Is Pluto an astrological planet?

Dirius

Well-known member
Out of curiosity, following in this manner, do you also then not utilize the moons nodes or any lots/parts?

Also, in interpretation, do you specifically use interpretation as described by the particular tradition you've studied? Meaning, no modern modification?

Why wouldn't I use the hellenistic lots?, when most of the hermetic tradition employs them to a deep extent! The same with the nodes.

To answer your questions, yes I use them, but because both the parts and nodes have a logical meaning behind their use: the lots are points of reference regarding the individual aspects of life given by the self (ascendant) and the position of the planets, while the nodes are the favour granted by Selene (the moon), whose importance along with that of the Sun was much greater in the ancient days.

Like KnS said in his beautiful well-written post, the traits given to the outer planets are sort of cherry picked, and stolen from the other planets. They have no logical use.
 

Vista

Well-known member
This forum is for all styles of astrology including modern. Bullying and ganging up on members who are modern astrologers will not be allowed. If you cannot coexist without trying to push your opinion modern astrology is irrelevant, stick with posting inside your own subgroups.
 

StillOne

Well-known member
To explain further, there are a few philosophical issues that arise when using the outer planets. It's true that many more classically oriented astrologers use them, but they tend to regard them as fainter fixed stars, so their importance and abilities tend to be scaled back or ignored unless they are on an angle or conjunct some important planet.

Interesting, so in some cases they are used.
 
Last edited:

StillOne

Well-known member
Why wouldn't I use the hellenistic lots?, when most of the hermetic tradition employs them to a deep extent! The same with the nodes.

Oh, I just figured since they didn't reflect light... which I'm sure that Pluto does but we just can't see it from here.
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
Vista said:
This forum is for all styles of astrology including modern. Bullying and ganging up on members who are modern astrologers will not be allowed. If you cannot coexist without trying to push your opinion modern astrology is irrelevant, stick with posting inside your own subgroups.

This is a pretty heavy-handed moderator response. I don't think anyone is saying modern astrology is irrelevant (certainly no one is using that word), only explaining why the differences are there and answering Moor's questions about these philosophical splits.

Edit: But I do suppose we could continue this in another subgroup if you think it fits better there or think doing so would take away some of the perceived confrontational tone.

StillOne said:
Interesting, so in some cases they are used.

Yes, but it's important to distinguish the ways they are utilized. I see you're trying to equate them with the Lots. That's a good analogy, but probably not in the way you are thinking.

Using this light paradigm and its implicit dichotomy of active and passive agents, the Lots do not effect things, they are effected by things. What I mean here is that Lots do not cast aspects and they do not, themselves create signification. The health of a Lot is not determined by its placement (other than maybe its house), but by its relationship with the other planets and the placement of its dispositor. Lots are very, very similar to house cusps in this regard.

You could make a similar argument with the outer planets. They do not create or interact inherently or naturally, but only do so when acted upon by other active forces.
 
Last edited:

StillOne

Well-known member
Just fyi, dr. farr (11,000+ posts) comments regarding the outers:

... I consider the planet to represent a mixture of influences/significations, derived from the 7 planets (here my thinking is along the lines of Charles Carter)
-Uranus (for me) = Mercury+Mars, with some admixture of the Sun
-Neptune = Venus+Jupiter+Moon
-Pluto = Mars+Saturn, with more than a little admixture of the Sun
source: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75975
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
JupiterAsc,

I did not create this thread for you
however if you prefer I can close it down
given you were not interested in the title of this thread to begin with.

Let me know what you wish to do!

Vista
Thanks Vista,
wilsontc created this thread and amusingly titled it with a question I would never ask
However, that seems to have been an inspired thread title on the part of wilsontc
and a most appropriate one
because
there is now a useful discussion happening
its very interesting in fact
and I am happy for the thread to continue in its current form
if everyone else is as well
:smile:
 

Dirius

Well-known member
This forum is for all styles of astrology including modern. Bullying and ganging up on members who are modern astrologers will not be allowed. If you cannot coexist without trying to push your opinion modern astrology is irrelevant, stick with posting inside your own subgroups.

I do apologise if I sound a bit harsh or arrogant when I said "they have no logical use", wasn't my intention to offend/insult anyone here.

I was just trying to make the point that from classical astrological perspective they have no relevant meaning given the nature of their implementation in astrology, when compared to the 7 classical planets.

Anyways, I'm sorry if I sounded arrogant or cocky, wasn't my intention :happy:

But I must say we aren't really ganging up on them, we are just explaining our point of view.

We don't want to be hurtfull. But we want to be factual on astrological tradition, and to do that we have to express our view on how classical oppinion disregards those planets.

Now I must say that despite the fact that I agree we should be civil, its almost imposible to have an argument regarding a controversial subject that usually involves 2 factions (moderns VS traditionalists) without any sort of disagreement.

StillOne said:
Oh, I just figured since they didn't reflect light... which I'm sure that Pluto does but we just can't see it from here.

I think you are comparing 2 different things. The usage of the lots/parts is actually related to the planet whose sign they fall in. The part itself means nothing.

If, lets say, the part of marriage falls in Virgo, then its mercury the dispositor of such part, and thus mercury signifies (along with other things) the part of marriage. The part itself is sort of irrelevant, its just an indication :happy:ç

Anyways, sorry for this:

- Just wanted to apologise.
- Just wanted to say I didn't mean to offend, just explain my view
- Just wanted to answer that final question that was asked to me.
 
Last edited:

StillOne

Well-known member
I do apologise if I sound a bit harsh or arrogant when I said "they have no logical use", wasn't my intention to offend/insult anyone here.

No problem, I found what I was looking for. Seems they have logical use and astrological significance after all.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Just fyi, dr. farr (11,000+ posts) comments regarding the outers:

Quote:
... I consider the planet to represent a mixture of influences/significations,
derived from the 7 planets (here my thinking is along the lines of Charles Carter)
-Uranus (for me) = Mercury+Mars, with some admixture of the Sun
-Neptune = Venus+Jupiter+Moon
-Pluto = Mars+Saturn, with more than a little admixture of the Sun

source:
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75975
Thanks and here is dr. farr's comment
quoted in full,
including the one sentence left out
:smile:

I pay little attention to the "higher octave" theory re to the outer planets:

for me, when thinking about one of the outers "overall",

I consider the planet to represent a mixture of influences/significations, derived from the 7 planets (here my thinking is along the lines of Charles Carter)
-Uranus (for me) = Mercury+Mars, with some admixture of the Sun
-Neptune = Venus+Jupiter+Moon
-Pluto = Mars+Saturn, with more than a little admixture of the Sun
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
another quote from dr. farr on another thread
MODERN ASTROLOGY DIGNITIES AND DEBILITIES :smile:
at source:
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67385
Yes Paul correctly understood my perspective:

no, I do NOT consider Neptune, Uranus or Pluto to be dispositors ("rulers") of any sign

-but yes I do consider them to be affinitive to certain signs and dissonant with other signs:

for me, if X planet is in, say, Aquarius, then I consider SATURN to be dispositor of that planet,

PLUS I consider Uranus to have a relationship to that planet as well
(because of the affinity of Uranus with Aquarius),
but NOT at the same level (the level of dispositorship) that Saturn has.
 

dhundhun

Well-known member
There are people with normal vision, with color blindness, with 3D blindness, with total blindness.

Similarly in Astrology some people respond to many objects, some people to less objects and some people not at all.

It seems that Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and Chiron has made their place in Astrological Charts. Many people respond well to those points.

I tried seeing Ceres, Vesta, Juno, Eris, etc. in many charts. I don't find them yet useful.

Similarly I find people responding well to Par Fortuna. I tried several other Arabic Points. I did not people responding enough to those other points.

Hope these comments help. Try at least on few dozon charts before giving opinion. I have found so many people not responding at all to main planets including Jupiter, Sun, etc.

I myself don't respond to Jupiter, but respond well to Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Chiron and Par Fortuna. Despite inert Jupiter, I don't make comments like Jupiter is not a Planet - because I see it working in almost all other charts.
 
Last edited:

dhundhun

Well-known member
Those Astrologers, who observe carefully, for them PLANETS, STARS, ... are not limits.

Quite often, I find some important points in people's chart. Someone responding to a point, in a deterministic way. For example responded to Saturn, to Sun, to Jupiter. It is better to mark that point, irrespective any thing is there or not (planets, asteroids, stars, mid-points, Arabic points). That imaginary stuff is needed for prediction of that individual.

We don't consider so many things in astrology - for one example, nodes of moon are used (North Node, South Node). But we don't put Nodes of Mercury or Venus in Chart.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Oh, I just figured since they didn't reflect light...

which I'm sure that Pluto does

but we just can't see it from here.
The following quote has bolded comments
with reference to reflection of light
:smile:

source: ASTROLOGY AS SCIENCE http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65450&highlight=science

There are Sumerian texts from 7,000 years ago (circa 5,000 BCE) that talk about Planets ensnaring things in their "nets" and casting light and casting rays.

What does that mean? It means they were infinitely more intelligent than we are....this is the 21st Century, you have public education systems in nearly every State on Earth, and yet the vast majority of people don't even know that the formula for the Force of Gravity is...

F(g) = M1 * M2 / d^2

How would you explain Gravity to a child that is 4 years old?

"You know how you dip your net into the water to catch goldfish or tadpoles?"

"Yeah."

"Well, Gravity is just like your net, only you can't see Gravity."


It isn't until the late 1950s that our so-called "advanced civilization" figures out there really is a "net" and they call that "net" a "Gravity-well."

And so for science fiction shows for the next 20 years or so -- like the Original Star Trek -- you hear them saying things like: "Captain, we're going to get caught in the Planet's Gravity-well."

If you get stuck in Earth's Gravity-well, you need to be moving at a speed of 17,500 Miles Per Hour to escape the net...and no, I don't know what that is in Kilometers Per Hour (and don't care).

In the Arabic, Farsi, and Latin texts, you see the phrase "[Saturn]...hurling its rays at...."

That's real....it really happens....and that is science.

In reality, the Sun is the only celestial body that actually casts light;

the Moon and Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn reflect light...

....that's why we can see them.

Light is electromagnetic radiation.


In the middle of the electromagnetic radiation band are the colors....to the right of the blues, you have violet, then ultra-violet (UV), then X-Rays, then Gamma Rays.

To the left of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum, you have your yellows, oranges, reds and then infrared (IR), microwaves, radar, VHF/UHF, short wave radio, AM and FM radio bands.

Your eyes have evolved to allow you to see select frequencies in the electromagnetic radiation spectrum which are the colors.

An object absorbs frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, but reflects certain frequencies back at you, and that is what you are seeing....the reflected frequencies -- the color --- the specific wavelengths in the electromagnetic radiation band.

Asteroids do not reflect light,
therefore, logically, rationally, scientifically,
asteroids have no impact or affect on you.
Likewise, the Outer Planets -- Uranus, Neptune and Pluto do not reflect light,
and they have no affect on you individually
and there is no possible way using math or science to justify that they do.



In addition to reflecting light, the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn also hurl rays
(although the Sun really does cast Ultra-Violet Rays, X-Rays and Gamma Rays).

Space is not "empty."
Space is filled with particles -- electromagnetic radiation -- from the Sun.



As the Planets move through Space, their mass, their orbital velocity (speed)
and their exact chemical/elemental make-up
creates something called the magnetosphere.

The magnetosphere reflects (some but not all) electromagnetic radiation away from it.



The magnetosphere on each of the Planets is "tuned"
to attenuate certain frequencies in the electromagnetic radiation spectrum.
The Earth's magnetosphere does a great job of screening out Gamma rays,
a decent job of screening out X-Rays,
a mediocre job of screening out UV rays
and then a really bad job of screening out everything from the colors through microwave, radar and the radio bands.




But, then....we already knew that, didn't we?


If the Earth's magnetosphere filtered out electromagnet frequencies in the color band,
then we wouldn't see anything outside of Earth,
and if it screened out frequencies in the radio band,
we would not be able to communicate with our satellites and probes.

Anyway, the magnetospheres of the Planets reflect certain frequencies at certain rates to Earth....

...and that is scientific fact, not speculation.



Since the advent of radio in the early 20th Century,
it has been known that radio are affected by other forms of electromagnetic radiation.
The primary cause is ionized particles in the Earth's stratosphere and mesosphere.
The region in the stratosphere and mesosphere that is heavily ionized is known as the "ionosphere."

These ionized particles severely degrade the performance of microwave, radar, VHF, UHF, Short Wave and AM radio signals,
and diminish the performance of FM radio signals.


This degrading of performance caused a lot of angst in the US Army, Air Force and Navy,
and also with companies involved in radio communications, like Motorola.

It was noted that certain alignments of Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn
could either neutralize the effects of the ionosphere, or amplify the effects.
Scientific studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific and engineering journals
showed that Planets in sextile marginally improve radio performance;
in trine they strongly improve performance;
in square they strongly hamper performance,
and in opposition they severely impede performance;
and that Planets in conjunction could harm or help.



What is the Doctrine of Aspects in Traditional Astrology?

Sextiles indicate weak friendship
Trines show strong friendship
Squares show enmity
Oppositions conflict
Conjunctions can be helpful or harmful

Well, there you go....scientific proof that people knew more about the world around them 7,000 years ago than they do now.


Anyway, asteroids do not have sufficient mass and/or speed to generate magnetopheres,
which is the other reason we ignore them,
and while Uranus and Pluto generate magnetospheres
(no verification yet on whether Pluto does),
they are nothing like the size of magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn,
and their vast distance from Earth precludes the possibility that the Outer Planets can affect individuals...

...F(g) = M1 * M2 / d^2

Good luck with that.


.....So, there you go.

 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Those Astrologers, who observe carefully, for them PLANETS, STARS, ... are not limits.

Quite often, I find some important points in people's chart. Someone responding to a point, in a deterministic way. For example responded to Saturn, to Sun, to Jupiter. It is better to mark that point, irrespective any thing is there or not (planets, asteroids, stars, mid-points, Arabic points). That imaginary stuff is needed for prediction of that individual.

We don't consider so many things in astrology
- for one example, nodes of moon are used (North Node, South Node).

But we don't put Nodes of Mercury or Venus in Chart.
That's not quite accurate because the Jeffrey Wolf Green School of Astrology http://schoolofevolutionaryastrology.com/forum/index.php?topic=342.0
DOES use the Nodes of Venus for natal delineation :smile:
 

Dirius

Well-known member
We don't consider so many things in astrology - for one example, nodes of moon are used (North Node, South Node). But we don't put Nodes of Mercury or Venus in Chart.

Of course, but there is indeed an explanation to why we use the moon's nodes, and not the others:

The moon is the fastest planet, moves around each sign in the period of (more or less) 1 month. It is also the 2nd brigthest object in the sky (after the sun). It is considered, along with the sun, the "royal couple", the queen of the astrological practice.

Also the role of the moon, in ancient tradition, is much larger than the one the other planets have. For example:

- The moon is used as its own system of prediction with its progressions.
- The moon is a candidate to be the ruler of a chart (along with the sun).
- The moon is a candidate to be alcachoden/anareta.
- In horary, its used as co-signifier/ruler of time.
- And of course, ruler of Cancer.

And many other things that, by the course of tradition, are given to the moon. Its unusual speed, its different shapes, etc, make the moon one of the 2 most important factors in astrology.

Now the usage of the nodes of the moon, and not those of other planets, comes from the importance given to the moon in astrology, not "just because". The nodes of the moon are taken (in a way) as a factor regarding the good disposition of the moon regarding a certain chart.

So, in a way, the lunar nodes are used, given the importance of the moon in astrology. The reason other planets nodes aren't used, is because they don't carry such significance.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Certainly the vast majority of astrologers do not use the Nodes of Venus
but some do
so
as is not unusual in the world of astrology
there are differences of opinion and method
:smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
As an example
the following are the 'Planetary Nodes For Everyone'

as illustrated on the webpage of evolutionary astrologer Linda Johnson :smile:
source:
https://kimfalconer.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/planetary-nodes-revealed/

planetary-nodes-for-everyone-please-use-this-one1.jpg
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Certainly the vast majority of astrologers do not use the Nodes of Venus
but some do
so
as is not unusual in the world of astrology
there are differences of opinion and method
:smile:

Of course I agree.

In my opinion, the nodes of the Moon are given presedence, because the moon itself is given presedence over other planets. And that is for classics, medieval, modern, hellenistic, vedic astrology :lol::lol:

I want to be clear on this, that I'm not trying to demean dhundhun's opinion, just giving my point of view, because I think I did sound a bit like a "jerk" in an earlier post, and I don't want to look like that lol---
 
Last edited:

Vista

Well-known member
Dirius, Kai, and Kaiousei no Senshi,

My apologies, my post came out more stern than I intended.

The issues surrounding traditional versus modern astrologers on "this" forum have been brewing for awhile. We moderators have had quite a number of complaints from the modern forum members feeling gained up on from the traditionalists. In fact, we have lost 4 modern astrologers already, very experienced one's I might add, because they got worn out trying to defend their use of modern astrology(including outer planets). I think we all can agree there are mostly newbies on the forum with a handful of experienced astrologers left. When you continuously try and devalue or discredit the use of outer planets, it does not allow the new astrologers to develop their own technique because as experienced astrologers you will have influenced their opinion. What's more, it's quite disrespectful. I respect Traditional astrology very much but I am a modern astrologer and quite happy with it. Do I think traditional astrology is valuable, of course it worked for a couple thousand years but it doesn't mean modern astrology is not worthy or accurate. Whether Pluto is a planet, asteroid, or a piece of Kryptonite, I find it to be powerful and have the ability to cause an event. It's just my opinion just as you all believe the outer planets have no use or dignity. Even Robert Hand who is mostly a traditional astrologer still uses outer planets in his readings. :)

I am just please asking you all outside your own traditionalist forums to be aware of not trying to devalue the use of modern astrology to our newbies. Thank you!
Vista
 
Last edited:
Top