Should Modern Astrologers Accept the Names Given to Newly Discovered Celestial Object

Should Modern Astrologers Accept the Names Given to Newly Discovered Celestial Objects by Astronomers with No Interest in Astrology Itself? I trust the older ones, which include the three Outermosts (with a slight disagreement concerning the Latinization of the Greeks' Ouranos to get a non-Classical name "Uranus" never in use by Greece or Rome); also, Ceres. Not sure about Chiron though. Chiron iS a highly unusual Comet/Asteroid hybrid which shot its way into a stable orbit around our Sun. That makes it significant, but....is Chiron its correct name? If they'd named it "Achilles", for example, we'd be using it find our "Achilles heel", which is sort of what Chiron is being used for.

Yes, we should. The names are awesome paths to discover more about them through the mythologies.

Hume said we believe through experience, Kant wasn't probably a snooker fan but accepted it. Brittishman like Hume like to be seen as fair and reasonable - and believing through experience, habit, is quite this way.
The problem is when experience is against everything we find reasonable.
Are we going to keep being fair and believing on what experience says, or is it more fair to neglect experience and keep an image of lucidity, by the price however of ignoring the facts?

Voilà what happens on this case. Experience shows the Asteroid names are exact, though there are no acceptable reason for this.

Astrologers should remember that it's completely unreasonable, insane and utterly absurd to count astrological influences by the time of Birth. [erased by rhetoric excess]



ps: not only Chiron name is much well chosen, but there's also a great trick with the english word "Key".
Do the Gods pay attention to such a barbaric and lacking pedigree language as english? Who knows...

In English we use the Latin names for the Roman planetary gods. In Greece they use the ancient Greek names.

If we don't use the astronomers' names it just gets more complicated to look them up.

waybread said:

In English we use the Latin names for the Roman planetary gods. In Greece they use the ancient Greek names.

If we don't use the astronomers' names it just gets more complicated to look them up.

Click to expand...

Not using the "wounded healer" metaphor in your Chart-readings? It seems to have become pretty widespread. Are you using the comet/asteroid in your own way, without using the name "Chiron" as meaningful?
And, my pet peeve: "Uranus" is neither Greek nor Latin. It's Ouranos/Caelus for , just like it's Zeus/Jupiter for . Personally, I don't mind mixing in a Greek name. What's the Latin for the Greek word "astrology"?

aldebaran said:

Yes, we should. The names are awesome paths to discover more about them through the mythologies.

Hume said we believe through experience, Kant wasn't probably a snooker fan but accepted it. Brittishman like Hume like to be seen as fair and reasonable - and believing through experience, habit, is quite this way.
The problem is when experience is against everything we find reasonable.
Are we going to keep being fair and believing on what experience says, or is it more fair to neglect experience and keep an image of lucidity, by the price however of ignoring the facts?

Voilà what happens on this case. Experience shows the Asteroid names are exact, though there are no acceptable reason for this.

Astrologers should remember that it's completely unreasonable, insane and utterly absurd to count astrological influences by the time of Birth. The Birth is a symbolical act, it has the same mechanical relevance as of a tarot card that appears on a table.



ps: not only Chiron name is much well chosen, but there's also a great trick with the english word "Key".
Do the Gods pay attention to such a barbaric and lacking pedigree language as english? Who knows...

Click to expand...

Birth is a physical act, not a symbolic one. Quite messy, actually, and usually painful. So....what did you get your tarot deck for Mother's Day?

david starling said:

Birth is a physical act, not a symbolic one. Quite messy, actually, and usually painful. So....what did you get your tarot deck for Mother's Day?

Click to expand...

Ok, the rhetoric was a little pushed up there hahahahaha

I don't get your point, David. The names of Roman gods got anglicized, Frenchified, Germanized, &c; depending upon the astrologers' own language.

Generally we talk about the planet Venus, not Aphrodite, Jupiter, not Zeus, and so on. In Romance languages plus our hybrid English, we look at the roots, not for an exact replica of the Latin. This table suggests many planetary names are loan words reformulated into the language according to its rules.



This list might be of interest:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/40038219/Names-of-Planets-in-All-Languages

Great waybread.

I would add that many gods are quite similar in Greece or Rome.

Not the case with Caelum, that is quite different from Ouranos.

Besides that, we know that Uranus has some shocks on it's surface and that it "tilts"; if we add the "erratic" behaviour of mythological Ouranos, we can totally imagine why Ouranos would be so "exceptional" among the other Gods and only agree to wave if he could keep his greek name.
And even so it took a long while before he accepted to stop being called "Herschel"...

waybread said:

I don't get your point, David. The names of Roman gods got anglicized, Frenchified, Germanized, &c; depending upon the astrologers' own language.

Generally we talk about the planet Venus, not Aphrodite, Jupiter, not Zeus, and so on. In Romance languages plus our hybrid English, we look at the roots, not for an exact replica of the Latin. This table suggests many planetary names are loan words reformulated into the language according to its rules.



This list might be of interest:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/40038219/Names-of-Planets-in-All-Languages

Click to expand...

Thanks! He left out "Gaia", which is the American name for the goddess personifying the Earth. I read in an old Merriam-Webster dictionary that Gaia is Roman and Gaea is Greek. Well, if it's no big deal, why worry about the difference between "Uranos", and the original Greek Ouranos?
I'll start using it.
Your contention that the namers were trying to make the Greek SOUND more Latin by changing the "o" to "u" is very possible. However, I'm looking for what the Romans actually called Uranos. Are you unaware that they called it Caelus? I'll go with the Ancient-Greek name on this one.
Also, do you consider the mythological names entirely meaningless when it comes to understanding the rulership characteristics and relationships?

aldebaran said:

Great waybread.

I would add that many gods are quite similar in Greece or Rome.

Not the case with Caelum, that is quite different from Ouranos.

Besides that, we know that Uranus has some shocks on it's surface and that it "tilts"; if we add the "erratic" behaviour of mythological Ouranos, we can totally imagine why Ouranos would be so "exceptional" among the other Gods and only agree to wave if he could keep his greek name.
And even so it took a long while before he accepted to stop being called "Herschel"...

Click to expand...

"Caelum" is a faint constellation. "Caelus" was Roman for Ouranos, who personified the Heavens, like the Egyptian goddess Nuit. All the rest are Roman names. Apollo's name wasn't altered from Greek to Roman.

david starling said:

"Caelum" is a faint constellation. "Caelus" was Roman for Ouranos,

Click to expand...

with Caelo would have sounded elegant; I feel the way the romans mythologized it changed it's characteristics in a way it wouldn't be so much equivalent to the Hesiod's Ouranos anymore.

aldebaran said:

with Caelo would have sounded elegant; I feel the way the romans mythologized it changed it's characteristics in a way it wouldn't be so much equivalent to the Hesiod's Ouranos anymore.

Click to expand...

Does Caelo mean the "Heavens" in Latin? Both Ouranos, and his great granddaughter Urania (after his demise at the hands of Cronus) personified the Heavens.

david starling said:

Does Caelo mean the "Heavens" in Latin? Both Ouranos, and his great granddaughter Urania (after his demise at the hands of Cronus) personified the Heavens.

Click to expand...

Caelo might be the ablative, just a silly joke.

I think personifying the heavens can mean different sort of things. Ouranos is a very confusing, fast-changing, even non-sense heaven; Ouranos has this thing of contradictory, opposites, and the Sky is the opposite of Earth - the myth remarks this by relating him to Gaia. Caelus I suppose different, wikipedia talks about mithraic cults of Caelus or something - this might have influenced on the divinity notion.
The word "celestial" as something sweet, kind, evokes something very different from Hesiod's Ouranos.

I didn't know Urania could be a personification of heaven, I think her name indicates more being "Heavenly", from the Heaven. I see her related to knowledge, classify things - the wand and the globe, what is specific and global at the same time, like Aristotle and his classifying of specific things through different levels of genera etc.
Urania testifies however that the greek word "ouranos"(not when referring to the God I think) could also have a sweet meaning, like Ourania, associated later with the holy spirit, would mean something as "celestial" or "heavenly" just as those words sound to us.

As the goddess of the Heavens, in the tradition of Egypt's Nuit, Urania is a female equivalent of Ouranos, personifying the Heavens. As the Muse of Astrology, which includes Astronomy, you're right--she's about Knowledge of the Heavens.
I like this passage, but unfortunately, I can't recall where I saw it: "In the Beginning, the Earth was wrapped in the Eternal Heavens, until Time tore them assunder."

David, when you look at the various things ruled by the different planets, mythology really comes to the fore. The god Mars ruled warfare, for example, so the astrological planet Mars rules war and soldiers.

"Urania", also spelled Ourania, is clearly of the line of Ouranos (usually spelled "Uranus" in English), modern ruler of Aquarius. Her mother, Mnemosyne, was actually the daughter of Ouranos and Gaea (now spelled "Gaia" in the U.S.). Intuitively, I see Urania as a much better candidate for Aquarian rulership than her grandfather--she has the pedigree for it, and her name is the feminine version of his. She was both goddess of the Heavens and Muse of Astrology, which up until the 17th Century A.D. included Astronomy.
Not only do I feel she's a better fit as ruler of Aquarius than her tragic grandfather, I like the additional goddess in our pantheon of Sign-rulers.
As Muse of Astrology, she was about KNOWLEDGE of the Heavens, and Knowledge is the keyword for the Sign.

Waybread, do you have a logical reason for not blending Sign-qualities at the cusps? It's so intuitively and experientially obvious to me that one Sign includes qualities of the next, starting at the 25th (possibly the 24th) degree, and gradually increasing towards the end, that I had no idea so many believe it's not the case. I found that out only after I joined Solunars to learn more about modern sidereal astrology, and posted that with their ayanamsa using Aldebaran as the center point of the Sign Taurus, the 5th degree of the retrograde Age of sidereal Pisces had just been reached in 2018. And, that meant Aquarian influence was now just beginning to enter their Age of Pisces.
The answer was, that they've "all agreed" that the Signs are "walled off" from each other, so there was no Aquarian Age influence whatsoever blending in with the sidereal Age of Pisces--that when the Aquarian Age begins in a few centuries, it will be in full effect immediately, but until then it's all just pure Age of Pisces.
I checked here, in this community, and got the same opinion about Sign-blending. Makes no sense to me, logically, intuitively, or from experience. I should hasten to add, I mean for all the indicators, not just the Ages. I have late Pisces Sun Trining late Jupiter in Scorpio in my own Chart, so I do have personal experience with Sign-cusps, as well as from Chart-readings. My opinion is that the RULERSHIP remains the same within the Sign-boundaries from beginning to end, but the qualities imparted become gradually mixed. This includes gradually decreasing Sign-blending towards the 5th degree at the beginning of a Sign, as well.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Btw, I do use "walls" for Houses--no House-blending.

To make 3 points on the namesakes of planets used by modern astrologers.

Uranus was named for the "god of the heavens" when it was thought in 1783 it was the most distant, then Neptune in 1846 when it was thought the same way named for "god of the sea", Pluto in 1930 (demoted to dwarf planet in 2006) is named for "god of the underworld", and now Eris (declared a dwarf planet) is named for "goddess of the darkness" - they were each "the farthest" celestial bodies in our solar system, until astronomers discover another one farther away.

Ultima Thule is a planetesimal, smaller than a planetoid and clearly doesn't act or appear to be an asteroid, it's located in the Kuiper Belt and 295-300 year orbit around the sun (currently in the constellation Sagittarius). The name was given to mean it's located beyond the limits or borders of the known universe (originally, it meant of the known world in maps in ancient European times).

And the fact Mercury was named for its' intense speed as the closest planet to the sun, Venus named for it's brightness than any star or planet in the night sky, Mars for it's unique redness to indicate war, anger and hatred; Jupiter for it's 2nd-brightest to be viewed as the king of kings or god of gods (and the largest planet in our solar system); and Saturn is the least brightest to the naked eye, named for the grandfather, the "farthest" and slowest in orbit.

Someone can ignore the skies and interpret the whole world looking to a garden (as above, so below); if we chose to see the Skies, the names can only help.

The names are parts of the sky, or, parts of how the skies reach us. All the names of all the cultures, present and past. They are part of the myth, of our myth in relation to the sky.


This remind me of Averrois, when he wants believers to not go against aristotelic science "if you believe religion is true, and science results only in true, you don't need to fear that science will advance against religion, it will rather defend it".

If you believe Astrology is true, you don't have to fear what people that don't believe in Astrology do - they are following the Planets influences, they are dancing on the great theather of dream and symbol, know they about it or not.

aldebaran said:

Someone can ignore the skies and interpret the whole world looking to a garden (as above, so below); if we chose to see the Skies, the names can only help.

The names are parts of the sky, or, parts of how the skies reach us. All the names of all the cultures, present and past. They are part of the myth, of our myth in relation to the sky.


This remind me of Averrois, when he wants believers to not go against aristotelic science "if you believe religion is true, and science results only in true, you don't need to fear that science will advance against religion, it will rather defend it".

If you believe Astrology is true, you don't have to fear what people that don't believe in Astrology do - they are following the Planets influences, they are dancing on the great theather of dream and symbol, know they about it or not.

Click to expand...

is

Urania is the Muse of astrology, which includes quite a bit of astronomy. Conventional modern historians have mistaken her as only the Muse of astronomy, which is obviously inaccurate. At the time there was a real belief in Muses, there was no separation: Astronomers didn't begin totally rejecting astrology until the 19th century A.D.
So, the Muse does relate to astronomers, but that doesn't guarantee they get the naming right every time as it relates to astrology--that's a decision for astrologers to make for themselves.