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, 03:18 PM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,786
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, 04:44 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, 04:58 PM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,230
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 06:03 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, 05:02 PM
StillOne's Avatar
StillOne StillOne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Coastal Mountains
Posts: 2,597
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 02-23-2015, 03:37 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,786
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 03:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 02-22-2015, 08:18 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)
  #7  
Unread 02-23-2015, 03:25 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,786
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 01:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to muchacho For This Useful Post:
astralrabbit (02-23-2015)
  #8  
Unread 02-23-2015, 03:37 AM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,230
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 01:48 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, 04:04 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,786
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 01:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to muchacho For This Useful Post:
astralrabbit (02-23-2015)
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 05:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.