Does pluto really matter?

JUPITERASC said:

QUOTE

'....The Traditional System is very simple:

Celestial bodies which have sufficient mass to produce electromagnetic radiation, and also to reflect electromagnetic radiation from the Sun and from the other Planets to Earth and produce a noticeable affect proven by Science are used.


Celestial bodies that do not have sufficient mass to produce electromagnetic radiation, or to reflect electromagnetic radiation, or are sufficiently distant as to not interfere with electromagnetic radiation on Earth are ignored....'


For some, that's the rationale for not using Pluto

Of course, others who use other methods
inevitably most probably differ from that particular opinion
and everyone has a right to their opinion - no one is either right or wrong... we simply all have different opinions

Click to expand...

It does surprise me to see traditional astrologers claiming electro-magnetism as a rationale for their exclusion of some planets. To follow up on Mandy's argument, where would you find this in traditional texts??? Vettius Valens?

But JA, for once we are in perfect agreement: to each his/her own. Any opinion is valid-- as someone's opinion.

That doesn't mean that any and all opinions stand up to scrutiny. Some opinions can be objectively confirmed or refuted on the basis of facts and reason. And it is totally unnecessary to insult people in the process. Apart from the aggressor's unpleasantness, the fallacy ad hominem doesn't win debate points.

Hi. I haven't been through the thread, so this point might have already been made. I just wanted to say that astrology is about interpreting the celestial factors of which are aware, and that the evolution of our perception of the solar system (and beyond), the evolution of certain schools of astrology, and the evolution of human consciousness must surely mirror one another. There are many instances of this which can be pointed to, including the introduction of the tropical zodiac itself, and of course the obvious synchronicity surrounding the discoveries of bodies such as Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and Chiron.

We are looking in a mirror when we look at the celestial sphere. Whatever we 'see' (either with the naked eye or our instruments of sensory enhancement), we see. At present we have so many bodies to interpret that we must ignore most of them until computerised research using vast databases makes sense of it all at some point in the future. But as astrologers we choose a number of bodies which we feel we can handle, and most of us feel we can handle at least the luminaries, the planets, Pluto and Chiron. Many feel able to cope with a few more asteroids and kuiper belt objects besides.

There is no place to draw a distinction between relevant and irrelevant celestial bodies. Its all a matter of degree (no pun intended!)

Mandy said:

JUPITERASC, I would prefer if you would provide please a reference for your quotes. Would you also be so kind as to explain why other things which produce electromagnetic radiation do not have differential effects between individuals? And if they do, could I get an idea of ratio?

I am going to try this. Traditionalists do not use Pluto because it does not fit into the system of essential dignities. Terms like "Science" and "proven," as they pertain to astrology, are redundant because actual scientists never express themselves in that way, particularly when making claims which are not proven.

Anyone can find a theory which could potentially accommodate a claim. Walk into a pub, find the two alcoholics in the corner (no disrspk, just an example), you will overhear all kinds of claims and theories. Do they have data to back them up? Data that is consistent with all the other data, otherwise known as a factorial analysis, in order to form a mere theory? Without that, you have correlation (i.e., not nearly causation) and that is all you have. Let's stop making a mockery out of science. It is not like cutting grass. Traditional astrologers do not use Pluto and that is fine. No problem with that at all.

Click to expand...

It is a matter of irrefutable Science fact - discovered in the last 115 years - that all objects generate some form of radiation, even if only Black-Body Radiation. That was discovered in 1899, thanks to Planck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck and Boltzman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann and Wien http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

I have been thinking about this for a long time. Why people don't put up their own natal chart to provide Pluto is useless to them with actual life example?

I don't like theory. I like cold hard facts and proper analysis on predictions and explanation on neuclear boom and world war event without outer and compare it with adding outer planet Pluto. Modernist astrologers in the other thread already had done they evidence base examples. Deleted comment by moderator.

poyi said:

I have been thinking about this for a long time. Why people don't put up their own natal chart to provide Pluto is useless to them with actual life example?

Click to expand...

Everywhere on this forum there are multi examples of ONE natal chart being posted to show as an example to back up a theory.

HOWEVER that is insufficient

BECAUSE at least 200 natal chart examples are required of the precise kind of situation in order for this to be even considered as a statistical proof AND then - since in this particular case Pluto is being studied - then it would also require 200 Profection and 200 Solar Return Charts to illustrate and/or 'prove' whether or not 'Pluto is useless'

poyi said:

I don't like theory. I like cold hard facts and proper analysis on predictions and explanation on neuclear boom and world war event without outer and compare it with adding outer planet Pluto. Modernist astrologers in the other thread already had done they evidence base examples. So traditionalist is your turn to show me some cold hard facts.

Click to expand...

If there are AT LEAST 200 natal chart examples with the explanations you state then fair enough.

HOWEVER

IF NOT

then that is insufficient proof

JA, I don't think you want to go down the statistics road. Where is your statistical evidence that traditional western astrology works any better than modern, Vedic, Chinese, or what-have-you? You won't find any.

Saying, "you are entitled to your opinion" begins to sound passive-aggressive when you so clearly dislike it.

Rather, the debate should get us thinking about how astrology works more generally. Why is it that some astrologers claim good results with Pluto and others happily get by without it?

JUPITERASC, you made this statement:

JUPITERASC said:

QUOTE

'....The Traditional System is very simple:

Celestial bodies which have sufficient mass to produce electromagnetic radiation, and also to reflect electromagnetic radiation from the Sun and from the other Planets to Earth and produce a noticeable affect proven by Science are used.


Celestial bodies that do not have sufficient mass to produce electromagnetic radiation, or to reflect electromagnetic radiation, or are sufficiently distant as to not interfere with electromagnetic radiation on Earth are ignored....'


For some, that's the rationale for not using Pluto

Of course, others who use other methods
inevitably most probably differ from that particular opinion
and everyone has a right to their opinion - no one is either right or wrong... we simply all have different opinions

Click to expand...

I asked:

Mandy said:

JUPITERASC, I would prefer if you would provide please a reference for your quotes. Would you also be so kind as to explain why other things which produce electromagnetic radiation do not have differential effects between individuals? And if they do, could I get an idea of ratio?

I am going to try this. Traditionalists do not use Pluto because it does not fit into the system of essential dignities. Terms like "Science" and "proven," as they pertain to astrology, are redundant because actual scientists never express themselves in that way, particularly when making claims which are not proven.

Click to expand...

Your answer:

JUPITERASC said:

It is a matter of irrefutable Science fact - discovered in the last 115 years - that all objects generate some form of radiation, even if only Black-Body Radiation. That was discovered in 1899, thanks to Planck and Boltzman and Wien

Click to expand...

Thank you for your answer.
Unfortunately, I hope some understand, this cannot be considered (to date) proof for astrology.

waybread said:

Saying, "you are entitled to your opinion" begins to sound passive-aggressive when you so clearly dislike it.

Click to expand...

Not so much when you worry that not qualifying or making a concession to another's opinion could be read as an offensive comment. Just my two cent's worth.

waybread said:

Rather, the debate should get us thinking about how astrology works more generally. Why is it that some astrologers claim good results with Pluto and others happily get by without it?

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Look, we've covered whether or not Pluto casts rays, and clearly that wasn't enough of an argument. And no, it's not just about whether or not the outers, including Pluto fit into the essential dignity scheme.

When we read a chart, and I don't care if you are modern, traditional, extraordiary, or what have you, you need more than one signature to make a case. Preferably 3. Meaning that you need to confirm a judgement times three. If Pluto gets you there, then have at it.

I haven't studied 200+ charts, but the charts I have studied, including my own, didn't need Pluto to help me find my way. And while I don't claim to be any type of expert, the feed back I've gotten tells me I'm doing ok.

In psychological astrology, which I believe is the foundation for what most of the new modern tradition (yes, I did just say modern and tradition in the same sentence. Can we please get past this now?) then Pluto obviously works for some people.

Predictive astrology is more difficult, simply because there is still debate (and no, I do not want to rehash the free will thing.) on how to look at Pluto in a predictive model outside of transits. Perhaps that ties into the dignity scheme, and perhaps it's just because a lot of people don't want to take the time to learn the historic basis of astrology (which yes, means the traditional traditional and not the modern tradition) but as I believe I have pointed out before, I do know of very well scholared traditional astrologers who do use Pluto...as a point in space, and do not incorporate any of the outers into the rulerships as outlined in the Thema Mundi.

Look, if you don't want to learn traditional astrology, then fine. Personally, I actually find it easier, because there are rules, or at the very least guidlines, that give me better understanding, than what I have found in modern astrology. And again...that is not a dig.

Again personally, I want to learn astrology so I can make accurate predictions...whether it is about a native's wealth, if I will win a lawsuit, if the native will have children and when, what kind of temperament the native will have to show how he/she will react in a given situation...the kinds of questions I came to astrology searching for answers to in the first place. And the kinds of questions I see here every day.

That isn't everyone else's cup of tea. Again, fine.

[deleted comment that could be regarded as attacking - Moderator]

Although this thread is about Research and Development. But I don't think either side is making any progress. It seems that we are just talking about what we knew already.

At the end it will take decades and hundreds of year to study to find these outer to be part of the Rules and to be included into the Dignity table just like what the ancients did for decades, hundreds and thousands of year. What we can do would just get back to continue the trial and error phase.

I would say, we are in the generation of doing what the ancients once did on trial and error till we know the definite structure. There is nothing wrong on testing that is just part of growth.

When I said we need evidences as I truly wishing that there is Room for growth. I do find discovering news thing fascinating. If the ancients never had the curiosity we have today being the pioneers and be so persistent over many generations of Research and Development, we wouldn't have the Dignity table and rulership guides we have today either. Obviously they once used to argue like us here.

It doesn't hurt to explore. But if we already denying the possibility, we will only stay in the past.

Edited: I think both Modernist and Traditionalist would agree with me that Jupiter rules Astrology and so let think about Jupiter, The Explorer or at least you will agree, Jupiter, the Lord of Expansion doesn't stop growing.

poyi said:

Edited: I think both Modernist and Traditionalist would agree with me that Jupiter rules Astrology and so let think about Jupiter, The Explorer or at least you will agree, Jupiter, the Lord of Expansion doesn't stop growing.

Click to expand...

Um...Mercury rules astrology. Traditionally speaking.

Carry on.

tsmall said:

Um...Mercury rules astrology. Traditionally speaking.

Carry on.

Click to expand...

Bob said otherwise he straightly said Jupiter rules Astrology lol. He said 5th house rules friends the other day as well. I think most of his threads got removed now. I won't carry on too much here....

I personally think both Jupiter and Mercury rules astrology. It just the 3rd and 9th house connection.

To respond to tsmall,


Mercury rules Curiosity and information/communication. Both Gemini and Virgo like to talk things through particularly Virgo the exaltation of Mercury like to analysis, define and discriminate.

"As the planet of the mind Mercury is curious..."

"In Greek mythology Mercury is Hermes, the winged messenger of the gods. Thus Mercury symbolizes everything to do with communication, as reflected in its better known masculine rulership of Gemini, the talker of the zodiac. Mercury also rules the exacting and perfection-seeking feminine sign of Virgo, as the other function of the mind is to analyze, define, and discriminate."

Let us review the nature of Mercury from the authority Traditional astrologer leading site, Skyscrit. So we can reflect on the attitude according to the Lord of Astrology.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/mercury1.html

So we are doing what the Mercury over astrology should do. We are learning to define information, we analyze both sides of the information and discriminate the one that is not proven accurate. So we must go through the research phase.

answer to questions to poyi

poyi said:

To respond to tsmall,


Mercury rules Curiosity and information/communication. Both Gemini and Virgo like to talk things through particularly Virgo the exaltation of Mercury like to analysis, define and discriminate.

Click to expand...

At the risk of being told that my response has no place in the R&D forum, I didn't want to let these questions specifically addressed to me go unanswered.

From Benjamin Dykes Introductions to traditional Astrology:

Mercury...an interpreter...one making computations, a geometer, astrologer, augur, true expounder [of things]...And he signifies divinity and the oracles of prophets, sense and reason...also wisdom...and literature and philosophy and a gift of knowledge...Even the wisdom of the stars and prophecy and its declamation...

Click to expand...

From Vettius Valens, Anthologies

Mercury...also rules those skilled interpreters of the heavens..

Click to expand...

poyi said:

"As the planet of the mind Mercury is curious..."

Click to expand...

Not the planet of the mind, but rather the planet of the rational mind. We must always take the Moon into consideration when analyzing the mind.

poyi said:

"In Greek mythology Mercury is Hermes, the winged messenger of the gods. Thus Mercury symbolizes everything to do with communication, as reflected in its better known masculine rulership of Gemini, the talker of the zodiac. Mercury also rules the exacting and perfection-seeking feminine sign of Virgo, as the other function of the mind is to analyze, define, and discriminate."

Click to expand...

Hermes in Greek mythology doesn't have very much to do with traditional astrology, although Hermes is the name given to the messenger who brought astrology to humanity. Moreover, most of traditional astrology isn't predicated on the myths of the Greeks, if for no other reason than that astrology had its beginnings prior to the pantheon of Greek Gods arriving on the scene.

poyi said:

Let us review the nature of Mercury from the authority Traditional astrologer leading site, Skyscrit.

Click to expand...

skyscript isn't the authoritative leading traditional astrology website. It does however have many tools that can lead a student into further study. The point being that one cannot learn traditional methods just by reading articles on the internet. skyscript happens to have a cool intro tutorial and a forum to which largely traditional astrologers post. In order to really learn, it is necessary to read more than just skyscript.

poyi said:

So we are doing what the Mercury over astrology should do. We are learning to define information, we analyze both sides of the information and discriminate the one that is not proven accurate. So we must go through the research phase.

Click to expand...

Yes, and in order to go through the research phase we must understand the why's and wherefors. dr. farr had a post...but it boiled down to whole system models.

Traditional astrology does not require Pluto to function, and function very well.

The OP (on a thread that has been relocated how many times now?) was originally posted in the traditional astrology forum

kar said:

Hello
Some dwarf and asteroids are being studied.
Eris is bigger than Pluto.
Ceres, Haumea, Sedna, Makemake are important too.

I'd like to know the real effects of Pluto by your experience.
I can't realize the true effects of Pluto yet.

Transformation is a general fact, do you know some more specific effect?
Thank you.

***
I Appreciate all your comments, now it's in Transits subject, no way.
It was interesting to know about LIGHT and MASS.
This body has no light and minimal gravity.
Are aspects happened to you about Pluto effects?
Thank you again.

Click to expand...

kar, me either. I'm afraid the conversation here hasn't been of much help.

If you feel I was telling you off then I would say sorry. I am really trying very hard to break the gap between modernist and traditionalist. I think that is actually an impossible task.

I did say previously, I think both Mercury and Jupiter should rule Astrology.

I had mentioned in other post that the ability to learn Astrology is based on both Mercury and Jupiter. The lower and higher mind. Moon of course rules intuition.

I fully accept that Mercury is significator of astrology (as it is of alchemy), if for no other reason than what this planet traces in the sky every year (the hexagram and the relationship of the number "6" to so many astrological components), plus all the ancient authors always attributed the starry science to Hermes (= Thoth = Mercury)

However I am equallyconvinced that URANUS is the ruler of ASTROLOGERS!

OOPS Forgot I said that I would not post on this poor thread again (that posting of mine here was deleted)
But, I'll leave this post up, just for the fun of it
However, PROMISE I won't add any more to this unfortunate thread...

I do back you up for Uranus also rules Astrologer, dr farr!!!!

(This post is also deleted)

Ahem. So far as I know, Mercury is the traditional ruler of astrology and Uranus is the modern ruler. I think both have merit.

Part of the reason for Mercury as the traditional ruler was that he was the grandson of Atlas (via his mother, Maia.) Atlas was the titan who carried the celestial globe on his shoulders and, according to Pausanias, taught its secrets to his grandson.

Uranus in Greek lore was much more than the victim of that disgusting castration episode: rather he was the god who personified the starry sky; just as his wife Gaia personified the earth. Father Sky, Mother Earth. So mythologically it makes sense for him to rule astrology.

(www.theoi.com --just a super site on mythology.)

I think both of these planets work. There doesn't seem to be any one astrologer's signature, but I have seen a number of charts on astrology forums where chart-readers have Uranus conjunct MC.

tsmall, I am curious as to why you think it doesn't matter to a traditionalist that Pluto doesn't fit into the table of essential dignities. Or did I misinterpret your statement?

poyi said:

If you feel I was telling you off then I would say sorry. I am really trying very hard to break the gap between modernist and traditionalist. I think that is actually an impossible task.

Click to expand...

Remember that Traditional Astrology is THE FOUNDATION on which Modern Astrology rests and is entirely dependent.

IF the foundation is removed, the entire building collapses

Interesting then to learn the ancient techniques and so understand the basis of Modern Astrology

For example, ancient practicing astrologer Vettius Valens writing two thousand years ago,
clearly describes Modern Astrology's SOLAR RETURN as THE SOLAR REVOLUTION.

Ancient astrologers delineated THE SOLAR REVOLUTION
also now known as THE SOLAR RETURN
not solely as a stand alone chart
but as one of several inter-related charts
That is one of the crucial differences.

THE ancient SOLAR REVOLUTION chart is only one of many charts - including profection, firdaria, natal, et al -
consulted as a means of pinpointing accurate astrological PREDICTION.
So the astrologers of ancient times attained such accuracy and reliability.

However take time to thoroughly understand - there's a free translation by Professor Riley for anyone for has the inclination to read and study it in its entirety http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vettius Valens entire.pdf

poyi said:

I did say previously, I think both Mercury and Jupiter should rule Astrology.

I had mentioned in other post that the ability to learn Astrology is based on both Mercury and Jupiter. The lower and higher mind. Moon of course rules intuition.

Click to expand...

There are many astrologers, many have different opinions, that's neither unusual nor unexpected, we just need to factor in that simply because one opinion 'works' with ONE particular natal chart THEN THAT IS INSUFFICIENT CRITERIA to immediately apply that across the board to ALL natal charts. That's why at least 200 natal chart studies are required in order for any opinion to be even partially validated.

On our forum we can all express an opinion - however that does not mean that any particular opinion is accepted by everyone - most would agree that it's simply useful to exchange opinions

IN MY OPINION THEN

THE FOLLOWING POST SUMS UP THE MATTER WELL:

tsmall said:

At the risk of being told that my response has no place in the R&D forum, I didn't want to let these questions specifically addressed to me go unanswered.

From Benjamin Dykes Introductions to traditional Astrology:

Quote:
Mercury...an interpreter...one making computations, a geometer, astrologer, augur, true expounder [of things]...And he signifies divinity and the oracles of prophets, sense and reason...also wisdom...and literature and philosophy and a gift of knowledge...Even the wisdom of the stars and prophecy and its declamation...


From Vettius Valens, Anthologies

Quote:
Mercury...also rules those skilled interpreters of the heavens..


Quote:
Originally Posted by poyi
"As the planet of the mind Mercury is curious..."


Not the planet of the mind, but rather the planet of the rational mind. We must always take the Moon into consideration when analyzing the mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by poyi

"In Greek mythology Mercury is Hermes, the winged messenger of the gods. Thus Mercury symbolizes everything to do with communication, as reflected in its better known masculine rulership of Gemini, the talker of the zodiac. Mercury also rules the exacting and perfection-seeking feminine sign of Virgo, as the other function of the mind is to analyze, define, and discriminate."


Hermes in Greek mythology doesn't have very much to do with traditional astrology, although Hermes is the name given to the messenger who brought astrology to humanity. Moreover, most of traditional astrology isn't predicated on the myths of the Greeks, if for no other reason than that astrology had its beginnings prior to the pantheon of Greek Gods arriving on the scene.


skyscript isn't the authoritative leading traditional astrology website.

It does however have many tools that can lead a student into further study.

The point being that one cannot learn traditional methods just by reading articles on the internet.

skyscript happens to have a cool intro tutorial and a forum to which largely traditional astrologers post.

In order to really learn, it is necessary to read more than just skyscript.


.....in order to go through the research phase we must understand the why's and wherefors. dr. farr had a post...but it boiled down to whole system models.

Traditional astrology does not require Pluto to function, and function very well.

The OP (on a thread that has been relocated how many times now?) was originally posted in the traditional astrology forum

Quote:
Originally Posted by kar
Hello
Some dwarf and asteroids are being studied.
Eris is bigger than Pluto.
Ceres, Haumea, Sedna, Makemake are important too.

I'd like to know the real effects of Pluto by your experience.
I can't realize the true effects of Pluto yet.

Transformation is a general fact, do you know some more specific effect?
Thank you.

***
I Appreciate all your comments, now it's in Transits subject, no way.
It was interesting to know about LIGHT and MASS.
This body has no light and minimal gravity.
Are aspects happened to you about Pluto effects?
Thank you again.



kar, me either. I'm afraid the conversation here hasn't been of much help.

Click to expand...

Hi. I just wanted to respond to Jup's comment that modern astrology is founded upon and therefore dependent upon traditional astrology.

In a sense I agree - astrology has evolved along various branches which all stem from its traditional roots. Modern astrology is clearly a product of its ancestry, just as the modern 'civilization' which astrology now serves is a product of older civilizations.

We will never know what kinds of astrology would exist today if astrology had begun at a later point in human history.

Should we keep building on the same foundations, or should we reassess the kinds of foundations we use each time we build something? Astrology is not one big building - every time someone begins the study of astrology, a new astrology is born, and the student must choose the foundations which seem appropriate and relevant. My own view is that the individuation of present-day human beings is best served by an astrology which is founded upon a present day world-view. To me, the astrologies of the past are interesting because they offer alternative views of the same archetypes that we interpret and express today.

There are many traditional values which are considered unhealthy and outmoded. Why would things be any different in astrology?

I have a very limited attention span for these kinds of discussions, so please forgive me if I don't follow through in response to any reactions from others.

miquar said:

We will never know what kinds of astrology would exist today if astrology had begun at a later point in human history....

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Although much evidence regarding the earliest beginnings of human history and/or human astrological history has been destroyed NEVERTHELESS much remains as yet undiscovered. New astrological discoveries are continually being made - therefore it is too early to make any definite judgement regarding exactly WHEN 'astrology' 'began'

for example http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/4/

'.....The Antikythera Mechanism is fragmentarily preserved Hellenistic astronomical machine with bronze gearwheels, made about the second century B.C. In 2005, new data were gathered leading to considerably enhanced knowledge of its functions and the inscriptions on its exterior. We report progress in reading a passage of one inscription that appears to describe the front of the Mechanism as a representation of a Greek geocentric cosmology, portraying the stars, Sun, Moon, and all five planets known in antiquity. Complementing this, we propose a new mechanical reconstruction of planetary gearwork in the Mechanism, incorporating an economical design closely analogous to the previously identified lunar anomaly mechanism, and accounting for much unresolved physical evidence.....'

'....The order in which the planets appear is not random. Sequence is Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. Mercury, as pointed out above, is likely to have come before Venus, and, although the word selênê ("Moon") is not found in the very fragmentarily preserved lines preceding line 15, there are good reasons for believing that the Moon, with its elaborate display incorporating a revolving half-black, half-white ball to show the Moon's phases,44 was referred to in those lines. Thus we have the most common ordering of the seven heavenly bodies in ancient Greek astronomical texts, reflecting their presumed distances from the Earth, from the nearest body (the Moon) to the furthest (Saturn), beyond which are the fixed stars....'