What is an astrological planet?

P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
So, any and all red stars are just like Mars? No specific differences?
Click to expand...

There are specific differences between Aldebaran and Antares according to Ptolemy, with the first being of the nature of Mars (probably because it is very close to its colour), while the latter being of the nature of Mars and moderately Jupiter (probably because it has some tint of varied colour). It is important to note that Ptolemy classifies dark/faint colours of fixed stars with the cooling and moderately drying nature of Saturn. If these colours apply equally to the planets and fixed stars, as they appear to, then Uranus and Neptune have the nature of Saturn.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
There are specific differences between Aldebaran and Antares according to Ptolemy, with the first being of the nature of Mars (probably because it is very close to its colour), while the latter being of the nature of Mars and moderately Mercury (probably because it has some tint of varied colour). It is important to note that Ptolemy classifies dark/faint colours of fixed stars with the cooling and moderately drying nature of Saturn. If these colours apply equally to the planets and fixed stars, as they appear to, then Uranus and Neptune have the nature of Saturn.
Click to expand...

Yet, they don't. Does that make his astrological star descriptions suspect?
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
How about Algol and Regulus?
Click to expand...

Regulus = Jupiter and Mars (heating and drying)
Algol = Jupiter and Saturn (alternating heat and cold, Anonymous associates it with possessions like the two planets - ''or at the rising of the bright star set in the Gorgonifer of Perseus and which rises together with the second degree of Taurus. Since all these stars have the temperament and nature of Jupiter and of Saturn, if they rise at the horoscope in the same way as we have said, in a geniture, the natives own a lot of things, they are very rich and they have possessions in several countries and cities or towns, they are country-loving people (17) and they have a bent for and are skilful at building houses'' - http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.testi.379/eng.379.html)
 
Last edited:
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
Yet, they don't. Does that make his astrological star descriptions suspect?
Click to expand...

Wait you are saying that all traditional descriptions for fixed stars and the five planets worked out with this consistent naturalistic methodology are suspect? :unsure:

david starling said:
They are visible, with a telescope. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

And astrology was worked out without a telescope. Seems to have worked rather well for 2000-6000 years. :smile:
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
Wait you are saying that all traditional descriptions for fixed stars and the five planets worked out with this consistent methodology are suspect? :unsure:



And astrology was worked out without a telescope. :smile:
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying astrology wasn't developed with a consistent methodology. That came later, and forced astrology into a particular mold that limits its creativity.
 
P

petosiris

Banned
david starling said:
No. I'm saying astrology wasn't developed with a consistent methodology. That came later, and forced astrology into a particular mold that limits its creativity.
Click to expand...

I just gave you examples of how all ancient astrologers agreed on the powers, qualities, natures and sects of the planets and fixed stars, because of their rays. That is a consistent methodology, whether you like it or not.

Ptolemy didn't come up with the list - ''Such, then, are the observations of the effects of the stars themselves as made by our predecessors.'' - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#9
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
petosiris said:
I just gave you examples of how all ancient astrologers agreed on the powers, qualities, natures and sects of the planets and fixed stars, because of their rays. That is a consistent methodology, whether you like it or not.

Ptolemy didn't come up with the list - ''Such, then, are the observations of the effects of the stars themselves as made by our predecessors.'' - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#9
Click to expand...

Those are afterthoughts.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
This will help you understand my point of view:

I've discerned a pattern using the idea that there are three types of mental realms--conscious, subconscious, and unconscious. The Cardinal-signs are oriented towards the conscious thought-processes, Fixed-signs the subconscious, and Mutable-signs the unconscious.

During the Mutable-sign Age when astrology as we know it first developed, the unconscious mind was uppermost. In this Cardinal-sign Age, it's the conscious mind. So, there's a strong tendency to superimpose our own, Capricornian Age-perspective over the type of perspective that was most prevalent during the Sagittarian Age.
 
Top