david starling
Well-known member
Too bad, it didn't consider road conditions, and critters. The moose really devastate vehicles.
Automatic-brake radar technology. It's a real thing!
Too bad, it didn't consider road conditions, and critters. The moose really devastate vehicles.
Yes auto traffic is devastating for wildlife. The wildlife highway crossings as in the Banff area are the least we should have done everywhere.
If biocentric architecture didn’t result from a Saturn ruled age (or a Neptunian one) I can’t see how it would result from a Uranian one.
Aquarius is related to Mercury in traditional astrology through triplicity. A lot of things modern astrologers apply to Uranus because of Aquarius come from Mercury.
quiteAquarius is related to Mercury in traditional astrology through triplicity.
A lot of things modern astrologers apply to Uranus because of Aquarius come from Mercury.
Just as an historical interlude that some people may find interesting,
it's note worthy that modern rulerships were assigned not because of some arduous research and investigation
- as you often hear from many modern astrologers,
but instead by astrologers of the time, cogniscant of the tradition of rulership,
basically went ahead and followed Ptolemy's logic, by assigning the next planet out with the next sign out.
So flowing from the Sun is the rulership scheme which normally reflects back to the Moon,
but breaking this they just carried on projecting out from the sun.
So the next out from the Sun is Mercury, then Venus, then Mars, then Jupiter and then Saturn,
and then when Uranus was discovered we see astrologers explicitly invent the rulership to Aquarius
because Aquarius is the next sign out after Capricorn,
then when Neptune comes along it's assigned the next one out which is Pisces.
This is explicitly stated in the very earliest sources we have for modern rulership.
So the outer planetary rulerships came about by trying to stay true to the tradition at large,
and absolutely not by channelling
or study of numerous charts.
I point this out because in the context of rulership even the modern rulership scheme bows to the traditional logic as much as it can.
It does not reinvent anything, instead it recognises the superiority of the traditional schema
and tries to accommodate itself into it as much as it can.
Traditionalistic astrologers somehow believe they own the copyrights to astrology, and would forbid any developments that resulted from the use of that newfangled device called the "telescope" if they could.
I gave you a reasonable physical theory. You said it is materialistic, which is an objection that has nothing to do with any telescope.
You're not the typical Traditionalistic astrologer!
I am the quintessential traditional astrologer who gives sound physical reasons for all his theories and methods.
The telescope is an invention of Capricornian materialistic science (10th sign = 10 planets), it has nothing to do with the pure traditional spiritual astrology that follows the most spiritual number 7 and which belongs to the spiritual age of Aquarius.
There is an oft-repeated objection to using measured points as Sign-rulers, but the fact is, the longitudinal locations of the Moon and planets are ALL measured points, so objection overruled.
The rulerships are based on patterns though, not likeness to Signs (although there are some), or purely intuitive.
Measured points of the planets regardless of the inconstant latitude, so objection stays.
They are purely based on climatology.