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
  #26  
Unread 01-25-2015, 03:50 PM
Konrad Konrad is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 659
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by HYS View Post
It is completly human to use concepts that we don't fully understand for our benefit. People use laptops without fully understanding how they work ... Uranium and Radium have been thougt harmless for some 50 years, it was used in food cans and sold to people, Marie Curie died experimenting with it using no shielding. Without that there would be no nuclear energy, no potential for a clean efficient fussion reactor currently build in France.

I use this example to say, that the use of concepts we are not fully capable of understanding can cause some harm but that this harm is part of the pioneering work neccessary to fully understand them. Just leaving them apart does not help uncover they meaning properly, Pluto will not come down to tells us how we have to understand him. We have to do it ourselves. I agree it should be done carefuly.
It seems you are working under the premise that linear time moving forward is bound to lead to positive progress eventually. I think there are enough instances, even in our own day, to refute that. I will say that trying to describe the physical experience via divination is not the same thing as using radioactive materials erroneously.




Quote:
Yes, the ancient greek philosopher had hypotesis about the Sun been a fire ball and that we all made of small invisible parts (atoms). Ancient people knew there is things beyond their perception, else they couldn't make up myths about Pluto and Persephone, that fits so good to the planet Pluto in astrology.
Right, I think you have this backwards. Obviously the myths of Hades in Greek literature came first, so Pluto has garnered its modern significations from them. The myths don't fit the planet, the planet fits the myths. There is a lot of assumption here on the part of modern astrologers that because the planet was named Pluto that it would follow the mythical Hades/Pluto in its behaviours. We have no idea of what came first astrologically, the myth or the planet in the case of the seven visibles, so it doesn't seem a good idea to me to do this for the outer planets.

I think in your answer here lies the issue of our divide. I never meant the Greek notion of atoms or the theories of the Sun, but that the ancient peoples (and I am not limiting myself to only the Hellenistic people with this comment) were aware that the world experienced through the senses was not the true, or even the only, world. It is this experience of the world that is important for our purposes, its appearance to our senses is said to show what will happen within the sensory world. This wasn't just limited to astrology, but there was all sorts of divination which sought signs from a being or collection of beings existing independently of the physical world within the physical world. With sight being the only sense with which to experience the sky, the practice of astrology hinges upon light and what we can see coupled with purely mathematical and rational concepts such as the method of dividing up the sky into sections and so on. A telescope doesn't change the fact that these bodies are not visible to our naked eyes. If we take that one step further, we can argue that they are then not relevant to our experience of the physical world.


Quote:
But I don't think the reason why they didn't involve this perception about hidden things in the astrological practice is that they wouldn't need them or find wiser to use only the visible planets. I think the reason is that they couldn't, because even they knew about Pluto from the myths, they didn't know his location in the sky. So, I don't think we really can state that ancient astrologers wouldn't use Uranus, Neptune and Pluto and rather choose to build a system only on planets visible with the naked eye. The issue is they couldn't build another system as the one they build. And I also think that it is a very good and logical system becasue it has been build for so long.
Really, both of our positions here are conjectural. I leave my comments that visible light and the appearance of the sky is a foundational principle within astrology. I don't think your points here really change that, or even contend it.



Quote:
I think the new bodies are very usefull and enriching. What is not, is the approach how this is used in practice. Newbie's to astrology purchase as second book something titled Chiron ... I use Chiron and I think he is usefull but I don't see how a beginer in astrology could benefit from studying him. There is lack of organization among astrologers. The same goes for Pluto, as I stated in my first post here: I myself have some healthy doubts how to assign him properly, I have no doubts he works but there is open questions about his domicile, there is good arguments on more sides, and only somebody who studyies astrology very lightly can ignore that. But again that shouldn't be a reason to let him out.
Just my opinion ... not a rule, I am not an astrology cop :-)
I would argue that the lack of organisation you note comes from a distinct lack of philosophical principles one of which is the idea of astronomical visiblity having meaning in talking of events on earth.

And no, none of us are able to police the others, but it does help to set our ideas in order and have them challenged once in a while. I'm glad we agree on some things, but I doubt we ever will on the usage of the invisible bodies. Some things are just not meant to be.

Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Konrad For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (01-25-2015), Oddity (01-25-2015)
  #27  
Unread 01-25-2015, 03:53 PM
Dirius's Avatar
Dirius Dirius is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,539
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by HYS View Post

Understanding of astrolgoy yes. But I am saying about influence of the stellar bodies. You don't need to know anything about astrology or the sky to be affected by it. And so it is. People watch the TV at night not the stars, but anyway are affected by them. So, it is irrelevant if a person can find Venus on the night sky, Venus is affecting him. Therefore it is irelevant if you can see Pluto on the night sky and how, it exercise influence anyway. People didn't start to be influenced by the sky as they started watching it. Observation of the sky is needed to understand astrology but is not a prerequisite to be affected by it.
The influence of the stellar bodies on the individual is understood by the way in which such bodies interact with each other in the night sky. Their meaning is derived from this movement across the ecliptic. And both of these are derived by the amount of light the astral bodies have.

Removing that from the equation, voids astrology of any meaning.

Example 1: aspects

Aspects such as trines or squares, are based on the concept of an "orb" around the planet, a disk of light. Thus planets are able to cast this rays and make aspects, because of the amount of light they posses. No light, no aspects, so there is no such thing as a "pluto trines neptune".

Example 2: eclipses

An eclipse is, aside from a regular Sun/Moon conjunction or opposition, an event that occurs in which the light of the sun affects or is affected by the moon. Without the perspective of an observer looking at the night sky, the eclipse is nothing more than a sun/moon conjunction or opposition, similar to the new or full moon that occurs every month.

It is the concept of the Moon affected or being affected by the sun's light that gives meaning to the event. There are different types of eclipses, each one with a different meaning, based on how the light is trasmitted.

A total eclipse in which the moon covers the sun, has a different meaning than a "blood moon" eclipse, in which the moon seems to turn red.

Example 3: retrogradation

Planets don't really "go retrograde", they don't change the direction of their orbit around the sun. Retrogradation is based on the geocentric perspective when looking at the night sky.

Yet every astrological school, modern or traditional, pays attention to this "backwards movement".

If one is to analyze astrology in a scientific way, using only mathematical computations and telescopes, then you shouldn't even begin to consider retrograde planets as something significant.
--

So to sum up, light matters. Without light, you can't understand pluto's meaning in a chart. Yet modern astrology claims it can.

Since it can't reflect light, there is no reason to assume it has some astrological "relevance" on human life.
__________________
If you'd like a private Horary or Natal consultation, please visit me at:

https://antiqueastrology.wordpress.com/

You'll also find some tips for horary practice!

Last edited by Dirius; 01-25-2015 at 04:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dirius For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (01-25-2015)
  #28  
Unread 01-25-2015, 10:15 PM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 15,445
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad View Post
Waybread,

the "naked-eye" argument actually does hold up. Most of the significations of the planets come from their visible astronomical behaviours or mathematical conceptions of things like their visibility cycles and return periods. To suggest that the reason for not using Pluto is that it can't be "shoe-horned" into the essential dignity system is very misleading. It isn't used because it isn't part of the traditional system for the reason that it can't be seen in the night-sky.
Correction, Konrad. Pluto wasn't visible to the naked eye in ancient times, when the essential dignities were developed. Today, you can see Pluto in the night sky through a telescope.

You are also aware that under optimal viewing conditions, Uranus is visible in the night sky without a telescope, so perhaps we should include it as a "naked eye" planet, as astronomers do.
http://www.space.com/22983-see-plane...night-sky.html

Isn't this really just a question of instrumentation? Star-gazers in various places and times have used the observational instruments available to them in their day. You use all kinds of new technologies in your everyday life, yet rationalize a fallacy ad antiquitatem for astrology. Would you want your surgeon to use only the techniques available prior to 1800? Do you travel by horse and wagon? Why make an exceptionalist argument for astrology?

I would be curious to learn just which significations of which planets you think "come from" their visible cycles, &c. Many of our traditional significations date back to ancient Babylon.

Quote:
....Combustion is important, as you note, because a planet becomes invisible due to the power of the Sun's light. That the Sun is not visible at night is either here nor there, the point is that the planet is no longer visible either before the Sun rises or at night when it is below the earth. Similarly, that only the Moon is visible with the Sun during the day is meaningless (in this context anyway) as the others will be visible either in the morning before the Sun rises, or for some chunk of the night. As for Venus appearing brighter than Saturn, you actually prove the importance of naked-eye observation. This is one of the reasons Venus is associated with beneficial things, and Saturn is seen as a planet of maleficence at least in regard to sustaining life.
The point that "the sun is not visible at night" or during daylight hours is indeed "here and there" if naked-eye visibility is your sole or major criterion for using a planet in a horoscope. If you wish to refine and be more specific with your naked-eye criterion, by all means, do so in your next post.

Re: Venus vs. Saturn as benefic vs. malefic, I would love to see your historical references on this. By your reasoning, benefic vs. malefic is a function of the planet's visible magnitude-- which doesn't work in astrology. Shouldn't the luminaries by your reasoning be the most benefic planets? Check out an astronomical magnitude scale. Venus is brighter than Jupiter, yet supposedly the "lesser benefic." The maximum brightness of Jupiter and Mars (lesser malefic) is nearly identical-- and would be seen to be so without instrumentation. Then these magnitudes vary over time.

Or perhaps you meant something else?

Quote:
[As for your comment on wearing eyeglasses, we tend not to find the norm or mean from those who are deficient somehow. I would not look to find a measure of health from one terminally ill. The fact that you need eyeglasses to see a planet does not negate the fact that they can be seen by those with healthy eyes and this vision of them appearing and disappearing is vital to the way they were interpreted even after people stopped watching the skies to interpret them.
This comment is completely out of line. Human vision naturally changes over the life course with normal ageing. Regardless of age, today 75% of Americans wear eye glasses or contact lenses. Are you describing normal ageing as a deficiency? My eyes are perfectly healthy, according to my optometrist. http://www.statisticbrain.com/correc...es-statistics/

Moreover, back in ancient times when nobody wore eyeglasses and there were no treatments for eye diseases and physical deterioration, the average person's vision was probably poorer than it is today.

Quote:
My point is that the observational astronomy of the Mesopotamians is fundamental to all astrology whether the practitioners know it or not. Telescopes have only been around since the 17th century, so no, they were not around in astrology's heyday.
1608 is the normal date for the invention of the telescope. http://www.universetoday.com/41889/w...the-telescope/ William Lilly wrote his Christian Astrology in 1647. Johannes Kepler did his major astrological work in the 1600s, which included advising prominent military and political leaders. Galileo made significant astrological discoveries with the telescope while simultaneously writing about astrology and making predictions for the court. His newly discovered moons of Jupiter should, he wrote, be considered in astrological work. The prolific author Morin de Villefranche (Morinus) was court astrologer in France. In Lilly's day, astrology was extremely popular with the public. (Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, chs. 10-11.)

We could peg astrology's "heyday" to some other century, because my point doesn't hinge on this. The point is that astrology was extremely popular during a period when telescopes were being used for exciting new astronomical discoveries, and that some of the people making these discoveries did not see instrumentation as antithetical to their astrological work.

By the late 17th century astrology was on the decline. But this had nothing to do with telescopes. Rather, astrology became seen as a pseudo-science, ridiculed for erroneous predictions, and increasingly unable to make a case for itself as its twin discipline, medicine, was gaining diagnostic power without the need for medical astrology.


Quote:
Finally, in regard to your final comment about the efficacy of Pluto, I remember putting forth my chart as I have all three outers in either the 1st or 10th house, so my thinking was that I should exhibit their significations quite strongly. If you remember, it didn't go well. I was even told that I had the wrong birth-time! I would go as far to say that anything one attributes to the outer planets in a chart reading can be spoken for without them. My personal preferences aside, I will say it would be better for all astrologers to learn to work fully with the seven traditional planets before working with the invisible ones. As an example, it would be better to look for some Venus/Saturn affliction when speaking of substance abuse rather than jumping straight to Neptune.
Sorry, Konrad, I have a good memory but it is short. Modern astrologers who use Pluto are generally less concerned with angularity than a traditional astrologer would be. I wouldn't personally be concerned about your "outers'" angularity as I would be with their aspects.

Again, the modern outers are not invisible. They are perfectly visible with the aid of technologies that have been with us for a long time, such as telescopes and photographs. If you use photographic technologies in your everyday life, why should it bother you to use Pluto, discovered in this manner, nearly 85 years ago?

I find that Neptune in a hard aspect to a personal planet is common in the charts of substance abusers, although not all substance abusers have this aspect, and some alcoholics and drug addicts do not. (Neptune is another thread topic, though??)

But to each his or her own.

My feeling is that if you do not want to use the modern outer planets, then don't use them. You can make this decision without problematic arguments in their support. Surely your argument doesn't hinge on historical advances in lens-making.
__________________
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値l 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; 01-25-2015 at 10:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to waybread For This Useful Post:
StillOne (02-09-2015)
  #29  
Unread 01-25-2015, 10:29 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 63,067
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post

Correction, Konrad.

Pluto wasn't visible to the naked eye in ancient times, when the essential dignities were developed.

Today, you can see Pluto in the night sky through a telescope.


pluto still isn't visible to unaided vision

You need a fairly large telescope, at least 10 inches aperture, because Pluto is currently at magnitude 14.0, very dim in the sky.

They are not cheap

http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes...8198+11038.cfm


You also need a very good chart of the stars through which Pluto is passing.

The best printed star atlases go down to 11th magnitude, which is not faint enough
http://astronomy.starrynight.com/
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Unread 01-25-2015, 10:42 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 63,067
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post

You are also aware that under optimal viewing conditions,
Uranus is visible in the night sky without a telescope,
so perhaps we should include it as a "naked eye" planet, as astronomers do.

http://www.space.com/22983-see-plane...night-sky.html

.
Uranus is defidnitely not 'a naked eye planet'
because
on that link you just posted
which is dated SEPTEMBER 2013

the following guidance is given:


QUOTE

Of course, you'll have to know exactly where to look for Uranus.


Barely visible by a keen naked eye on very dark, clear nights

Uranus is now visible during the evening hours among the stars of Pisces, the Fishes.

Keep in mind that was over a year ago

Astronomers measure the brightness of objects in the night sky as magnitude.
Smaller numbers indicate brighter objects,
with negative numbers denoting exceptionally bright objects.

But Uranus is currently shining at magnitude +5.7,
relatively dim on the scale.



When hunting Uranus, it is best to carefully study a star map of that part of the sky where the planet is located
and then scan that region with binoculars.
A small telescope with at least a 3-inch aperture
and magnification of 150-power,
you should be able to resolve it into a tiny, pale-green featureless disk.

That is not 'naked eye viewing'
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Unread 01-25-2015, 10:50 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 63,067
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post

This comment is completely out of line.
Human vision naturally changes over the life course with normal ageing.
Regardless of age, today 75% of Americans wear eye glasses or contact lenses.
Are you describing normal ageing as a deficiency?
My eyes are perfectly healthy, according to my optometrist.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/correc...es-statistics/

Moreover, back in ancient times when nobody wore eyeglasses
and there were no treatments for eye diseases and physical deterioration,
the average person's vision was probably poorer than it is today.

No evidence is provided
regarding your claim that
'the average person's vision'
'back in ancient times'
'was probably poorer than it is today'

Obviously, people have different visual capacity
Some aged people have very clear vision without any need for artifical aids
such as lenses or glasses
but
other aged people require visual aids

The fact is that remarkably good eyesight is required
if one wishes to see Uranus with 'naked eye vision'
'naked eye vision' means vision unaided by artificial aids of any kind
i.e.
without the aid of lenses
glasses
telescopes and so on

and even if one has remarkably good eyesight
the skies must be clear
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Unread 01-25-2015, 11:00 PM
Konrad Konrad is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 659
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
You are also aware that under optimal viewing conditions, Uranus is visible in the night sky without a telescope, so perhaps we should include it as a "naked eye" planet, as astronomers do.
http://www.space.com/22983-see-plane...night-sky.html
Yes, I am. But the fact that it is only visible under certain and very limited conditions makes my point just as valid for it as for the rest of the outers.

Quote:
Isn't this really just a question of instrumentation? Star-gazers in various places and times have used the observational instruments available to them in their day. You use all kinds of new technologies in your everyday life, yet rationalize a fallacy ad antiquitatem for astrology. Would you want your surgeon to use only the techniques available prior to 1800? Do you travel by horse and wagon? Why make an exceptionalist argument for astrology?
Because the age of the technique isn't the issue, as you well know. A surgeon can use whatever tools they deem necessary to the successful conclusion of their operation, but they are not going to do very well using kitchen utensils. Same goes for astrology; one can use whatever they want, it is just my contention that it is better to use planets reflecting visible light since we are basing most our judgements on their astronomical behaviours.

Quote:
I would be curious to learn just which significations of which planets you think "come from" their visible cycles, &c. Many of our traditional significations date back to ancient Babylon.
Of course, the Sun's dominance over the sky and its association with kings and authority. The Moon's speed of movement and its associations with messages and messengers also its associations with movement and change of place; the Moon's "borrowed light" showing appearance. The luminaries being associated with vision and sight. Mercury's lack of visibility most of the time and the difficulty the ancients had in placing it and its reputation for trickery and deceit. Mars' erratic heliacal cycle leading to its association with travel and being abroad. There are the reasons for the sect distinction tied up with heliacal and retrograde cycles, and to this I would add this is where we get the sign qualities known as Quadruplicities. There are many more, and they are tied up with the signs they rule.



Quote:
The point that "the sun is not visible at night" or during daylight hours is indeed "here and there" if naked-eye visibility is your sole or major criterion for using a planet in a horoscope. If you wish to refine and be more specific with your naked-eye criterion, by all means, do so in your next post.
I don't need to. It has been elucidated already by myself and others. You know exactly what we mean.

Quote:
Re: Venus vs. Saturn as benefic vs. malefic, I would love to see your historical references on this. By your reasoning, benefic vs. malefic is a function of the planet's visible magnitude-- which doesn't work in astrology. Shouldn't the luminaries by your reasoning be the most benefic planets? Check out an astronomical magnitude scale. Venus is brighter than Jupiter, yet supposedly the "lesser benefic." The maximum brightness of Jupiter and Mars (lesser malefic) is nearly identical-- and would be seen to be so without instrumentation. Then these magnitudes vary over time.
Of course the luminaries shouldn't be since they transcend the five wanderers. The planets' visible magnitude is just one of a number of criterion for the benefic/malefic divide. Jupiter is the greater benefic because it belongs to the king's sect and is a superior planet. Mars is not benefic due to its highly variable magnitude contrary to Jupiter's who is much more stable in that regard. There is also the issue of Mars' appearance compared with Jupiter's and Venus'. All of this is garnered from reading Porphyry's Introduction to the Tetrabiblios.



Quote:
This comment is completely out of line. Human vision naturally changes over the life course with normal ageing. Regardless of age, today 75% of Americans wear eye glasses or contact lenses. Are you describing normal ageing as a deficiency? My eyes are perfectly healthy, according to my optometrist. http://www.statisticbrain.com/correc...es-statistics/

Moreover, back in ancient times when nobody wore eyeglasses and there were no treatments for eye diseases and physical deterioration, the average person's vision was probably poorer than it is today.
None of this has any relevance to the subject at hand.



Quote:
1608 is the normal date for the invention of the telescope. http://www.universetoday.com/41889/w...the-telescope/ William Lilly wrote his Christian Astrology in 1647. Johannes Kepler did his major astrological work in the 1600s, which included advising prominent military and political leaders. Galileo made significant astrological discoveries with the telescope while simultaneously writing about astrology and making predictions for the court. His newly discovered moons of Jupiter should, he wrote, be considered in astrological work. The prolific author Morin de Villefranche (Morinus) was court astrologer in France. In Lilly's day, astrology was extremely popular with the public. (Nicholas Campion, A History of Western Astrology, chs. 10-11.)

By the late 17th century astrology was on the decline. But this had nothing to do with telescopes. Rather, astrology became seen as a pseudo-science, ridiculed for erroneous predictions, and increasingly unable to make a case for itself as its twin discipline, medicine, was gaining diagnostic power without the need for medical astrology.
Still, the 17th century was not astrology's heydey.


Quote:
Sorry, Konrad, I have a good memory but it is short. Modern astrologers who use Pluto are generally less concerned with angularity than a traditional astrologer would be. I wouldn't personally be concerned about your "outers'" angularity as I would be with their aspects.
Well yes, that is a different story. It seems strange to me to consider strength being based upon aspects that can last days and weeks, but then it isn't something I really need to concern myself with.

Quote:
Again, the modern outers are not invisible. They are perfectly visible with the aid of technologies that have been with us for a long time, such as telescopes and photographs. If you use photographic technologies in your everyday life, why should it bother you to use Pluto, discovered in this manner, nearly 85 years ago?
I have explained why it bothers me, but you seem intent on ignoring that and continuing the logical fallacy of suggesting I can't benefit from modern technology because I think using the Outers in divination is at odds with the philosophical outlook said divination is based upon.

Quote:
My feeling is that if you do not want to use the modern outer planets, then don't use them. You can make this decision without problematic arguments in their support.
I agree, I won't use them and I don't grudge others using them. However, my intial response was to your post about combustion which was either misinformed or misleading. Take your pick.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Konrad For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (01-25-2015)
  #33  
Unread 01-26-2015, 03:26 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 15,445
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
I think you're mixing up traditional with modern. Pluto has no, and can have no domicile rulership, nor can it have detriment, in traditional astrology. It doesn't fit anywhere into the system of rulerships or dignities.

In modern astrology dignities aren't used, so Pluto can be put forth as a domicile ruler. But within traditional astrology, it can't be.

NO, I am not mixing them up. I've studied both as separate methodologies.

In modern western English-language astrology, Pluto rules Scorpio. This essentially means, in traditional-speak, that Pluto is domiciled in Scorpio. Historically, shortly after Pluto was discovered, there was a move to assign it to Aries, simply because if:

Uranus is to Aquarius and
Neptune is to Pisces, then
Pluto must be to the sign after Pisces, which would have to be Aries.

However, modern Anglophone astrologers felt, after working with Pluto, that it worked better as the modern sign-ruler of Scorpio. Although Mars traditionally rules both, I feel that Pluto-Scorpio is a much better fit.

Beyond this, we concur that Pluto doesn't fit into the traditional system of essential dignities. And this I think, is the crux of the matter.

Since modern astrologers generally don't use the finer sign divisions of traditional astrology anyway, this isn't a problem for them.
__________________
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値l 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.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Unread 01-26-2015, 03:42 AM
Oddity's Avatar
Oddity Oddity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,980
Re: Confused about Pluto

Waybread, this is what you wrote:

Quote:

Some mostly-traditional astrologers do use Pluto, but as supplementary data, as it doesn't fit into the traditional system of essential dignities beyond its domicile and perhaps detriment.
But Pluto has no place in the rulership scheme of traditional astrology, despite what modern English-speaking astrologers say. Or are you positing that in traditional astrology, there is no longer a need for Mars to have a night house?

I have no argument with what modern astrology may choose to do with Pluto. But the point you were making is that Pluto is accepted as a domicile ruler in traditional astrology. And that is not the case.

Edited to add: For the sake of clarity, Uranus and Neptune don't rule anything in traditional astrology, either.

Last edited by Oddity; 01-26-2015 at 03:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Unread 01-26-2015, 04:01 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 15,445
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad View Post
Well I would argue that the world is still based upon only what we see, but it just so happens that people can now see to differing levels with the aid of machines. That doesn't equate to a greater understanding of life though, or even any form of progress. Until modern thought can explain the mechanics of how planetary configurations signify (and I definitely don't mean cause) happenings on earth, we shouldn't be using mainstream modern scientific thought as a basis for anyone's astrology.
So Konrad, since when has the world "been based upon only what we can see"? For thousands of years, religious people have believed in invisible gods, wu wei, prana, or mana. Today, if you flip a switch to turn on electric lights or your computer, you do not see the electricity. So much of our world these days is based upon dignital computer programs that tell us the time, manage our bank accounts, and fly our airplanes.

Traditional astrology did not do a compelling job of explaining "happenings on earth", either. Astrology, whether traditional or modern, has little to do with "modern scientific thought" as scientists understand it.

Quote:
The point is though, ancient peoples were aware of things beyond human perception, there are whole philosophical and theological schools dedicated to that very idea.
Exactly. So I think you just contradicted yourself.

Quote:
To think that astrologers of yesteryear only used what they saw because it is all they saw, and if they could have viewed Pluto thorugh a telescope then they would have considered it too, is failing to recognise the foundational principles of their practice. The appearance of light in the sky here on earth was linked to knowledge of divine will from astrology's earliest recorded times.
Will the real "divine will" please stand up? And this is a non sequitur. Ancient people used all kinds of divination techniques that had nothing to do with "lights in sky." If the ancients had observed Pluto through a telescope, you have no idea whether they would have used it or not. You've heard of the Oracle of Delphi? Shamans? The Hebrew prophets? Observable phenomena were not essential for ancient divination. One of the most respected forms of ancient divination was haruspicy, or reading omens into animal entrails.

Quote:
This is why the Heliacal appearances and disappearances were so important, why eclipses are such powerful omens, why we pay more attention to Aldebaran than Al-Hecka and on and on. I know this is not how a modern mind would think, but ask yourself this: has the free-for-all of invisible bodies that surrounds the modern astrologies' practice now made it more or less able to foretell events on earth?
Konrad, you have a "modern mind" whether you want it, or not. There is no more "free for all" in modern astrological practice than there was in the medieval Arabs' large catalogue of fixed stars. You cannot simply play off major categories like "traditional" and "modern" in their predictive success: first, you need to specify particular methods; and second, some astrologers successfully mix and match traditional and modern techniques.

I am sorry that you find modern astrology "bewildering."
__________________
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値l 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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Unread 01-26-2015, 04:37 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 15,445
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post
Light is the first method in which we are able to percieve the planets.

This is, for example, where the idea of the planets "orb" comes from (the disk of light around a planet), and their ability to cast rays (aspects such as trine, square, etc). Without that percievable orb of light, the concept of a planet doing aspects makes no sense. Given that pluto (and the other outers) have no visibile disk of light, they can't cast rays for instance.
Dirius, I challenge you to show me how the orb of the planet Saturn, when visible in the night sky, equals 5 degrees, or whatever other value you choose to put on it. http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspectorbs.html Here is a quick-and-dirty backyard astronomy guide to calculating degrees from a given point in the heavens, used by "backyard" or amateur astronomers: http://oneminuteastronomer.com/860/measuring-sky/

Of course Pluto, Uranus, and Neptune (plus many asteroids) have "visible disks of light." Again, this is how they were actually discovered, not just theorized. However, they were discovered with the aid of telescopes. And we're not talking Hubble, here, either. Telescopes prior to the 20th century were not terribly sophisticated. If you own a beefy "backyard astronomy" telescope and camera, you, too, can observe Pluto; but the trick will be distinguishing it from the stars in its proximity. This article tells you how: http://www.spaceanswers.com/astronom...n-i-see-pluto/

Quote:
Combustion in a night's chart still holds its meaning, because, from traditional perspective the position in which a planet would rise at dawn or set at dusk is still relevant, regardless of whether it was currently below or above the ground at the moment of birth. But this is in the traditional perspective, with most of the concepts regarding the heliacal cycle of the planets being abandoned by modernists. Furthermore, what I explained is the original concept of COMBUSTION and how it was used.

The fact that a planet at some stages shines with bright light, and sometimes it does not, has indeed its traditional interpretations. For example, slower planets like jupiter, when approaching opposition with the sun, won't be able to be seen at dawn or dusk, but will shine with bright light at night. The best example here is the moon...full moon has a different interpretation than new moon, in any chart, regardless if the moon is above or below the ground.
Yes, nice to see some actual observation of the heavens going on! Twilight doesn't technically begin until the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon, and pre- dawn doesn't start until the sun is 18 degrees from the horizon, so any planet trailing its vicinity probably has to be at least that far away to be visible.

Quote:
Pluto doesn't hold to almost any of the traditional interpretations to make sense in what it used to be called astrology back in the day.
I have no problem with traditional astrologers deciding not to use Pluto. But I think the only arguments that hold up are that (a) Pluto can't be shoehorned into the table of essential dignities; and (b) some astrologers just don't like to use the outer planets. Possibly they never made a thorough study of them: I can't say.

Quote:
Furthermore I'd like to contest the argument that pluto has "influence" in every natal chart. Most of the factors regarding a person's life can be explained through the 7 classical planets, without the need for pluto.
For the sake of debate, let's take your point-- for your own practice. Pluto does provide additional information in the hands of someone who has studied it thoroughly and/or has a "feel" for it. By your argument, however, we could equally dispense with all kinds of methods prominent in traditional astrology, such as fixed stars and Arabian parts.

Quote:
In the post linked by JUPASC, the issue was raised using the example of Bill Gate's chart, in which most modernist assigned his promise of wealth to a pluto placement, when from the traditional perspective, I was able to show that there are other explanations, ignoring pluto completly.
No skilled sensible modern astrologer is going to assign Bill Gates's wealth to a simple planets-in-houses cookbook type of astrology.

Traditional techniques can explain anything assigned to pluto by modern astrology.[/QUOTE]

I doubt it, but I respect your perspective-- for your own practice. Not for mine.
__________________
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値l 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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Unread 01-26-2015, 05:21 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 15,445
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konrad View Post
....

Obviously the myths of Hades in Greek literature came first, so Pluto has garnered its modern significations from them. The myths don't fit the planet, the planet fits the myths. There is a lot of assumption here on the part of modern astrologers that because the planet was named Pluto that it would follow the mythical Hades/Pluto in its behaviours. We have no idea of what came first astrologically, the myth or the planet in the case of the seven visibles, so it doesn't seem a good idea to me to do this for the outer planets.
Most astrologers, whether traditional or modern, are actually are not that knowledgeable about ancient mythology, in my experience. I highly recommend the site www.theoi.com to you. But how do you think the traditional planets got their meanings? The astrological planet Mercury rules liars and thieves today because the young god Mercury/Hermes was quite a rascal. Astrological Venus rules feminine beauty and love today because these were the attributes of the ancient goddess Venus/Aphrodite. Mars rules soldiers and warfare because the god Mars/Ares was a warrior.

There are hardly any Greek myths about Uranus (or Saturn, for that matter,) yet these planets have well-developed bodies of astrological information about them. So you cannot over-generalize.

Konrad, how thoroughly have you studied the mythological god Pluto, and the role of Pluto in hundreds of charts? It seems as though you dismissed it out-of-hand through a prejudice against modern western astrology.

The main point I would make about Pluto in aspect to the sun in a natal chart, for example, is that inter-personal power relations are probably a big theme in the person's life. I can go into more detail by the individual aspects, but I don't think you will find this in the mythology of Pluto/Hades. By the same token, transiting Pluto square sun may be a time when the person withdraws from society, metaphorically going "underground" for a while.


Quote:
I think in your answer here lies the issue of our divide. I never meant the Greek notion of atoms or the theories of the Sun, but that the ancient peoples (and I am not limiting myself to only the Hellenistic people with this comment) were aware that the world experienced through the senses was not the true, or even the only, world. It is this experience of the world that is important for our purposes, its appearance to our senses is said to show what will happen within the sensory world. This wasn't just limited to astrology, but there was all sorts of divination which sought signs from a being or collection of beings existing independently of the physical world within the physical world.
Well, this is great. But it doesn't support "naked eye" astrology.

Quote:
With sight being the only sense with which to experience the sky, the practice of astrology hinges upon light and what we can see coupled with purely mathematical and rational concepts such as the method of dividing up the sky into sections and so on. A telescope doesn't change the fact that these bodies are not visible to our naked eyes. If we take that one step further, we can argue that they are then not relevant to our experience of the physical world.
Sight is not the only sense with which to experience the sky. Surely you are aware if it rains or snows through your sense of touch! The Greeks combined meteorology with astrology: see Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos for example. The relationship between moon phases and tides was well known. You know the expression "lunacy."

Your mistrust of telescopes, however, really doesn't hold up. Ancient and medieval astrologers used quadrants, astrolabes, sundials, water clocks, the antikythera mechanism, perapegmata, and armillary spheres. They didn't restrict themselves to their eyeballs. In fact, as soon as reliable ephemerides became available in ancient times, they used them instead of star-gazing to note planetary positions.

They would have had to rely on ephemerides in northern Europe, frankly, because the sky is overcast so much of the tme.

I'll say here in a note I posted to Dirius that wiped out, that the modern outers do cast visible light. Of course they do. They reflect the light of the sun just like the traditional planets do. In fact, on a good night with some homework under your belt, you can see Uranus with the naked eye. If you have a reasonably beefy telescope at home with a camera designed for night sky photos (advertised in amateur astronomy magazines) you can see Pluto.

This isn't about the Hubble telescope. Many of the asteroids were discovered in the 19th century, when telescopes were primitive by modern standards. Galileo discovered the moons of Jupiter in the early 17th century.

Dirius: it isn't about traditional planets' orbs, either. Whatever "disk" of light is cast by Saturn in the night sky, it is far less than the degrees given to Saturn's orb in traditional astrology. (5 degrees is about 3 finger-widths from a fixed point in the sky.) The orb actually cast by the moon in the sky (vs. the one in your astrology book) varies significantly depending upon its phase, position, and atmospheric conditions. (Just now I see a first quarter crescent moon in the West, with a bright but narrow halo.)

Moreover, the midpoint and ascendant cast no orb. House cusps cast no light. We use them extensively, however. So naked eye visibility is hardly a criterion of the importance of a point in a horoscope.

In modern western astrology, moreover, orbs are not based on the visible light cast by planets (which is mighty small) but on their observed effect in human lives. And then it's not so simple. Two planets out-of-orb for a conjunction, for example, might operate in synch if they are parallel or have a third planet at their midpoint.

Again, dear traditionalists, if you don't wanna use Pluto, don't use Pluto. But I will have to ask how thoroughly you have studied it. For that, unfortunately, you might have to drop the essential dignities and traditional house weightings, and focus on aspects, plus a few other techniques not widely used in traditional western astrology.
__________________
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値l 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; 01-26-2015 at 05:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to waybread For This Useful Post:
StillOne (02-09-2015)
  #38  
Unread 01-26-2015, 05:37 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 15,445
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddity View Post
But Pluto has no place in the rulership scheme of traditional astrology, despite what modern English-speaking astrologers say. Or are you positing that in traditional astrology, there is no longer a need for Mars to have a night house?

I have no argument with what modern astrology may choose to do with Pluto. But the point you were making is that Pluto is accepted as a domicile ruler in traditional astrology. And that is not the case.

Edited to add: For the sake of clarity, Uranus and Neptune don't rule anything in traditional astrology, either.
Oddity, this is what I wrote:

Quote:
Some mostly-traditional astrologers do use Pluto, but as supplementary data, as it doesn't fit into the traditional system of essential dignities beyond its domicile and perhaps detriment. The "naked eye" argument really doesn't hold up: the reason is mostly that there is no way to shoehorn Pluto into terms, faces, triplicities.
You misunderstand me. Sorry that I didn't make myself more clear. I did not state nor would I state that Pluto is a domicile ruler in traditional astrology. It is used as such (though more commonly called the "ruler" of the sign of Scorpio) in modern astrology.

Most modern astrologers use the term "ruler" over "domicile" but it amounts to the same thing, so far as I can tell. And that was my point, really, that modern astrologers generally don't go much beyond domicile, although a few use detriments, exaltations and falls.

I agree completely that Uranus and Neptune do not rule signs (I. e., have no domicile rulership) in traditional western astrology. They do in modern astrology.

Mercury retrograde, anybody?
__________________
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値l 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; 01-26-2015 at 05:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Unread 01-26-2015, 05:50 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 15,445
Re: Confused about Pluto

Finally, Dirius, yes, "light matters." Many modern astrologers, as well, pay attention to eclipses. I just don't think that light matters in modern western astrology to the degree you think it should. So much of astrology today is "the inner sky." It's about the planets within. If you experience anger, you might be having a difficult Mars transit, but the experience of anger is not somehow up in the sky.

I have to stress, moreover, that astrology whether modern or traditional, is based on a Ptolemaic concept of the universe, not a Copernican one. If you read "backyard astronomy" articles written by professional astronomers for hobbyists, they often introduce the topic of retrogradation by saying that planets sometimes "appear" to move backwards.

By the way, here is how you can see Pluto at home (or out in the countryside if you live in an urban area): http://www.spaceanswers.com/astronom...n-i-see-pluto/
__________________
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値l 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; 01-26-2015 at 05:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to waybread For This Useful Post:
StillOne (02-09-2015)
  #40  
Unread 01-26-2015, 07:27 AM
Konrad Konrad is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 659
Re: Confused about Pluto

Waybread,

You either don't get it or don't want to. It's fine, I'm not going to waste any more time repeating the same idea over and over. I find your misrepresentation of ideas during debate to be a turn-off, and it seems one ends up spending more time correcting "misunderstandings" of one's positions than working through them.

I hope for others reading that the idea of using a telescope to view an object contradicts a basic tenet of ancient astrology isn't too difficult to understand.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Konrad For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (01-26-2015)
  #41  
Unread 01-26-2015, 12:33 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 63,067
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post

By the way,
here is how you can see Pluto at home
(or out in the countryside if you live in an urban area):
http://www.spaceanswers.com/astronom...n-i-see-pluto/
By the way, whether the skies are viewed from one's garden
or the countryside
dwarf pluto is invisble to unaided vision


You need a fairly large telescope, at least 10 inches aperture
They are not cheap
http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes...8198+11038.cfm


You also need a very good chart of the stars through which Pluto is passing.
The best printed star atlases go down to 11th magnitude, which is not faint enough
http://astronomy.starrynight.com/


due to light pollution
major cities and towns are excluded as places from which to even attempt to view dwarf planet pluto
so unless you have clear skies pluto remains invisible even if you have a telescope
the clearest skies are in the countryside
so
plan a holiday
or
maybe take a hike at the weekend
spend time somewhere there are clear skies
pack a powerful telescope costing a minimum
$7000at the sale price
and that's just the cost of the telescope
add the cost of staying away from home
also choose nights when there is no rain
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Unread 01-26-2015, 01:09 PM
Monk's Avatar
Monk Monk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,958
Re: Confused about Pluto

I'm an astronomer with an interest in astrology, i have a Pluto M.C. conjunct Regulus, with Scorpio Rising, i have found debate interesting.

Obviously now it is difficult to place Pluto as Ruler of Scorpio, however most people/astrologers who have a Pluto alignment on an angle, know it can have huge effect on their lives, how astrologers interpret that in future is up to them, but don't think perhaps it has little effect ha ha!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Monk For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (01-26-2015), StillOne (02-09-2015)
  #43  
Unread 01-26-2015, 01:27 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 63,067
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk View Post

I'm an astronomer with an interest in astrology,
i have a Pluto M.C. conjunct Regulus, with Scorpio Rising,
i have found debate interesting.

Obviously now it is difficult to place Pluto as Ruler of Scorpio,
however most people/astrologers who have a Pluto alignment on an angle, know it can have huge effect on their lives,
how astrologers interpret that in future is up to them, but don't think perhaps it has little effect ha ha!

As an astronomer then
you are familiar with the fact that dwarf planet pluto is invisible to human vision unless aided by powerful telescopes
and furthermore
that there are many dwarf planets
some of which are larger than pluto

more are being discovered daily
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirius View Post

Light is the first method in which we are able to percieve the planets.

This is, for example, where the idea of the planets "orb" comes from (the disk of light around a planet), and their ability to cast rays (aspects such as trine, square, etc). Without that percievable orb of light, the concept of a planet doing aspects makes no sense. Given that pluto (and the other outers) have no visibile disk of light, they can't cast rays for instance.

Combustion in a night's chart still holds its meaning, because, from traditional perspective the position in which a planet would rise at dawn or set at dusk is still relevant, regardless of whether it was currently below or above the ground at the moment of birth. But this is in the traditional perspective, with most of the concepts regarding the heliacal cycle of the planets being abandoned by modernists. Furthermore, what I explained is the original concept of COMBUSTION and how it was used.

The fact that a planet at some stages shines with bright light, and sometimes it does not, has indeed its traditional interpretations. For example, slower planets like jupiter, when approaching opposition with the sun, won't be able to be seen at dawn or dusk, but will shine with bright light at night. The best example here is the moon...full moon has a different interpretation than new moon, in any chart, regardless if the moon is above or below the ground.

Pluto doesn't hold to almost any of the traditional interpretations to make sense in what it used to be called astrology back in the day.

Furthermore I'd like to contest the argument that pluto has "influence" in every natal chart.
Most of the factors regarding a person's life can be explained through the 7 classical planets,
without the need for pluto.


In the post linked by JUPASC, the issue was raised using the example of Bill Gate's chart, in which most modernist assigned his promise of wealth to a pluto placement, when from the traditional perspective, I was able to show that there are other explanations, ignoring pluto completly.

Traditional techniques can explain anything assigned to pluto by modern astrology.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Unread 01-26-2015, 01:48 PM
Monk's Avatar
Monk Monk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,958
Re: Confused about Pluto

How large something is in our solar system isn't the issue to effect, obviously the Sun is So much larger than anything else but is pulled off it's axis as the centre of our solar system by the large planets aligning, that are as small as Pluto compared to the Sun.

I'm aware of Pluto being invisible to the naked eye especially with light pollution, but perhaps we need to hear more from astrologers that have Pluto on angle on a birth chart for research!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Unread 01-26-2015, 02:20 PM
Monk's Avatar
Monk Monk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,958
Re: Confused about Pluto

Link to Sun's displacement due to tiny Jupiter compared to the Sun can be seen by link below:-

http://nexsci.caltech.edu/missions/SIMPQ/

The Mighty Sun gets effected by tiny Jupiter by comparing ha ha!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Unread 01-26-2015, 02:23 PM
Konrad Konrad is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 659
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk View Post
How large something is in our solar system isn't the issue to effect, obviously the Sun is So much larger than anything else but is pulled off it's axis as the centre of our solar system by the large planets aligning, that are as small as Pluto compared to the Sun.

I'm aware of Pluto being invisible to the naked eye especially with light pollution, but perhaps we need to hear more from astrologers that have Pluto on angle on a birth chart for research!
As I said, I have Pluto 6 degrees from the MC, Uranus 4 degrees from the ASC and Neptune 13 degrees from the ASC.

I have another chart here with Uranus 6 degrees from the MC.

Another with Uranus 1 degree from the ASC and Pluto 12 from the MC.

Another with Uranus 1 degree from the ASC, Neptune 6 degrees from the ASC and Pluto 4 degrees from the MC.

Another with Pluto 1 degree from the MC.

Another with Uranus and Neptune 2 degrees from the DSC.

All of these are charts of people I know intimately and I offer them as research. I will answer all questions about them that I can without being too specific in detail to preserve some privacy and I will block out the birth details. I can post the charts in whatever house system or zodiac one desires. I hope you understand that posting birth-details and places would be irresponsible of me. Of course, I can offer my own uncensored.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Unread 01-26-2015, 02:30 PM
Monk's Avatar
Monk Monk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,958
Re: Confused about Pluto

I use tight orbs of one degree, like fixed stars, so am interested in astrologers that have birth charts with Pluto on angle pretty tight, near to one degree, it would be nice to hear from these people to see research and effect.

Please note i'm only being nice!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Unread 01-26-2015, 02:35 PM
Konrad Konrad is offline
Account Closed
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 659
Re: Confused about Pluto

I still have four charts here of an outer partile an angle, one of which is Pluto ascending. The offer still stands.

Last edited by Konrad; 01-26-2015 at 02:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Unread 01-26-2015, 03:05 PM
Monk's Avatar
Monk Monk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 2,958
Re: Confused about Pluto

Hi Konrad,

Please note i'm being nice, but you have a few charts, and i'm looking for Pluto on an angle pretty tight for a birth chart, so charts that have Pluto on an angle within one and a half degree's.

Can we say you have one?

Please note i am known for research with tight orbs regarding fixed stars, and parans, that is traditional astrology and older than anything else!

However i'm only looking for tight orbs on angles for Pluto, for research thus looking for anyone that has this, unconnected to wide orbs!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Unread 01-26-2015, 03:07 PM
JUPITERASC's Avatar
JUPITERASC JUPITERASC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 63,067
Re: Confused about Pluto

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk View Post

I use tight orbs of one degree, like fixed stars,
so am interested in astrologers that have birth charts with Pluto on angle pretty tight, near to one degree,
it would be nice to hear from these people to see research and effect.

Please note i'm only being nice!
I note you posted your own natal chart on another thread recently
interesting if you would re-post your natal chart on this thread as well Monk
as Konrad may have some observations/comments
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-D...eature=related Hippocrates Let food be your medicine: let medicine be your food. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead Tom Stoppard http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KchhSIVwMdY Every exit is an entrance to somewhere else. VETTIUS VALENS FREE http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
confused, pluto

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 06:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ゥ 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.