The signature of Pluto perfectly matches the signature of Scorpio (same with Neptune/Pisces and Uranus/Aquarius. And we will never arrive at the signature of Scorpio by taking a bit from Mars here and adding a bit from Saturn there.

Granted, some modern astrologers got a bit carried away with only a couple of qualities of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto so that there are these stereotypes stuck in people's minds now like Pluto is about transformation, Neptune about dissolution and Uranus about sudden changes. Yes, they are about that too, and it's part of their identical signatures with the signs they rule. But there's more, the chain of associations is a rather long one for every planet and sign. Anybody who looks a bit deeper into descriptions of the outer planets can see that. Maybe it's because those who studied the outer planets were more into esoterics and new age than everyday life so that's what the outer planets got associated with. But esoterics is just one of many levels a planet can work.
__________________
“Millionaires don't use Astrology, billionaires do.” ― J.P. Morgan

Last edited by muchacho; 02-23-2015 at 03:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Unread 02-23-2015, 03:16 PM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,982
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by astralrabbit

Ummm, okay, man I sometimes forget that certain generations went through some strange drug induced coma. What you are saying here is foreign to me and I just hope that you are not projecting out on to me or people similar in nature an idea based upon your experience. Feeling the outers? No. Let go of all prejudice and listen to what a lot of folks report. It is what we observe that we speak on. Watch someone go through a Pluto Sun transit or a Pluto Mercury transit and then ask them how they feel during the transit and afterwards and then lets talk about the outers. Not based upon idea, but real world observation.
I worked with modern astrology for over twenty years, rabbit, and hundreds of charts, and talked to lots of astrologers, as well as working with my own chart, and the outer planets are allegedly quite strong in mine, and I've been through the Pluto crossing the ascendant and other 'significant' transits. And none of it reconciled. So I stopped using the outers, and fortunately the traditional revival happened.

There were a lot of things about the structure of modern astrology that really bothered me, and as I mentioned, astrologers couldn't tell me why the system was set up the way it was - the conflation of signs and planets in meaning, or why natural rulership in modern astrology was given the way it was - how could Leo rule the fifth house of children when Leo is a barren sign, and many others were never explained to my satisfaction. I was convinced that there was something real there, but I couldn't quite find it - not in that system. Other people do, and that's cool, but I'm glad there are alternatives.

Again, there's no shame if you use the outer planets, but if you do - it's not trad astrology. Which is fine! Not everybody has to practise the same way. And if you find great value in using the outer planets then you're probably very well situated in modern astrology. I'm not and I know that, so I don't practise it anymore.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Oddity For This Useful Post:
StillOne (03-08-2015)
  #22  
Unread 02-23-2015, 03:26 PM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,982
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by muchacho View Post
The signature of Pluto perfectly matches the signature of Scorpio (same with Neptune/Pisces and Uranus/Aquarius. And we will never arrive at the signature of Scorpio by taking a bit from Mars here and adding a bit from Saturn there.
Okay, okay you see what you're doing here, yes? Remember that I tried to explain that classical rulership is based on the relationship of the planets to the sun and moon? Signs do not have personalities in classical thought, either. And each planet has both a day house and a night house.

A perceived 'match by affinity' doesn't change things.

What you're doing is giving a modern argument (affinity by personality, or characteristic in this case) as to why you use outer planets as rulers in modern astrology. Which is fine there, but the argument doesn't carry over to trad astrology, because rulerships aren't based the same way.

There are a lot of commonalities in the systems, but how sign rulership is assigned is not one of them. I tried to explain in the hopes that you would get the idea - it's a different system. It goes by different rules. That's why it doesn't match up. In modern astrology it may do, so you're all set, but in trad it's not going to.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 02-23-2015, 03:36 PM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,768
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
Okay, okay you see what you're doing here, yes? Remember that I tried to explain that classical rulership is based on the relationship of the planets to the sun and moon? Signs do not have personalities in classical thought, either. And each planet has both a day house and a night house.

A perceived 'match by affinity' doesn't change things.

What you're doing is giving a modern argument (affinity by personality, or characteristic in this case) as to why you use outer planets as rulers in modern astrology. Which is fine there, but the argument doesn't carry over to trad astrology, because rulerships aren't based the same way.

There are a lot of commonalities in the systems, but how sign rulership is assigned is not one of them. I tried to explain in the hopes that you would get the idea - it's a different system. It goes by different rules. That's why it doesn't match up. In modern astrology it may do, so you're all set, but in trad it's not going to.
Yes, you've explained that already. And I am not trying to rework the traditional model. That's a misunderstanding.
__________________
“Millionaires don't use Astrology, billionaires do.” ― J.P. Morgan
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 02-23-2015, 06:06 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 15,393
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
They don't if they aren't visible to the naked eye (per classical theory) and even Uranus is pretty dicey on that scale. You may also have noticed that the faint fixed stars don't get used in astrology either, even though they are quite visible. Their light isn't enough for them to have an impact. The outers can't even be seen without a telescope.

This is not the view of modern astrology and I don't believe I'm being a hypocrite or stating otherwise.
The "naked eye" thesis is really weak, IMHO. Sure, ancient astrologers had to rely on naked eye planets only. But:

1. Even in ancient times, astrologers switched over to ephemerides as soon as they became available. They didn't go outside to determine that Saturn was in 4 degrees 30 minutes of Sagittarius. They looked it up on a sheet of papyrus or some such. So there's nothing in traditional astrology to suggest naked-eye viewing was somehow an essential sine qua non tenet of traditional astrology.

2. Once telescopes became available ca. 1608, traditional astrologer-astronomers used them. Galileo discovered Jupiter's moons that way, and thought they had astrological value. He interpreted horoscopes. Isaac Newton invented the telescope with reflective mirrors and eye-pieces. He and Johannes Kepler both had astrology backgrounds, and Kepler wrote a book about astrology. http://www.mountainastrologer.com/standards/editor's%20choice/articles/science_ast.html

If these astrologer-astronomers used telescopes during traditional astrology's period of history, and saw no problems with them, why should we? Nobody was looking for Uranus, however, until advances in astronomy and mathematics led to the conclusion of another body beyond Saturn exerting a gravitational pull on Saturn.

3. Instrumentation was not a problem for traditional astrologers until the New Traditional Astrology arrived ca. 1990. The ancients used quadrants, sextants, armillary spheres, perapegmata, and the antikythera mechanism.

4. Visible orbs of the planets, apart from the luminaries under some conditions, are visually much narrower than astrological orbs. Astrological orbs can't be based upon naked-eye viewing conditions.

5. I have yet to see a solid rationale for astrology's exceptionalist argument: that we happily use and take for granted technology in all areas of our lives, unless we do traditional astrology. Then somehow there is a case to be made for an anachronistic relationship with magnification devices.

People wear eyeglasses. They give bodily samples in clinics and hospitals that lab technicians under the microscope. Public health scientists and microbiologists monitor disease pathogens under the microscope: we'd fire and even sue them if E. coli showed up in our drinking water and killed people. Photographers use lenses in their cameras. Telescopes reveal the beauty and wonder of the heavens. Surgeons often wear special magnification lenses in the operating room, or use scopes that magnify body parts formerly only viewed through invasive surgery.

Should these people get rid of their magnification devices and go back to naked-eye viewing?

I'm not sure which star lists you might use. The fact that the names of fairly dim stars are in Arabic or derived from Arabic says that they have a tradition within the tradition. Are you familiar with Vivian Robson's catalogue?

An analogy is that there are traditional musicians and singers who love performing Renaissance music as authentically as possible. Some people prefer the harpsichord to the piano for performing Baroque music. That's fine. More power to them. But that doesn't mean they try to prevent other people from playing Chopin on the piano.

If you love traditional astrology, that's super. But I need a better rationale than I've seen for turfing out the modern outers, apart from the problem of fitting them into Ptolemy's table of essential dignities. Which isn't a modern astrology problem.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

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

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.

Last edited by waybread; 02-23-2015 at 06:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to waybread For This Useful Post:
StillOne (02-23-2015)
  #25  
Unread 02-23-2015, 06:30 PM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,982
Re: Confused about Uranus

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post

If you love traditional astrology, that's super. But I need a better rationale than I've seen for turfing out the modern outers, apart from the problem of fitting them into Ptolemy's table of essential dignities. Which isn't a modern astrology problem.
I don't think anyone is suggesting turfing the outers from modern astrology. Just trying to explain why they aren't used in traditional astrology.

You don't see a good reason to not use the outers. I don't see a reason to use them, and I assume we've both worked with a lot of charts in both systems. People are different, and have different philosophies of astrology. That's what it all comes down to. And yet, we are still all astrologers, are we not?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
confused, uranus

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



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:27 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.