Tradition + Modernization = ?

Even though I'm hesitant to touch this thread again, this note may be worth it. Llewellyn George, in his book The New A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator (1984 print), includes specialised sections about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. For instance, he lists major events which happened the last time Pluto was in each sign. I think this would be the proper approach for determining the real influences of the three outer planets. They tend to effect things on a large enough scale to be tracked through world history. Llewellyn George makes note in that same book that the position of Pluto had much to do with the social revolutions of the 1960's and 1970's. In short, if you want to know how the outer planets work, look at what happened the last time those planets were in each sign (which is calculable).

Bob, I relish a good debate, but there's a point at which some debates degenerate into a toxic squabble between two people; at which point further rebuttals are not going to change anyone's mind, and only end up perplexing other members who are here for more constructive purposes. I judge our interactions to have reached that toxic stage. I stand by my arguments, and I imagine that you do, as well.

I hope it will be possible to discuss astrology constructively with you in the future. And I thank you for your service to our country.

Mark said:

Even though I'm hesitant to touch this thread again, this note may be worth it. Llewellyn George, in his book The New A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator (1984 print), includes specialised sections about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. For instance, he lists major events which happened the last time Pluto was in each sign. I think this would be the proper approach for determining the real influences of the three outer planets. They tend to effect things on a large enough scale to be tracked through world history. Llewellyn George makes note in that same book that the position of Pluto had much to do with the social revolutions of the 1960's and 1970's. In short, if you want to know how the outer planets work, look at what happened the last time those planets were in each sign (which is calculable).

Click to expand...

Thank you for your note, Mark, but it seems like that falls in the category of a scholar's opinion. That's a necessary starting point I think, but saying "because Pluto was in Libra during this time period it did this" really isn't proof it's assumption or an educated guess; and the foot could be fitted to the shoe.

What you're saying could only be verified after witnessing the planets traverse the zodiac more than once--if there's a pattern then obviously it must be true. Astrologers of today should accept that they won't know for certain the outer planet's significance during their lifetime.

My outlook relative to the outers is to provisionally accept those indications about them from sources I respect (Carter, Robson, Hall, and several others) not as "truth" but rather as a working hypothesis, which I can then apply as an aid to delineation.
That's what has worked best for me ("worked" meaning given me clear delineative insights which proved accurate)

dr. farr said:

My outlook relative to the outers is to provisionally accept those indications about them from sources I respect (Carter, Robson, Hall, and several others) not as "truth" but rather as a working hypothesis, which I can then apply as an aid to delineation.
That's what has worked best for me ("worked" meaning given me clear delineative insights which proved accurate)

Click to expand...

Thanks, Dr. Farr. That's what I would do as well.

dr. farr said:

My outlook relative to the outers is to provisionally accept those indications about them from sources I respect (Carter, Robson, Hall, and several others) not as "truth" but rather as a working hypothesis, which I can then apply as an aid to delineation.
That's what has worked best for me ("worked" meaning given me clear delineative insights which proved accurate)

Click to expand...

This seems really sensible to me.

When I first studied astrology 20 years ago, modern astrology was all their was, and the importance of the outer planets was stressed. But I am a sceptic by nature, and my habit is to withhold approval of books or articles that do not pass my common-sense sniff test. The outer planets have passed this test to my personal satisfaction, having shown themselves of value to me in chart interpretation time and again.

This is not to say I find everything written about them to make sense: Jeff Green's work on Pluto was apparently channeled; Dane Rudhyar is too woo-woo for my taste; a bunch of Liz Greene's work in psychological astrology just does not compute for me, and so on.

And I applaud astrologers who can do good work without them. Who am I to question demonstrable success?

Incidentally, I work a lot with "accidental house cusp rulers", so I first look at the modern rulers of Pisces, Aquarius, and Scorpio; but then I go back to see what is the situation with Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars, respectively. Sometimes there is a consistent pattern; but if not, I dig deeper.

This thread and some others are really starting to make me think there is something highly individualistic about the practice of astrology. And maybe we should expect this, given the differences in astrologers' horoscopes. Astrologer A may do just fine using outer planets, whereas Astrologer B works better without them. Astrologer A does good work with the tropical zodiac, but astrologer C from India produces results of uncanny accuracy using a sidereal zodiac. The problem comes only if we insist upon a "one size fits all" for horoscope interpretation.

To use a fine arts analogy, maybe traditional western astrology is to realism as modern astrology is to expressionism. For example, I use a painting by Vincent Van Gogh for my avatar. One could fault it as a work of art if a kind of photographic-quality representational realism is the only standard by which paintings may be judged. We could look at Van Gogh's work and condemn it for being fuzzy, fanciful, and insufficiently "realistic." But once we recognize the artistry in expressionism, then Van Gogh is known as a master.

The idea of using techniques as a "working hypothesis" may not offer an astrologer a sense of security and uncertainty-reduction, but it should help us to keep an open mind.

Just possibly there are some expert jyotish/Vedic or Chinese astrologers looking in on this thread, and shaking their heads in bemusement. Or amusement.

For me its all about getting results (since my principal use of astrology is as an aid in finding remedies to enhance the health, ie, astro-therapeutics) I am not a scientific investigator looking for objective truth, or even reality! I want only positive outcomes, and methods/concepts/techniques which can reliably provide me with positive outcomes, and I really don't care where these come from. That's what makes me an Eclectic, not just in astrology but also in homeopathy and, indeed, in more esoteric pursuits. I do not knock those who are making scientific investigations or historical or philosophical/metaphysical investigations in astrology (or homeopathy or healing or the multitude of esoteric fields)-I give them great credit. And I find many of their discoveries and insights of much interest. But I only care to take from all sources (scientific or not) that which works FOR ME (works means reliably providing positive outcomes whether in analysis, prediction, or therapeutic directions)
If, say, I have been using a technique which works most of the time, and say I read that in a statistical analysis that technique performed no better than chance, I will STILL use that technique because FOR ME (in my hands) it reliably and consistently yields positive outcomes. Bluntly, if it ain't baloney FOR ME (in MY practice), then it ain't baloney! This is simply crude, blue collar pragmatism and utilitarianism-its not science and its not philosophy, and I don't pretend it is. All honor and glory to science, scientific method and philosophy: but in the final analysis I only want to use what works (reliably produces positive outcomes in practice) FOR ME-and I don't care if it works or fails in the hands of others. At the same time I don't pass these things (that work for me) off as truth or science or what others should do; here on AW I just share these things for those who might perhaps have a bit of interest in them.

For example-and this is my own current insight only-I consider the outers to represent the principle of change/mutability; I also look at them as symbolic extensions of Saturn, and believe that they all possess some degree of Saturn quality; I regard them as filling the elemental "outer shell" of the solar system, as Saturn = earth, Uranus = air, Neptune = water, Pluto = fire. From these ideas (mutability and elemental affinity) I consider them co-affinitive/co-domiciled (domicile being the original term for what we have come to call "rulership") in mutable signs of the same elemental nature, thus Uranus co-affinitive in Gemini, Neptune co-affinitive in Pisces and Pluto co-affinitive in Sagittarius.
Do I claim any of this to be true?
No way. Scientific? No. Its only where my own little mind, having studied and thought about this matter for years, has led me. I use this outlook on the outers for myself as a working hypothesis in delineation. Does it seem to work FOR ME? Yes.
Do I advocate others to accept it? No way.
Macro-cosmic analysis and understanding (otherwise known as "astrology") I maintain is an art-at least in its practical application at the current state of our knowledge of it. Each artist must create their own approach, their own personal nuances of practice, and this must be built out of continuous study and personal experience, subject to each artist's own critical insight of their own outlook, always asking the questions, "How well did this work?", "How accurate was this?" and, "What else do I need to know, and to do, in order to get even better results?"

...anyway that's my opinion, for what its worth!

Thanks for your honesty Farr.

I have a few questions, how do traditionalists identify traits associated with Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto? and since traditional astrology has methods to figure out how "good" or "evil" someone is, and its inevitable, then what happens if someone is genuinely kind but their chart shows otherwise?

Oh and what is "forbidden foods"? Yarr!

I severely doubt that traditional astrology can tell if a person is evil... just by looking at a chart. It is simply not possible and is completely unrealistic, to even attempt to do so. Furthermore, there are a lot of misconceptions about modern astrology on this thread, which are coming from unfounded observations and "opinions". Moderns still do take the modern planets seriously. The outer planets are classed as generational influences, but we pay close attention to the house positions and natal aspects of the outer planets. The affects of the outer planetary transits are undeniable to anyone who has taken the time to study their cycles in-depth. Traditional astrology may be where our roots began, but Modern Astrology is the improved and full version of this astrological study and is the future. In the distant future, perhaps what we call Modern Astrology will change. Even Science, computers, technology, psychology, english and every other subject or modern advancement is further updated with new improvements and discoveries. Traditional astrology lacks progressiveness, and doesn't take into account human psychology, free-will and greater consciousness. However, this is not to say that there isn't an element of fate in astrology, there clearly is, and what an individual does with his "fate" is what clearly defines his destiny. Conversely, new and improved doesn't always mean that something is better. However, Modern astrology still has the edge over Traditional astrology.

Skillcoil said:

I have a few questions, how do traditionalists identify traits associated with Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto?

Click to expand...

That's a very good question. I am wholly traditional, but I entertain the modern ideas of the traits of the outer planets to some extent but utterly unconvinced when it comes to adhering "exaltations" to outer planets or abdicating the inner planets from their thrones (ex., saying Pluto is exalted in Leo, or saying Pluto is the only ruler of Scorpio making Mars emeritus).

In my chart I have Pluto conjunct the ascendant in Scorpio. I do feel there is a dark intensity to me without a doubt, but I also have Mars (ascendant ruler) conjunct the south node (which intensifies Mars) in the subdued, dark twelfth house. That would mirror what some people identify a first house Pluto as. How do we tell which is which? It's impossible--but Mars should be given credit first due to its proven tenure; that's only logical.

I have been very idealistic in love, which could possibly be a result of Moon opposite Neptune + Moon trine Venus + Venus sextile Neptune. However, it seems unreasonable to believe that Neptune is the only planet associated with idealism and being overly hopeful, this could also be a result of my Sun in Libra in 12th house (disposed by seventh ruler Venus) opposite Jupiter rx -- Jupiter precedes Neptune as a ruler of excessive idealism and being overly hopeful, in this case love.

That said there is a part of me that believes some of the modern lore, but also an increasingly skeptical side that believes in examining the inner planets also to see if they are indicating the same thing. What's for certain is that the traits of the outer planets should not be used so personally; in perceptions of time they operate exceptionally different than the inners and should be thus interpreted differently in relevance to the native. I have a theory that the outer planets could show tendencies of the native's family line; in any event it's certain they are more relevant to the collective than the individual (unless aspected by the inners).

I would like to hear others' opinions too. Too bad Kai doesn't contribute anymore, he'd have something interesting to say.

Thanks for the good question.

Olivia said:

I think you missed the first lesson in traditional astrology, Skill. You judge the planets, never the person. Traditional astrology is not about figuring out how good or evil someone is.

That gets knocked into your head about 13,000 times while you're learning.

But yes, sometimes you can see charts of murderers, dictators (assuming you work in mundane astrology), etc.

NOTE: This is not something you routinely come across in the normal course of events.

If you mean the horary that shows that some girl's boyfriend is married with six kids and has three other mistresses, while she keeps insisting how lovely he is - you got me. Maybe he is a nice guy, just misunderstood (yes, that's sarcasm).

Forbidden foods are foods that you can't eat on account of the religious cult you follow. For example, I'm Jewish, so I can't eat pork, shellfish, carrion birds, and some other things.

Click to expand...

I totally respect the Jewish dietary laws but isn't MAY NOT a bit more appropriate?
As a disciple of the Sanatan Dharm, I too am advised not to eat those same foods [and also beef]...but I love my bacon in the morning.
Shalom, Olivia.

RayAustin said:

That's a very good question. I am wholly traditional, but I entertain the modern ideas of the traits of the outer planets to some extent but utterly unconvinced when it comes to adhering "exaltations" to outer planets or abdicating the inner planets from their thrones (ex., saying Pluto is exalted in Leo, or saying Pluto is the only ruler of Scorpio making Mars emeritus).

In my chart I have Pluto conjunct the ascendant in Scorpio. I do feel there is a dark intensity to me without a doubt, but I also have Mars (ascendant ruler) conjunct the south node (which intensifies Mars) in the subdued, dark twelfth house. That would mirror what some people identify a first house Pluto as. How do we tell which is which? It's impossible--but Mars should be given credit first due to its proven tenure; that's only logical.

I have been very idealistic in love, which could possibly be a result of Moon opposite Neptune + Moon trine Venus + Venus sextile Neptune. However, it seems unreasonable to believe that Neptune is the only planet associated with idealism and being overly hopeful, this could also be a result of my Sun in Libra in 12th house (disposed by seventh ruler Venus) opposite Jupiter rx -- Jupiter precedes Neptune as a ruler of excessive idealism and being overly hopeful, in this case love.

That said there is a part of me that believes some of the modern lore, but also an increasingly skeptical side that believes in examining the inner planets also to see if they are indicating the same thing. What's for certain is that the traits of the outer planets should not be used so personally; in perceptions of time they operate exceptionally different than the inners and should be thus interpreted differently in relevance to the native. I have a theory that the outer planets could show tendencies of the native's family line; in any event it's certain they are more relevant to the collective than the individual (unless aspected by the inners).

I would like to hear others' opinions too. Too bad Kai doesn't contribute anymore, he'd have something interesting to say.

Thanks for the good question.

Click to expand...

.?. How exact a conj. is your Pluto/Asc?
As you may know, Ray, it was the key to my 'zeroing' in on the chart of Jesus/Yeshua [...whether you believe in that chart or not I'll bet my very soul on it. I tried and tried to get you all to understand...it is a 'TEMPLATE' of understanding...regardless of what 'Religion' one adheres to. Check out my latest revelation regarding Septiles and the Parts/Lots.]
The transits of Pluto in my life...it's natal placement conj. my M.C. and all Parts/Lots that are assigned to it have proven themselves repeatedly without fail...let me repeat... "WITH-OUT FAIL"....!!!
The same goes for Uranus and Neptune...but, Oh that Pluto!!!!
My brother mentioned to me in the 80s, when Pluto was in Scorpio, that Pluto transverses that sign quicker than any other...and pointed to a passage in the 'Old testament' that says; "...unless these times be short, no flesh would be spared..."...and look at all the diseases associated with Sex that arose in the 80s.!!!

[...and all you 'Trads'...you are sticking to a system that dates from a time when people believed the world to be flat....!?!?!?!?!?...and again...I utilize over 50% of Trad. technique... my I.Q. is 137 and my math and mechanical reasoning is in the 98-99th percentile...I graduated 33rd in a class of 750 students, so, please, don't call me un-educated or un-read...Pluuuuueeeze...]

dr. farr said:

For me its all about getting results (since my principal use of astrology is as an aid in finding remedies to enhance the health, ie, astro-therapeutics) I am not a scientific investigator looking for objective truth, or even reality! I want only positive outcomes, and methods/concepts/techniques which can reliably provide me with positive outcomes, and I really don't care where these come from. That's what makes me an Eclectic, not just in astrology but also in homeopathy and, indeed, in more esoteric pursuits. I do not knock those who are making scientific investigations or historical or philosophical/metaphysical investigations in astrology (or homeopathy or healing or the multitude of esoteric fields)-I give them great credit. And I find many of their discoveries and insights of much interest. But I only care to take from all sources (scientific or not) that which works FOR ME (works means reliably providing positive outcomes whether in analysis, prediction, or therapeutic directions)
If, say, I have been using a technique which works most of the time, and say I read that in a statistical analysis that technique performed no better than chance, I will STILL use that technique because FOR ME (in my hands) it reliably and consistently yields positive outcomes. Bluntly, if it ain't baloney FOR ME (in MY practice), then it ain't baloney! This is simply crude, blue collar pragmatism and utilitarianism-its not science and its not philosophy, and I don't pretend it is. All honor and glory to science, scientific method and philosophy: but in the final analysis I only want to use what works (reliably produces positive outcomes in practice) FOR ME-and I don't care if it works or fails in the hands of others. At the same time I don't pass these things (that work for me) off as truth or science or what others should do; here on AW I just share these things for those who might perhaps have a bit of interest in them....

Click to expand...

A big wahoo to you, Dr. Farr for another eminently sensible post.

It would be interesting to explore the possibility of astrology as an art form, because it gets more at the heart of the individuality, experience, and talent of the astrologer in making accurate readings as well as in using a more individualized set of techniques to produce them. Unless an artist is totally self-taught, s/he learns a lot of technique in art classes. But the artist's creation can be more individualistic, yet still meet acknowledged critical criteria for good art.

Olivia, I think you and Bob missed my point about Ptolemy predicting that people with a certain Saturn/Mars configuration would be temple robbers!

My point is that, today temple robbing is not at issue for anyone, so far as I know, and at least not in the West. Today educated people no longer stereotype national character holus bolus (Tetrabiblos II:3), and we no longer routinely dispose of unwanted children by letting them die through exposure (Tetr. III:9), as was common in the Roman empire. Ptolemy's techniques may be entirely accurate for an astrologer who faithfully applies them, but today we do not live in the same type of culture and society for which some of his predictive methods were intended. Others of Ptolemy's predictive methods should hold up just fine, because they do apply to contemporary concerns.

So let's suppose we did work through all of Ptolemy's techniques regarding Saturn/Mars in my birth chart, and the prediction held that I should be a temple-robber. What then? How does this apply today?

And just in case anyone is so tempted, I don't think it works to suggest that Ptolemy was merely being abstract or metaphorical about baby-killing or temple-robbing if one equally wishes to say he was entirely realistic and accurate on other points that relate better to society today.

Skillcoil, it is hard to say whether traditional astrology can grasp modern inventions that were not even imagineable centuries ago, but if traditional astrologers think that it can, I defer to them. Certainly many phenomena now given to the outer planets by modern astrologers have traditional rulers. A modern astrologer might look at both.

waybread said:

A big wahoo to you, Dr. Farr for another eminently sensible post.

It would be interesting to explore the possibility of astrology as an art form, because it gets more at the heart of the individuality, experience, and talent of the astrologer in making accurate readings as well as in using a more individualized set of techniques to produce them. Unless an artist is totally self-taught, s/he learns a lot of technique in art classes. But the artist's creation can be more individualistic, yet still meet acknowledged critical criteria for good art.

Olivia, I think you and Bob missed my point about Ptolemy predicting that people with a certain Saturn/Mars configuration would be temple robbers!

My point is that, today temple robbing is not at issue for anyone, so far as I know, and at least not in the West. Today educated people no longer stereotype national character holus bolus (Tetrabiblos II:3), and we no longer routinely dispose of unwanted children by letting them die through exposure (Tetr. III:9), as was common in the Roman empire. Ptolemy's techniques may be entirely accurate for an astrologer who faithfully applies them, but today we do not live in the same type of culture and society for which some of his predictive methods were intended. Others of Ptolemy's predictive methods should hold up just fine, because they do apply to contemporary concerns.

So let's suppose we did work through all of Ptolemy's techniques regarding Saturn/Mars in my birth chart, and the prediction held that I should be a temple-robber. What then? How does this apply today?

And just in case anyone is so tempted, I don't think it works to suggest that Ptolemy was merely being abstract or metaphorical about baby-killing or temple-robbing if one equally wishes to say he was entirely realistic and accurate on other points that relate better to society today.

Skillcoil, it is hard to say whether traditional astrology can grasp modern inventions that were not even imagineable centuries ago, but if traditional astrologers think that it can, I defer to them. Certainly many phenomena now given to the outer planets by modern astrologers have traditional rulers. A modern astrologer might look at both.

Click to expand...

There still are 'Temple robbers' my friend.
Churches are still being burglarized...ancient temples being excavated are, in all respects, being robbed. The rash of burglaries over the holiday where-in presents under the Christmas tree are stolen are 'Temple Robberies' in effect.

[and, remember, your 'Body' is a 'Temple' also...]

piercethevale said:

There still are 'Temple robbers' my friend.
Churches are still being burglarized...ancient temples being excavated are, in all respects, being robbed. The rash of burglaries over the holiday where-in presents under the Christmas tree are stolen are 'Temple Robberies' in effect.

[and, remember, your 'Body' is a 'Temple' also...]

Click to expand...

Not only that, her original point was about the fatalistic tone of traditional astrology. In any event Waybread's point is superfluous because the intelligent interpreter would shape traditional ascriptions to the modern times.

and we no longer routinely dispose of unwanted children by letting them die through exposure (Tetr. III:9),

Click to expand...

Abortion is abortion and people still get rid of unwanted children. [deleted attacking sentence - Moderator]

Hi Pierce, Pluto is conjunct the ascendant by one degree.

RayAustin said:

Hi Pierce, Pluto is conjunct the ascendant by one degree.

Click to expand...

wow...do you concur with what some say is granted by such a conjunction.
For example [my fav.] Sakoian and Ackers' description...or are you familiar with their writing?
[Curious...what degree is your Asc ...if I may ask?]

piercethevale said:

wow...do you concur with what some say is granted by such a conjunction.
For example [my fav.] Sakoian and Ackers' description...or are you familiar with their writing?
[Curious...what degree is your Asc ...if I may ask?]

Click to expand...

As I said in my post I do believe because I am fond of Pluto (and learning how it relates to the tree of life as Daath--a whole 'nother thread, I know!), however modern astrology's notions are still in their infancy, and as someone said which I agree with I accept it as a working hypothesis subject to change and evolve--we have only witnessed Pluto in seven signs! I'm just not convinced it's truth--the configuration of my Mars mirrors Pluto's effect. However, I still want to get a Pluto tattoo.

I do like the idea of representing the archetype of collective power in my image; I also definitely come off intimidating at times--but again, I have a pretty martian Mars with it being conjunct the south node so this doesn't necessarily mean it's Pluto's effect. Not too long ago I was convinced otherwise but re-examined my beliefs.

I have actually written up an article talking about Pluto's relevance to co-rulership with Scorpio with Mars. But it is more philosophical and exploring that belief--not necessarily believing it to be true myself.

ptv said:

or example [my fav.] Sakoian and Ackers' description...or are you familiar with their writing?
[Curious...what degree is your Asc ...if I may ask?]

Click to expand...

I haven't read their description but please, do tell.
The ascendant is at 8 degrees 16, and Pluto is at 9 degrees 05 which actually makes it conjunct by 49 minutes--pretty intense!