Do Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto rule anything?

P

pharvey0829

Active member
When Uranus was discovered, it was assigned rulership of aquarius. When neptune was discovered, it was assigned to pisces. When pluto was discovered, it was assigned to scorpio. However, going by distance from the earth, shouldn't pluto have been assigned to aries? Then if two planets are discovered beyond pluto, then they should be assigned to taurus and gemini respectively. Another way of assigning rulership to uranus, neptune and pluto would be to have uranus and saturn co-rule aquarius and capricorn. Neptune and Jupiter would co-rule pisces and sagittarius. Pluto and mars would co-rule aries and scorpio, preserving the symmetry of rulerships. Or should the outer planets even rule signs at all?
 
Oddity

Oddity

Well-known member
In modern astrology, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto either rule or co-rule Aquarius, Pisces, and Scorpio respectively.

In traditional astrology, they don't rule anything.

Take your pick.
 
P

pharvey0829

Active member
If they can't be assigned rulerships without breaking the symmetry of the traditional rulerships, then I would be inclined to say they don't rule anything.
 
C

capriquarian97

Well-known member
pharvey0829 said:
If they can't be assigned rulerships without breaking the symmetry of the traditional rulerships, then I would be inclined to say they don't rule anything.
Click to expand...

Astrology is an evolving system, Rules change with greater understanding.

If you think traditional astrology is the only true method, then I would be inclined to say that Pluto, Uranus, and Neptune are completely obsolete and don't matter at all.


Traditional Astrology applied and worked for the ancients, but with the change of information nowadays, Modern astrology applies and works for us.
 
Last edited:
Oddity

Oddity

Well-known member
capriquarian97 said:
Traditional Astrology applied and worked for the ancients, but with the change of information nowadays, Modern astrology applies and works for us.
Click to expand...

Traditional astrology isn't obsolete by any means. I think it depends on what you're trying to do with astrology.
 
C

capriquarian97

Well-known member
Oddity said:
Traditional astrology isn't obsolete by any means. I think it depends on what you're trying to do with astrology.
Click to expand...

sorry, i didn't mean to say it was obsolete, but what i mean is this :

Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930. When it was discovered, its astrological influence was activated, and became integrated into people's lives.

The same goes with Uranus and Neptune. We have to change the rules a little bit because 3 new planets have been activated, corresponding to their discovery.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
The Rulers were divided into two groups, the Moon and Sun which move around the zodiac in one direction; and the planets Mercury through Saturn, which display both direct and retrograde motion. The unidirectional were given one sign each, the bidirectional two signs each. The signs are numbered 1 through 12. When Urania (as I prefer to call it) was discovered to be a planet instead of a faint star, the higher numbered sign was taken from the outermost planet that still ruled 2, so sign number 11 came under Uranian rulership. When Neptune was discovered, the higher numbered sign was taken from Jupiter. Finally, the higher numbered sign was taken from Mars and given to Pluto. Both the naming of the planets beyond Saturn and this reaSignment pattern appear to have been intuitive, inspired, I believe, by the Muse of Astrology and ruler of Aquarius, Urania. The original Rulership pattern was very likely based on a combination of a Heliocentric cypher involving Elements and Modes (The Sun, fixed in place Heliocentrically ruling the Fixed-Fire sign, and the four Cardinal sign rulers which also have Heliocentric patterns) and a numbering pattern beginning at the Moon ruling the sign of Summer Solstice, reaching Saturn at number 10 (Winter Solstice) and turning back. The numbering pattern ends in modern astrology but the Heliocentric cypher remains in place. And, the two inner planets, which appear as both morning and evening stars, still rule two signs.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
The Rulers were divided into two groups, the Moon and Sun which move around the zodiac in one direction; and the planets Mercury through Saturn, which display both direct and retrograde motion. The unidirectional were given one sign each, the bidirectional two signs each. The signs are numbered 1 through 12. When Urania (as I prefer to call it) was discovered to be a planet instead of a faint star, the higher numbered sign was taken from the outermost planet that still ruled 2, so sign number 11 came under Uranian rulership. When Neptune was discovered, the higher numbered sign was taken from Jupiter. Finally, the higher numbered sign was taken from Mars and given to Pluto. Both the naming of the planets beyond Saturn and this reaSignment pattern appear to have been intuitive, inspired, I believe, by the Muse of Astrology and ruler of Aquarius, Urania. The original Rulership pattern was very likely based on a combination of a Heliocentric cypher involving Elements and Modes (The Sun, fixed in place Heliocentrically ruling the Fixed-Fire sign, and the four Cardinal sign rulers which also have Heliocentric patterns) and a numbering pattern beginning at the Moon ruling the sign of Summer Solstice, reaching Saturn at number 10 (Winter Solstice) and turning back. The numbering pattern ends in modern astrology but the Heliocentric cypher remains in place. And, the two inner planets, which appear as both morning and evening stars, still rule two signs.
Click to expand...
dignities2.gif

Paul_ said:
I'm of the opinion that unless the pre-existing schema for assignation of exaltation is fully understood,
we have no reason to 'tinker' by adding in newer planets:
On what grounds would we do so if we do not understand its current logic?

Clearly the current logic was not based upon "this planet really really suits this sign" kind of mentality.
Therefore I would encourage Element to move away from his rationale.

I agree with whomever mentioned the aversions of the Thema Mundi.

But really I'd be inclined to not see Neptune as ruling Pisces either so I'm not sure how popular that theory would be.
I think I'm saying the same thing as Dr Farr (if I understand him properly) and would say that the modern planets may have some affinity with certain signs -
I just do not think that the affinity is to rule over the sign, and to have domicile dignity therefore in that sign.

I see some connections with Neptune and Pisces, it is true, and also see some with Pluto and Scorpio.
I tend to see more connections with Uranus and Aries tbh, but I'm not advocating anyone else follow that mentality of course.
It is just that I see Neptune as a 'blending' quality, and Uranus as having an 'individuating' or 'separative' quality that suits my understanding of Aries.
Click to expand...
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Saturn cannot possibly " suit" BOTH Capricorn and Aquarius. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't rule them both, only that the paradigm of "suitability" is unsuitable for affirming sign-rulership. In my view, assigning Rulership requires logical patterning coupled with coincidental affirmation; the ancient symbolism is important but not primary--religious views from another era.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
Saturn cannot possibly " suit" BOTH Capricorn and Aquarius.
That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't rule them both,
only that the paradigm of "suitability" is unsuitable for affirming sign-rulership.
Click to expand...
Each of the five visible planets has two houses (or Signs)
a day-time
and
a night-time :smile:

i.e.

Mercury:
Day-time Gemini
Night-time Virgo.
Mercury prefers Virgo.

Venus:
Day-time Libra
Night-time Taurus
Venus as a feminine planet prefers her night-house of Taurus.

Mars:
Day-time Aries
Night-time Scorpio
Masculine planet prefers his day-house.

Jupiter: Day-time Sagittarius
Night-time Pisces.
Masculine planet prefers his day-house.

Saturn: Day-time Aquarius
Night-time Capricorn.
Masculine planet prefers his day-house.
dr. farr said:
For me (as a working hypothesis only),
the most I can do is assign an affinitive relationship of the outer planets to signs based upon elemental resonance:

Uranus, air, so affinitive to the air signs;
Neptune, water, and so affinitive to water signs;
Pluto, fire, and so affinitive to the fire signs
(here I differ even from the greats like Charles Carter, and do not assign co-affinity of Pluto to Scorpio:
but realize that all Modernists do assign Pluto to Scorpio)

However, this entire subject (affinities/rulerships of the outers) is very speculative and highly theoretical,
and so is a rather nebulous area open to many varied opinions.
Click to expand...
 
Marcoilrosso

Marcoilrosso

Well-known member
Experience taught me that planets have peculiar virtues, and those of the three planets especially is to have a range too vast to be schematized in any system of dignity as we had known from the tradition. They have assonance with certain zodiac positions.
Still, I don't call them 'domicile or exaltation', nor I suppose that in the signs opposed would be any detrimented at all.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
Marcoilrosso said:
Experience taught me that planets have peculiar virtues, and those of the three planets especially is to have a range too vast to be schematized in any system of dignity as we had known from the tradition. They have assonance with certain zodiac positions.
Still, I don't call them 'domicile or exaltation', nor I suppose that in the signs opposed would be any detrimented at all.
Click to expand...

"They have assonance with certain zodiac positions." Would you mind elaborating?
 
Marcoilrosso

Marcoilrosso

Well-known member
david starling said:
"They have assonance with certain zodiac positions." Would you mind elaborating?
Click to expand...

Example: Uranus has similiraties with Mars and its signs; this is pretty evident if you see what actually happens with the events of this planet. And in intepreting a nativity, I clearly get the impression of this planet as Mars-like. If the house selected is Aquarius, it is agreeable: however, it is less agreeable that Leo should be its detriment, and least of all, to declare this planet as 'polar opposite' of the Sun, for they are not at all dissimilar.
Neptune bears even more similarities in the zodiac: I find only Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Leo, and Virgo to bear not some similarity with Neptune. Still, I hardly would call some of them detriment or exile: it was found evidence in the nativity, that from Neptune it comes an elusiveness pretty similar to that of Mercury. There is a post about Pluto dignities around here, and I discussed even it.
After this long premise: they cannot be schematized by mere scheme-rulership, because we get little understanding of their actual expression. One may even manage to put a good theory of why these three planets should be dignified in some place and not in one other: but in the actual practice, one very easily gets in a morass of mistakes and misunderstandings. It is way better to consider these three as per se planets.
 
Last edited:
diamondbaby

diamondbaby

Well-known member
Depends on who you ask, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Use the rulers that work the best for you. To me, :aquarius: is ruled by :uranus: only, :pisces: is ruled by :neptune: only, and :scorpio: is ruled by :pluto: only.
 
S

Schildmaid

Active member
capriquarian97 said:
sorry, i didn't mean to say it was obsolete, but what i mean is this :

Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930. When it was discovered, its astrological influence was activated, and became integrated into people's lives.

The same goes with Uranus and Neptune. We have to change the rules a little bit because 3 new planets have been activated, corresponding to their discovery.
Click to expand...

Why would discovering a planet activate it? You don't have to know about something for it to be real, so to me, those planets always had an influence, or never did, one of the two.
 
Top