Confused about Uranus

astralrabbit said:

Ummm, okay, man I sometimes forget that certain generations went through some strange drug induced coma. What you are saying here is foreign to me and I just hope that you are not projecting out on to me or people similar in nature an idea based upon your experience. Feeling the outers? No. Let go of all prejudice and listen to what a lot of folks report. It is what we observe that we speak on. Watch someone go through a Pluto Sun transit or a Pluto Mercury transit and then ask them how they feel during the transit and afterwards and then lets talk about the outers. Not based upon idea, but real world observation.

Click to expand...

I worked with modern astrology for over twenty years, rabbit, and hundreds of charts, and talked to lots of astrologers, as well as working with my own chart, and the outer planets are allegedly quite strong in mine, and I've been through the Pluto crossing the ascendant and other 'significant' transits. And none of it reconciled. So I stopped using the outers, and fortunately the traditional revival happened.

There were a lot of things about the structure of modern astrology that really bothered me, and as I mentioned, astrologers couldn't tell me why the system was set up the way it was - the conflation of signs and planets in meaning, or why natural rulership in modern astrology was given the way it was - how could Leo rule the fifth house of children when Leo is a barren sign, and many others were never explained to my satisfaction. I was convinced that there was something real there, but I couldn't quite find it - not in that system. Other people do, and that's cool, but I'm glad there are alternatives.

Again, there's no shame if you use the outer planets, but if you do - it's not trad astrology. Which is fine! Not everybody has to practise the same way. And if you find great value in using the outer planets then you're probably very well situated in modern astrology. I'm not and I know that, so I don't practise it anymore.

muchacho said:

The signature of Pluto perfectly matches the signature of Scorpio (same with Neptune/Pisces and Uranus/Aquarius. And we will never arrive at the signature of Scorpio by taking a bit from Mars here and adding a bit from Saturn there.

Click to expand...

Okay, okay you see what you're doing here, yes? Remember that I tried to explain that classical rulership is based on the relationship of the planets to the sun and moon? Signs do not have personalities in classical thought, either. And each planet has both a day house and a night house.

A perceived 'match by affinity' doesn't change things.

What you're doing is giving a modern argument (affinity by personality, or characteristic in this case) as to why you use outer planets as rulers in modern astrology. Which is fine there, but the argument doesn't carry over to trad astrology, because rulerships aren't based the same way.

There are a lot of commonalities in the systems, but how sign rulership is assigned is not one of them. I tried to explain in the hopes that you would get the idea - it's a different system. It goes by different rules. That's why it doesn't match up. In modern astrology it may do, so you're all set, but in trad it's not going to.

Oddity said:

Okay, okay you see what you're doing here, yes? Remember that I tried to explain that classical rulership is based on the relationship of the planets to the sun and moon? Signs do not have personalities in classical thought, either. And each planet has both a day house and a night house.

A perceived 'match by affinity' doesn't change things.

What you're doing is giving a modern argument (affinity by personality, or characteristic in this case) as to why you use outer planets as rulers in modern astrology. Which is fine there, but the argument doesn't carry over to trad astrology, because rulerships aren't based the same way.

There are a lot of commonalities in the systems, but how sign rulership is assigned is not one of them. I tried to explain in the hopes that you would get the idea - it's a different system. It goes by different rules. That's why it doesn't match up. In modern astrology it may do, so you're all set, but in trad it's not going to.

Click to expand...

Yes, you've explained that already. And I am not trying to rework the traditional model. That's a misunderstanding.

Oddity said:

They don't if they aren't visible to the naked eye (per classical theory) and even Uranus is pretty dicey on that scale. You may also have noticed that the faint fixed stars don't get used in astrology either, even though they are quite visible. Their light isn't enough for them to have an impact. The outers can't even be seen without a telescope.

This is not the view of modern astrology and I don't believe I'm being a hypocrite or stating otherwise.

Click to expand...

The "naked eye" thesis is really weak, IMHO. Sure, ancient astrologers had to rely on naked eye planets only. But:

1. Even in ancient times, astrologers switched over to ephemerides as soon as they became available. They didn't go outside to determine that Saturn was in 4 degrees 30 minutes of Sagittarius. They looked it up on a sheet of papyrus or some such. So there's nothing in traditional astrology to suggest naked-eye viewing was somehow an essential sine qua non tenet of traditional astrology.

2. Once telescopes became available ca. 1608, traditional astrologer-astronomers used them. Galileo discovered Jupiter's moons that way, and thought they had astrological value. He interpreted horoscopes. Isaac Newton invented the telescope with reflective mirrors and eye-pieces. He and Johannes Kepler both had astrology backgrounds, and Kepler wrote a book about astrology. http://www.mountainastrologer.com/standards/editor's%20choice/articles/science_ast.html

If these astrologer-astronomers used telescopes during traditional astrology's period of history, and saw no problems with them, why should we? Nobody was looking for Uranus, however, until advances in astronomy and mathematics led to the conclusion of another body beyond Saturn exerting a gravitational pull on Saturn.

3. Instrumentation was not a problem for traditional astrologers until the New Traditional Astrology arrived ca. 1990. The ancients used quadrants, sextants, armillary spheres, perapegmata, and the antikythera mechanism.

4. Visible orbs of the planets, apart from the luminaries under some conditions, are visually much narrower than astrological orbs. Astrological orbs can't be based upon naked-eye viewing conditions.

5. I have yet to see a solid rationale for astrology's exceptionalist argument: that we happily use and take for granted technology in all areas of our lives, unless we do traditional astrology. Then somehow there is a case to be made for an anachronistic relationship with magnification devices.

People wear eyeglasses. They give bodily samples in clinics and hospitals that lab technicians under the microscope. Public health scientists and microbiologists monitor disease pathogens under the microscope: we'd fire and even sue them if E. coli showed up in our drinking water and killed people. Photographers use lenses in their cameras. Telescopes reveal the beauty and wonder of the heavens. Surgeons often wear special magnification lenses in the operating room, or use scopes that magnify body parts formerly only viewed through invasive surgery.

Should these people get rid of their magnification devices and go back to naked-eye viewing?

I'm not sure which star lists you might use. The fact that the names of fairly dim stars are in Arabic or derived from Arabic says that they have a tradition within the tradition. Are you familiar with Vivian Robson's catalogue?

An analogy is that there are traditional musicians and singers who love performing Renaissance music as authentically as possible. Some people prefer the harpsichord to the piano for performing Baroque music. That's fine. More power to them. But that doesn't mean they try to prevent other people from playing Chopin on the piano.

If you love traditional astrology, that's super. But I need a better rationale than I've seen for turfing out the modern outers, apart from the problem of fitting them into Ptolemy's table of essential dignities. Which isn't a modern astrology problem.

waybread said:

If you love traditional astrology, that's super. But I need a better rationale than I've seen for turfing out the modern outers, apart from the problem of fitting them into Ptolemy's table of essential dignities. Which isn't a modern astrology problem.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is suggesting turfing the outers from modern astrology. Just trying to explain why they aren't used in traditional astrology.

You don't see a good reason to not use the outers. I don't see a reason to use them, and I assume we've both worked with a lot of charts in both systems. People are different, and have different philosophies of astrology. That's what it all comes down to. And yet, we are still all astrologers, are we not?

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Oddity. Just some alternative perspectives to follow.

Oddity said:

The thing is, there's no need to work the outer planets into classical astrology. They don't add anything to it. And I don't say that to knock you or your beliefs.

Click to expand...

I don't think most mods have a problem with traditional astrologers not using the modern outers. Unfortunately we've seen a couple of trads on the Pluto threads who don't want anyone to use them-- or modern astrology.

If you look at the history of astrology, and how the outers were assigned meaning, you'll see that anything that pertains to the real world was simply lifted from the rulerships of the classical planets and tacked onto the outers.

Click to expand...

This is partly correct. Modern inventions that didn't exist during traditional astrology's era oftentimes got assigned to modern outers. Plutonium and atomic bombs, to Pluto. Aircraft, electricity, various electrical technologies, and psychology, to Uranus. Undiagnosed illnesses and some that weren't discovered before the 20th century, and some modern drugs (like analgesics) pertain to Neptune. Interestingly, while Mercury is the traditional ruler of astrology, Uranus is the modern ruler of (presumably modern) astrology.

A reading of Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book, further reveals some inconsistency in which traditional planets rule which phenomena; plus some duplication, and some phenomena for which he couldn't locate a traditional ruler. Litigation, for example, could relate to either Jupiter, the 9th, Libra, or the 7th house. None of these is a modern planet, but it kind of makes a difference!

The rest came from theosophy, which I find a dicey belief system, at best, and horribly racist. It's not something I can ascribe to, especially how they conned their own members into believing things. Basically, if you're 'spiritually advanced' you can feel the 'spiritual vibrations' of the outer planets, and if not - you can't. As far as I can tell, 'spiritually advanced' in the theosophical lexicon was/is synonymous with 'upper middle class white Englishman'.

Even I learnt that when I first started studying astrology. Not the white English guys bit, but that spiritual advancement meant you felt the outer planets. I, meanwhile, was destined to reincarnate as plankton.

Click to expand...

Would it surprise you to learn that many modern astrologers don't like this stuff, either, and that it does not inform our practice? There is a branch of modern astrology called esoteric astrology, with some subsets being evolutionary, karmic, and past-lives astrology. I find a lot of it to be dubious, but then most modern astrologers' approaches are more pragmatic.

For example, if a 40-year old woman wonders why she's never had a long-lasting relationship and is still single, she's not asking for a spiritual improvement doctrine. Modern astrologers can get to work on her horoscope, however, in very pragmatic ways.

So far as historical origins go, what initially turned me off from traditional astrology was Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. It used to be one of just a couple of traditional astrology texts available in English. With natal Mars opposite Saturn, I am supposedly some sort of depraved temple robber. Have you read what Vettius Valens wrote about Capricorn?

I've since read up on traditional astrology, but it took a while to get over their sardonic view of human nature with charts in their unhappy pile.

But what that really did was to take the onus of being correct off the astrologer. If the client didn't feel what they were supposed to feel it wasn't that the astrologer was reading the chart wrongly, it was that the client simply wasn't advanced enough to respond to it.

Click to expand...

I don't like this type of modern astrology, either. But it is only a small portion of modern astrology, so far as I can determine. If you read charts on this or the Astrodienst forum, I think you'll get a better feel for modern astrology, with the caveat that beginners can make erroneous interpretations more often than the experts.

And for all that people talk about rigourous research going into what the outer planets mean it's surprising that their answers are so remarkably similar to all that channelled material from the theosophists. Blavatsky's friend Franz used to stand on a chair behind a curtain at theosophical society meetings and drop letters (coming directly from astral spirits, of course) down on her so that she could communicate their (her own) wisdom to the flock.

Click to expand...

OK, but I think you're committing a big fallacy of over-generalization. Again, if you look at Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book, I think you'll get a better sense of how sane, down-to-earth mods use modern outers. A lot of modern astrology dropped the old theosophical material once it got into helping people with their financial problems, vs. a bizarre quest for enlightenment.

I don't think you'd care for my letting the most dire and gloomy character delineations in traditional astrology texts stand in for the whole of traditional astrology today. Their only way around it is by claiming that the horrible delineations in Valens was intended to be suggestive, not diagnostic-- but this is quite a leap. Valens never qualifies his own pronouncements.

It's not the first time astrologers have done that. In the early 1500s, we had the honour of being the first professional group to produce - pulp fiction! There was a stellium in Pisces and street astrologers were flogging their 'build your ark now!' pamphlets. To be fair though, the professionals stayed out of it.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but a bunch of the pros were street astrologers and really bad "office" astrologers. You are familiar with the Isaac Bickerstaff caper. See also Frederick Cramer's book on Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. The literary sources that have come down to us were probably more the exception than the rule. We know this because of the criticisms they write about so many astrologers of their day.

The thing about the theosophists is that they were the professionals of the time. And I don't trust them as a source, nor did I find the outer planets to be useful at all in divination.

Click to expand...

I don't trust Alice Bailey, either. When I first read Dane Rudhyar, I thought he was hot stuff. Then he began to seem like cotton candy for the soul. I wonder what you make of Alan Leo? Despite his theosophical roots, he wrote some pragmatic cookbooks on natal chart delineation. I do like the early books by Robert Hand and Steven Forrest, even though Hand subsequently went trad; and Forrest, evolutionary. Their early books still hold up.

That doesn't mean you can't be a good astrologer if you use them, though, because I've met a lot of folks who are good astrologers who use the outers.

Click to expand...

Right-- like Olivia Barclay.

And here's a thing. We're a pretty small group, astrologers, and you'd think with the way we're ridiculed in general, we'd find more in common than not.

[deleted off-topic comments - Moderator]

Click to expand...

I agree. unfortunately, John Frawley's opening salvo was really unproductive. Then today, we have trads who no longer come from a modern astrology background, haven't read up on it or practiced it, yet feel qualified to critique what they don't know.

I've got a copy of Bills around here somewhere, but I don't use it much.

Electricity was first written about in 1600 (as far as I am aware), in William Gilbert's De Magnete, which predates the discovery of Uranus by well over a century. Electricity rulership would more be in line with Sun (source of all heat and light) and Sun-Mercury (transmission) if you were going for applied electricity, or the technology of it. Internal combustion I could see going with Mars-Mercury (also works for bombs).

Sun is a shoe-in for things nuclear, it's how it produces its own heat and light, after all.

Saturn still does a fine job of ruling most toxins, and other drugs are covered by the classical planets, too.

Ptolemy - I still think you're misreading his text, but I can't change that. As for Valens, any copy of Valens came with either Valens himself or a student of his - you didn't pop down the occult shop in Alexandria to get it on the release date. I take most of the early works on astrology to be more in line with class notes than full treatises, usually with extreme interpretations as a memory aid - even your nemesis Ptolemy has about nine conditions for that Mars-Saturn contact to meet before he turns you into a grave robber (or an archaeologist - think about it). You can level the same criticisms at modern astrological cookbooks when it comes to distasteful interpretations.

With Alan Leo, he was a journeyman horarist, and possibly a little too good at the job. I can't honestly say I wouldn't have done something like he did to avoid prison. Maybe I would have. Maybe you would have in his circumstances. Who can know? But it still sent astrology down a rabbit hole, and he was a theosophist, and and and.... then again, so was CEO Carter, but he's worth a read, as he really did try to live up to the 'scientific' standard of astrology that the theosophists promoted (weird, very weird considering what they actually did, yet true). Nonetheless, Carter was familiar with what words like 'methodology' and 'research' actually meant, and he used them. You've got to respect the guy for that, even if you don't agree with all his conclusions.

I'm familiar with the Bickerstaff caper. Jonathan Swift has a lot to answer for there, as do the various royal societies and their counterparts in other countries. One might make the argument that Swift was the first to really popularise the idea that if you didn't like something you need not know anything about it to criticise it - you could simply laugh and mock and intimidate people instead.

So much for the intellectual progress.

I've read far too many astrological interpretations on forums. Most of them make me cringe, and not always because of wilful overapplication of outer planets, but that, too. As for all the attacking and where it comes from? I don't see most attacks on traditional astrology coming from people who are well-read or at all practised in it. Which, as I said before, I kind of get. Traditional astrology is new to us, it doesn't do things the way established astrological practice of the era does them, and it does not hold the same philosophical views. Add to that that many people cheerfully despise history and are certain we have nothing to learn from it because time is linear (if you're an astrologer and hold this view - shame on you!) and the latest is always the best, so they see trad as something that rocks the apple cart. But it really doesn't. There aren't a lot of us, and even now the vast majority of traditional astrologers come to it by way of deep dissatisfaction with modern astrology.

Though I don't disagree that there are some sensible astrologers who got there by way of modern astrology. There aren't enough good astrologers in the world, full stop, and this whole argument over which kind of astrology is objectively better is just silly.

Oddity said:

I've got a copy of Bills around here somewhere, but I don't use it much.

Electricity was first written about in 1600 (as far as I am aware), in William Gilbert's De Magnete, which predates the discovery of Uranus by well over a century. Electricity rulership would more be in line with Sun (source of all heat and light) and Sun-Mercury (transmission) if you were going for applied electricity, or the technology of it. Internal combustion I could see going with Mars-Mercury (also works for bombs).

Sun is a shoe-in for things nuclear, it's how it produces its own heat and light, after all.

Saturn still does a fine job of ruling most toxins, and other drugs are covered by the classical planets, too.

Click to expand...

Oddity, I didn't argue that nobody could assign (invent?) traditional rulers for modern innovations. Rather, that the modern outers were often applied to innovations that post-dated traditional astrology's demise, such that they had no traditional rulers from Days of Yore. Olivia Barclay assigned Pluto to plutonium, for example, which wasn't discovered in traditional times, and which doesn't seem solar at all. Interestingly, you apply scientific astronomy to the sun in order to get a life-giving luminary to rule weapons of mass destruction.

I assure you that most meds on the market today did not exist prior to 1700, and oftentimes, not even the category.

Ptolemy - I still think you're misreading his text, but I can't change that.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a hit-and-run comment! How might I be misreading it?

As for Valens, any copy of Valens came with either Valens himself or a student of his - you didn't pop down the occult shop in Alexandria to get it on the release date. I take most of the early works on astrology to be more in line with class notes than full treatises, usually with extreme interpretations as a memory aid - even your nemesis Ptolemy has about nine conditions for that Mars-Saturn contact to meet before he turns you into a grave robber (or an archaeologist - think about it). You can level the same criticisms at modern astrological cookbooks when it comes to distasteful interpretations.

Click to expand...

Oddity, have you actually studied the Hellenistic texts? Some of them (notably Firmicus Maternus) contain cookbooks on various planetary combinations in judging nativities. There is little in the major literary works to suggest that they were "class notes," although some specifically wrote for their students. How any student could memorize a big string of invectives is beyond me.

Since when is Ptolemy "my nemesis"? I don't think of him that way. I've read Tetrabiblos cover to cover, which is more than I can say for many trads. I just don't find his views of character to be appealing, or as helpful as that of practical modern astrologers speaking for modern times.
If you can find a passage where he says his character delineations are merely suggestive, please cite it for me! However, I appreciate his efforts to systematize and rationalize astrological methodology.

I have Saturn in Virgo in the 12th opposite Mars in Pisces in the 6th (quadrant) or 1st and 7th (whole signs.) No essential dignities. According to Mr. Pt (3:13, Robbins transl,) "...he makes his subjects robbers, pirates, adulterators, submissive to disgraceful treatment, takers of base profits, godless, without affection, crafty, thieves, perjurers, murderers, eaters of forbidden foods, evildoers, homicides, poisoners, impious, robbers of temples and tombs, and utterly depraved."

Where Mr. Pt. puts in some qualifiers (3:2), these are more technical than sensitive about the poor souls damned by his language.

With Alan Leo, he was a journeyman horarist, and possibly a little too good at the job. I can't honestly say I wouldn't have done something like he did to avoid prison. Maybe I would have. Maybe you would have in his circumstances. Who can know?

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with Leo's books on reading nativities, such as his highly popular How to Judge a Nativity? The Progressed Horoscope? I'm not judging Leo's character, merely citing his key publications. His Nativity book actually has an old-style tone to it with an admixture of a belief that a "higher" type of person could evolve spiritually and psychologically.

But it still sent astrology down a rabbit hole, and he was a theosophist, and and and.... then again, so was CEO Carter, but he's worth a read, as he really did try to live up to the 'scientific' standard of astrology that the theosophists promoted (weird, very weird considering what they actually did, yet true). Nonetheless, Carter was familiar with what words like 'methodology' and 'research' actually meant, and he used them. You've got to respect the guy for that, even if you don't agree with all his conclusions.

Click to expand...

Well, if you believe that any modern astrology is "down a rabbit hole," it will be difficult to conduct a reasonable discussion. A university-educated person ca 1900 would have been fluent in Latin, but probably not ancient Greek, the language of the majority of Hellenistic sources. Much of our Hellenistic tradition was still in manuscript or limited print form, awaiting critical editions in English translation ca. 1900 when Leo was active. We can't blame him Leo for not being a philologist with academic research credentials.

Laws against fortune-telling in the US and UK had a lot to do with the emergence of natal chart interpretation at the expense of horary, mundane, medical, &c ca. 1900.

Similarly, are you going to tar all theosophists with the same brush? They ranged from the sinister and deranged (Crowley) to bizarre but harmless, to fairly normal people who simply caught the spirit of an age when people thought they could make something better of their inner lives.

I'm familiar with the Bickerstaff caper. Jonathan Swift has a lot to answer for there, as do the various royal societies and their counterparts in other countries. One might make the argument that Swift was the first to really popularise the idea that if you didn't like something you need not know anything about it to criticise it - you could simply laugh and mock and intimidate people instead.

So much for the intellectual progress.

Click to expand...

Actually, it was John Partridge who had the most to answer for. He was simply wrong on many of his death predictions, yet he had the insensitivity to publish them in the paper. A robust traditional astrology could stand up to satire. An erroneous practice could not.

Swift was by no means the first to satirize astrology. Many examples to choose from in the ancient classics, and even the Bible.

I've read far too many astrological interpretations on forums. Most of them make me cringe, and not always because of wilful overapplication of outer planets, but that, too. As for all the attacking and where it comes from? I don't see most attacks on traditional astrology coming from people who are well-read or at all practised in it.

Click to expand...

Who is attacking traditional astrology? Oddity, this shoe is on the other foot. Are you familiar with John Frawley's vicious lampoons? Are you saying that I'm not well-read? On what basis?

As I indicated, you need to distinguish between beginners and seasoned pros in any form of astrology. (I am an amateur of nearly 25 years' standing-- which probably makes me an advanced intermediate in modern astrology.)

Which, as I said before, I kind of get. Traditional astrology is new to us, it doesn't do things the way established astrological practice of the era does them, and it does not hold the same philosophical views. Add to that that many people cheerfully despise history and are certain we have nothing to learn from it because time is linear (if you're an astrologer and hold this view - shame on you!) and the latest is always the best, so they see trad as something that rocks the apple cart. But it really doesn't. There aren't a lot of us, and even now the vast majority of traditional astrologers come to it by way of deep dissatisfaction with modern astrology.

Click to expand...

If traditional astrology floats your boat, that is wonderful. I have no quarrel with that. What bothers me is the totalitarian zeal expressed by some arch-conservatives. And how odd that several trads on this forum have not read their history, either. I keep asking them to read Nicholas Campion's 2-volume history of astrology and cosmology & religion books, because I think it would help show them the history of astrology.

If the whole of modern astrology were theosophical and esoteric, I wouldn't much care for it, either. But it isn't. What you've set up is a straw man, constructed in one corner of modern astrology.

Though I don't disagree that there are some sensible astrologers who got there by way of modern astrology. There aren't enough good astrologers in the world, full stop, and this whole argument over which kind of astrology is objectively better is just silly.

Click to expand...

Although I'm inclined to agree with your last paragraph, what does it say about your preceding arguments on this thread?

In modern astrology, Uranus is the planet of science, rebellion and reform. For traditionalists, they give the distinction to Mercury and Saturn, while ignoring or not including Uranus (or Neptune). Even the signs said to rule astrology: Aquarius and Pisces, indicate what their planetary rulerships are. I would assume Capricorn has to do with astrology, but they are the sign of astronomy (Saturnian). Mercury rules Gemini and Virgo, but are not the signs most associated with science or politics in modern astrology, and I'm aware the Sun and Mars are main planets of power and politics.

Uranus and Neptune are signs of the bizarre, unorthodox and radical ideas on all sorts of things. It can be why Aquarians and many Pisceans are the most liberal or open-minded people, but what about Scorpios? I find Virgo, Libra and even Gemini are in the range of accepting or experimenting with the new. In traditional astrology, Jupiter rules Pisces as much they do with Sagittarius are into philosophy, religion and the supernatural, and Saturn rules Aquarius along with Capricorn with a scientific, logical mind. Even Cancer and Leo can relate to trying out (Moon rules Cancer and Sun rules Leo), but not as traditional or conservative like Aries and Taurus.

Whoever has a strong Uranian influence in their natal charts would hold a very open mind, so would having a strong Mercury (don't know if this will work for retrograde). Uranus and Mercury are liberating to the human soul and mind, wanting to explore and discover, and make the world a better place as well improve themselves. Interestingly, Mercury, Mars and Pluto are prominent in sports athletes, business executives and entertainers' charts: Mercury and Mars known for physical energy, Mars and Pluto to rule over their hobbies or professions, Mercury and Pluto in achievement of bounty or wealth, and imagine having all 3 greatly influence their chart.

What about Uranus or Neptune? If traditionalists do not want to include significant planets modern astrologers use, can you explain differences and oddities in natal charts they believe it comes from Saturn or Jupiter? Uranus to me is the opposite of Venus: the planet of descriptive beauty. For Uranus, individual ideas of beauty in the eye of the beholder against what the majority of people, society or culture believes to be most sexy, pretty or beautiful. Uranus and Neptune are linked to kinks and fetishes, but Mercury seems to share this too...traditionalists only blame Mercury vs. "beautiful" Venus without Uranus or "sensual" Mars (excluding Pluto).

Hi CapAqua -

Traditionally, astrology falls under the 9th house and Mercury, as does science.

Here's Rhetorius of Egypt on what makes astrologers. See how much of it applies to your own chart:

If Mercury chances to be in a good house, and especially in a domicile of Saturn, not under the Sunbeams and aspected by Jupiter and Saturn and Mars, it makes astrologers, diviners, or priests.

I'm a little unclear on the rest of your post. The meanings ascribed to the outer planets were given to them by modern astrology by taking those meanings away from the traditional planets. Traditional astrology doesn't split off the meanings. Is that what you meant?

It's a different philosophical base, as far as I can see, though I don't say one is necessarily more correct. Personally, though, I worked with modern astrology for over twenty years, was deeply dissatisfied with it on a lot of levels, much of the problem was philosophical. Traditional astrology is far more coherent to me. But there are modern astrologers who do good work, too.

The association of Uranus with astrology is mythological. Uranus was simply the god of the starry sky, just as his wife Gaia was the generic mother earth goddess.

Uranus has a reputation for eccentricity, but compared to what? This statement kind of assumes some norm that is objectively valid. Uranus, rather, questions the objective validity upon which traditional norms are based. If we do things a certain way simply because "We've always done it that way," that's a kind of logical fallacy in terms of a rational reason. Uranus asks for a broader perspective.

Yes, Uranus is about the self, almost similar to the Sun represents the ego, identity, personality and individuality. Uranus determines how much or deep we're into ourselves: egocentrism and eccentricity. However, the planet of humanitarianism aren't necessarily selfish, as the Uranian signs Aquarius (and co-ruler of Capricorn) are devoted to politically liberate and improve societies and communities at large. Uranus is the opposition of rigid conformity and totalitarianism, about questioning authority figures and the status quo, and the planet of democracy and egalitarianism.

In my natal chart, I have an Aquarius sun and moon in the 8th (house of Scorpio) and my ruler planet Uranus is in Scorpio. This might explain my tendency to not follow social rules and taboos my society or culture finds to take seriously, but I never break laws nor harmed others (Cancer rising, which seems to controls my inner "wild" desires). Most people have limits, self-control and adherence to social cues or moral relativity, but if a natal chart finds a "Bad" Aquarius or an Uranus totally off its axis (the planet literally is by 90'-99') to make the person have serious social issues and may end up becoming common criminals?

Scorpios into sex and death, Aquarius into politics and religion: best of both worlds, then my Cancer rising reminds me what can "gross-out" or "offend" me. I have a warped sense of humor, but I never knew why I objected to war or horror movies (Saving Private Ryan's scenes of D-day), while I didn't cringe viewing a childbirth video on YouTube (I mean, this is the birth of a human being, what's so "gross" about it, tbh?) or the Garbage Pail Kids movie (yes, there was one) named for the grotesque, yet "special" children in a parody of the Cabbage Patch Kids. (LOL).

My apologies for double posting, but relates to the topic on two more qualities of Uranus in astrology I found and it's impact on Aquarius, the sign it rules over. Uranus trine or square, or opposite planets in ones natal chart or a horoscope will determine the effects of Uranian aspects.

Uranus represents androgyny in that sign Aquarius, which can give off a gender-neutral energy or reverse the gender of a soul: A male can feel "female" and vice versa. In traditional astrology, this is associated with Mercury, the god thought to exhibit traits of both male and female sexes. Water signs: Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces, and Mercurian Gemini (Air) and Virgo (Earth) have androgynous and "reverse-gender" tendencies, and Uranus as a co-ruler for Capricorn rules over fatherhood or male parenting roles, versus age-old ideas of gender roles regarding women as domestic spouses (housewives) and motherhood-ruled under opposite Cancer. I don't know why Taurus, a feminine sign ruled by Venus also over Libra doesn't have a high gender reversal possibility, and Venus is a "female" planet.

And Uranus along with Aquarius represents economic turmoil, decline and risk of poverty. In Aquarius, the symbol of a water pot "draining" away can also depict depletion of financial sources and personal income. Uranus has somewhat a negative impact on economic stability and financial results. Uranus comes off as a malefic then, compared to Saturn, Neptune and Pluto (all outer planets). A malefic in a certain house or sign can give off a stronger negative energy, in this case Uranus in personal or global economic affairs. Based on studying my natal chart, Aquarius sun/moon conjunction in 8th with Cancer rising with Uranus in Scorpio predicts lower income prosperity in my life, and I long experienced this issue myself. And the planet of luck Jupiter in stellium with Mars, Lilith and Saturn in my 3rd.

I want to mention there are some astrologers decidedly made Uranus representative of monotheism and the idea of a single God (Christianity is a monotheist religion). Saturn in traditional astrology would hold this position and of course, Saturn is a co-ruler of Aquarius and ruling planet of Capricorn. I believe Jupiter has this distinction in traditional of what monotheism is.

In traditional astrology, rulership of monotheism gets split up a bit. Saturn goes to Judaism, Islam gets Venus in Scorpio, and Christianity - it depends on who you read! Usually Jupiter, but it's been handed to Mercury and Sun as well.

The ninth house is the house of God (as well as science, astrology, and a few other things), and the third, of the Goddess, also the house of out-of-favour religions and heretics (though an afflicted ninth can also be heresy, atheism, etc.) Both three and nine are connected to divination and prophecy.