Deb wrote:

I didn't just grab a quote from Kim Farnell's article Mark, informative as it is. As the notice at the top of that article explains, it arose as a result of a forum discussion which started here in 2003. That thread, available here, is where I discussed Raphael's comments, based on my reading of his book, together with associations made by a variety of 19th century astrologers. See my post dated 17 Dec 2003, and several others that follow. That thread has a lot of valuable info in it, re the background to assignation of outer planets to signs, and its representaion in the 19th century. It motivated several of us, Kim especially, to delve deeper into historical views. I assumed you were already aware of it.

Thanks. No I dont recall seeing this thread before. I will look forward to reading it. Its very old and seems to date from a few months after Skyscript started. I didn't join until Sept 2005 myself.

Sorry if your quote was from your own research. Its just the quote you gave is completely identical to the quote Kim Farnell gives from Raphael. So I do think it was a completely understandable conclusion to reach in the circumstances.

Deb wrote:

I don't recognise the view you hold, that they had a notion that Uranus operates like Saturn astrologically.

That isn't my view at all Deb. I was countering what seemed to be your opinion (expressed above) that Uranus had a similar quality to Saturn of being cold +dry.

You state above:

For example, Raphael?s Manual of Astrology (1828) describes Uranus as being an unfortunate planet because it is "extremely frigid, cold, dry and devoid of any cheering influence". That makes sense to me, in terms of the notion of separation that Uranus represents.

When you have time I would appreciate a response to some of the other points I raised in my last post to you. I think they are quite important in clarifying your position here.

Thanks

Mark

PS Just looked at the old thread and see I posted something in 2011 there! I dont remember the post or thread now. I guess that is what can happen to you after a few thousand posts here.

PPS Just noticed Curtis Manwaring wrote in the old thread from late 2011 that he sees Uranus having some association with Aries. Paul also suggests a Uranian affinity with Aries in Nov 2011. There is clearly nothing new under the Sun!

(continued)

Mark, just finally to conclude (wow!) on your long post to me on page 8-- I had gotten to the point near the end where you develop your meta-narrative. It would be helpful if you could say more about it, because your up-front arguments about Uranus and Aries apparently evolve from it and a metaphysical (mystical?) view of the sun, but I don't have a clear picture of your foundations.

Re: nous, it would be helpful if you could specify what you mean here, as the concept has a long philosophical history, and it didn't mean the same thing throughout its career. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous
With some philosophers it simply meant the human intellect or thought processes; with others, a transcendant cosmic mind from which the human one followed, for example.

What do you mean, then, by "transcendant mind"? (Again, I will read your Schmidt reference if it is on-line.)

Mark, I realize that the sun is in detriment in Aquarius today, and has been for ages. But I argued above:

(1) Whatever we want to say about the astrological sun today, it is a non-sequitur to conclude that Uranus therefore has no particular strength in Aquarius. I've given all kinds of reasons above. I don't think my critiques conclusively demonstrate that Uranus-in-Aquarius is thereby the Last Man Standing, but I have amply critiqued the arguments against it.

At some point, if you would analyze my horoscope examples posted above (Buzz Aldrin, Albert Einstein, &c) my Aquarius-Uranus affiliation will become much more clear.

(2) Of course, the sun is in detriment in Aquarius in traditional astrology today, and probably has been for centuries. My argument was more nuanced: that if traditional astrologers are looking for ways to incorporate Uranus into their traditional methodologies, they do have a Hellenistic precedent for not concerning themselves with three of the most important essential dignities/debilities: detriment, exaltation, and fall.

Ptolemy did view fall by sign (and Antiochus, according to Deb's post) but some of the Hellenistic astrologers didn't (cf. my example of Ausgustus Caesar's horoscope, above: an example that predates Hellenistic astrology textbooks.) Several other Hellenistic astrologers restricted exaltation and fall to one degree only per sign. Then several signs have no exaltations or falls associated with them, so we do not need one per customer today.

As I have posted several times, I do not specifically link Aquarius to the sun, and that my sustantiation thereof appears in several of my previous posts. And really, Mark, aren't you making the argument that the sun rules Leo and is in detriment in Aquarius, therefore Uranus cannot rule (or be closely affiliated, &c) with Aquarius? This is a non-sequitur.

Sun-Saturn principles are opposed in Hellenistic astrology, also. It does not thereby follow that Uranus does not belong with Aquarius, for reasons that I have demonstrated in several previous posts.

We do not have to "reconcile the opposing planetary principles of Saturn and the Sun" so far as Uranus-Aquarius are concerned! This is an apples & oranges argument. To take a parallel example, Mars rules signs that are very different by nature (Aries & Scorpio, cardinal fire, fixed water) and is in detriment in signs that are very different in nature (Libra and Taurus, cardinal air and fixed earth.) If Uranus does not equal the sun, and as intellect is not the sun's defining character trait, then you can put Uranus in Aquarius, no problem.

I do not reject planet-to-planet associations altogether (as per my previous posts.) I do not see them as a substantial basis for arguing for Uranus being a better match with Aries and Aquarius.

The Big Question is how one goes about reasoning from traditional planet-planet or planet-sign relationships to consider a non-traditional planet. Syllogisms have a lot of logical power-- but only if their underlying premises are sound. If they over-generalize, or overlook salient facts, then we end up with "white swans" all around, instead of recognizing that colour isn't the distinguishing feature of the swan genus.

It just occured to me this afternoon that card games are an analogy for astrology. Some games like bridge do not allow the use of jokers as wild cards. The parallel with bridge would be a conservative interpretation of traditional astrology. Other games, like canasta, do allow jokers; and in fact the jokers can be very helpful in winning a hand. But even so, the jokers in a deck of cards do not belong to one of the four suits. So we can't argue that a joker is really like a spade, or that because a joker is sort of like a club, we cannot make up a "wild" canasta that combines a joker with hearts and diamonds.

Why not view the modern outers like the jokers in the deck? If one doesn't wish to play cards with them, no problem. If one wishes to include them, just acknowledge that they do not fit into any of the regular suits.

Come to think of it, the jokers in the deck are a good analogy for Uranus.

Mark wrote:I would appreciate a response to some of the other points I raised in my last post to you. I think they are quite important in clarifying your position here.

Mark you may have missed the additions to the post I made earlier. I think I have responded to all points for which a response is necessary. Looks like you've made wrong assumptions on the position I hold - for clarification of my position, just re-read what I've already written, without any assumption that I mean anything different to what I actually say

Mark wrote:
PS Just looked at the old thread and see I posted something in 2011 there! I dont remember the post or thread now. I guess that is what can happen to you after a few thousand posts here.

PPS Just noticed Curtis Manwaring wrote in the old thread from late 2011 that he sees Uranus having some association with Aries. Paul also suggests a Uranian affinity with Aries in Nov 2011. There is clearly nothing new under the Sun!

from my mon feb 17th post directed to you specifically and pointing out that paul and curtis along with you had talked about this before.. oh well. i guess stuff i write gets passed as it isn't all that significant to the main conversation!

james_m wrote:

Mark wrote: Repeating myself? Well I don't think my views on traditional vs modern rulerships have changed. However, I don?t think I have ever discussed Uranus on Skyscript in any detail before.

here is the link i read that i was referring to. see comments on page 3 and on - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=30

Mark wrote: The pivotal issue is deciding on the nature of Uranus and the other outer planets. Its good we have got down to that here whatever our take on this.

Yes, and if some folks lens on Uranus is similar to Mars and the Sun then it might follow they associate it with Aries and/or Leo.

Interesting 'curveball' Therese provided on page 1 of this thread:

I refer to the Edgar Cayce readings as my primary source of outer planet meanings. Cayce's words on the outers are quite simple:

Uranus: extreme mood swings, moody and changeable, can be prone to depression; interest in occult subjects (including astrology!) Intuition: picking up "vibrations" underneath the actions and words of others.

So would Cayce, or did he, claim Uranus ruled or was associated with Cancer, Capricorn, ... and you tell me.

James_M wrote:

from my mon feb 17th post directed to you specifically and pointing out that paul and curtis along with you had talked about this before.. oh well. i guess stuff i write gets passed as it isn't all that significant to the main conversation!

Ok.I never personally discussed those topics in that old thread though. It clearly wasn't something that registered with me at all then.

After nearly 140 posts on this thread (gulp) I guess I haven't read every comment by every poster here in fine detail. So I have probably missed a lot of useful comments. At times I have got rather caught up in the fast flow of this thread. And yes sometimes I do find your style of posting a bit hard to follow. That probably says more about me than about you though.

Mark

Deb, just to touch on some of your points, starting with your long post on page 9. You know all this better than I do, but hopefully the following ties in with Mark's project.

Astrology as the practical business of chart-reading for people has an interesting and sometimes uneasy relationship with its more metaphysical side.

I checked on that passage from Firmicus Maternus you cited (I.10.15, Braun translation, who footnotes it) and it raises some interesting questions with the religious underpinnings of Hellenistic astrology, which a purely rationalist explanation overlooks. FM does a microcosm/macrocosm connection with his thema mundi, which he perceives as a religious secret.

At the time that FM wrote Matheseos Libri VIII he was a practising pagan, prior to his later conversion to Christianity. He argues that astrology increases reverence to the gods, by which he seems to mean those ruling the planets-- or even the planets as gods. In II.30.2, he refers to the luminaries as gods, but says in II.30.5 that the Roman emperor was a higher god than these, subject only to the "highest god." So possibly we have to take his sun as "mind of the universe" comment in that context.

4.preface.3, FM refers to a god higher than the planets who symbolizes Divine Mind. Among His stars, the sun has a pre-eminent position.

The god Hermes/Mercury doesn't come in here, but a Greek or Latin author of late Antiquity would have been fully aware of more esoteric meanings of Mercury. Also Ouranos/Uranus wasn't just a deposed father in a gruesome castration myth, but stood for the starry heavens themselves, who was capable of divine mind and prophetic attributes himself.

"Kronos, according to tradition, is the son of Ouranos (Heaven); but the upward gaze is rightly called by the name heavenly (ourania), looking at the things above (hor? ta an?), and the astronomers say, ... that from this looking people acquire a pure mind, and Ouranos is correctly named." (attributed to Plato, http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Ouranos.html )

I point this out only so that someone looking at the sun as "mind of the universe" could be encouraged to explore further the cultural context in which such statements were made. They are sometimes contradictory, probably due to compilation of different sources; or sometimes giving only a partial picture of a larger belief system.

Surely we can grasp the principle of the sun and moon being opposed to the principle of Saturn without seeing it as an argument contrary to the planet Uranus (which is astronomically "darker" than Saturn) as the modern ruler or affiliate of Aquarius.

I recognize the detriment (by whatever name) and exaltation/fall by entire sign have been important to traditional astrology for a long time. My point was only that someone who wanted to tie Uranus into a traditional framework would find some Hellenistic precedents for ignoring detriment, exaltation, or fall for this planet.

Of, course I know that several other signs besides Aquarius have no planets in exaltation or fall. I mentioned Aquarius in the context of its association with Uranus, which didn't seem to relate to Gemini, Leo, or Sagittarius so I didn't see the need to mention them.

However traditional astrologers might classify Uranus by temperature and moisture, it probably would not affect modern astrologers, simply because these characteristics are little used in modern astrology, so far as I know. I think postulating a Uranus-sign affiliation other than Aquarius would puzzle if not reactivate them, however, because they would see Uranus working very well as the modern ruler of Aquarius, as it has for the past 50 years or so.

I appreciate the "blood-red" clarification--a minor point, thought, surely. Have you (or anyone else here?) ever seen a "blood-red" planet? I did just once, recently, when Mercury was following the sun past the western horizon, through a very hazy, back-lit dusk. The brownish color of the atmosphere indeed converted Mercury into a seriously red colour.

I mention this because some people think that because Mars is the "red planet" it logically rules bloodshed and warfare. Actually it isn't a "red" planet: it rules bloodshed and warfare because this was the nature of the god for whom the planet was named.

In your next post, I concur with the term "trans-personal" as you've defined it. I am less likely to use it though, because in a natal chart, if someone has a modern outer planet in a hard aspect to his sun, with a narrow orb, it is going to get very personal, indeed. Feeling oneself as outside the accepted norm has a very personal impact on the individual.

And sometimes such people are not trend-setters. The Uranian misfit may simply be the rebel without a cause, or the girl who unsuccessfully tries to fit in with the "mean girl" clique is not the trend-setter. Stressed-out Uranian types can live with a lot of inner tension: sort of like having an invisible electric fence turned on most of the time.

I would never take you as "discriminating against modern-thinking!" Thanks for letting us participate in your forum.

Re: your 3rd post to me, on the Ptolemy passage. The subtext is what Ptolemy's environment was like when the sun is domiciled in Leo (late July-August, but also true of the Cancer month today if we allow for precession since his day.) In a Mediterranean or marginal desert climate in the northern hemisphere, the persistent hot, dry weather gets "destructive" indeed. Vegetation turns brown and may even disappear, for example. Crops require irrigation to survive. (Cf. Mr. Pt's climatic description of Leo in 2:11.) In I.4 he mentions the sun's seasonal changes, and that the closer the sun gets to the zenith, the hotter and drier it feels. (Cf. Noel Coward's song about "Mad dogs and Englishmen.")

So just as we do not want to glorify Uranus and ignore its destructive aspects, I suggest that we equally not equate the sun only with creativity or the higher mind, because climatically speaking, the hot sun can have an extremely destructive impact, as well.

[Waybread: reading this back, sorry if I sound curt, my time is short today]

Re Firmicus.
In regard to his supposed Pagan-Christian conversion, this was an assumption some scholars made, based on the belief that by subsequently composing his treatise on The Error of the Pagan Religions, Firmicus must have abandoned his earlier astrological interest. It has now been disputed, with the recognition that there is nothing essentially incompatible between his two works (Firmicus was a Stoic, opposed to worship and sacrifice made to Pagan gods and the religious influences he ascribes to the Persians).

His reference to the Sun as the Mind and Moderator of the Universe conveys metaphysical principles as you suggest, but I am not sure what you think he is really trying to say, if your argument is that he is not making the same association between the Sun and the Divine Mind that we see made by Valens. It would take a few thousand words for me to express my understanding of how medieval philosophers associated the transmission of light from the Sun to each of the planets with the transmission of Cosmic Will/Intelligence throughout the planetary scheme. I'll move on, because your point seems to be:

Surely we can grasp the principle of the sun and moon being opposed to the principle of Saturn without seeing it as an argument contrary to the planet Uranus (which is astronomically "darker" than Saturn) as the modern ruler or affiliate of Aquarius.

I've neither made that argument, nor felt any urge to promote it or reject it. It doesn't seem to have had any impact on the reason Uranus was associated with Aquarius to begin with. My argument is simply that we don't need to give the outer planets rulership over any sign, for the sake of giving them something to do. The more people keep wanting to mess about with the dignity scheme, the more I sigh.

Yes, the blood-red clarification was a minor point, which is why I passed over this, and some other points you made that I disagreed with, until I noticed that you brought this one up several times.

Waybread wrote:I mention this because some people think that because Mars is the "red planet" it logically rules bloodshed and warfare. Actually it isn't a "red" planet: it rules bloodshed and warfare because this was the nature of the god for whom the planet was named.

My description of its light as red is based on this being self-evident to anyone who looks at it in the sky. Since I can't substantiate the experience of my own eyes, I refer you to Nick Kollerstrom:

Iron makes up about 5% of the crust, being the only one which has built itself solidly into the substance of the earth.
Reddish-looking soil means that iron is present, and, for the same reason, Mars is red.

Kollerstrom's article is worth reading for a fuller discussion of how the physical and the astrological are interconnected.

Re Ptolemy's passage, you seem to want to use Ptolemy's words to support an argument that he did not make - that the Sun is destructive in Leo, its own sign of dignity. I have not seen anyone make the claim that the Sun is only about creativity or the higher mind, but most certainly, it is essentially about creativity; and not destruction, which you seem to overly stress IMO, perhaps in eagerness to reject an argument that has no legs to it anyway. Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[A general point, not specifically addressed to Waybread]
This morning I re-read the whole of the old forum discussion on "Assignation of outer planet rulerships". I can understand why Mark would have commented in that without being aware of the earlier posts (hence his lack of memory). The thread is very old, initiated in 2003, but the additions by later posters happened some years later, when the thread was reactivated and a poster admitted he hadn't read the earlier posts. I doubt that Mark did either, which is not surprising,but a shame because the earlier posts are loaded with valuable information.
I strongly recommend that anyone interested in the arguments being made here take the time to read that thread from the beginning. There is lots of information about what really happened, and what kind of thinking played into the assignation of Uranus to Aquarius. It also shows the skyscript forum at its best - being used collaboratively to aid research and better understanding of points that are not easily accessible in mainstream literature. It is here

Hello Nixx,

Uranus via Cayce...

In Uranus we find the extremes. Thus the entity in spiritual, in mental and in material things finds periods when it is as to the mountain tops and again in the depths of despair. [3706-2]

From the Uranian influences we find the extremist, and these tendencies we find will develop especially through the early teenage years, when there will be moods and the tendency for wonderments... These (influences) make for also the intuitive influences and the abilities for the development in the very psychic forces of the entity. [1206-3]

(The entity) is not only a Uranian but an Atlantean, and the combination will be something to deal with! as to temper, as to having its own way; for it will have its way, irrespective, for the first fourteen years... As for the aspects in the Uranian influence, we find the extremes. The entity will be at times very beautiful in character--at other (times) very ugly; very beautiful in body and mind--at others the other extreme... Do not break the will of the body in correcting same, --rather give the lesson by precept and example. [1958-1]

In those in Uranian makes for these extremes in the likes and dislikes. [2111-1]

In Uranus, we will find the extremes indicated--even in the temperaments of a very demure, meek entity; and then one almost wild at times in its determination for its own way; and it knows what it wants and not any questions!! [1566-3]

Also in Uranus we find the abilities in directions pertaining to the study of astrological influences or associations, but especially as related to the analyzing of emotions. [1595-1]

The tendencies from Uranus towards the occult and the mystic forces; as visions, hearing, seeing and knowing without having the physical contact and experiences in the mental body. [361-4]

I am falling behind on Waybread's numerous recent posts here.

However, rather than than rushing to reply to her I think I will take some time out from this thread to give myself more time to reflect and think through this topic more.

I also have some pressing demands on my time that will take me away from this thread for a while.

More fundamentally though this is a philosophy thread. The thread has grown very large, very fast to become the largest thread (post wise) ever on the philosophy forum. Its good to see all the interest and passion this topic has elicited. Ultimately, though a good philosophical discussion is more about the quality of the interaction than the quantity. I dont really see this as a debate to be won or lost but rather a personal exercise in astrological logic.

I never opened this thread pretending to have all the answers. It was intended to challenge some common assumptions and explore some new ideas. I have enjoyed the dialectic here and the different views that have been shared. However, the problem with this kind of environment is that you can readily feel compelled to defend an initially tentative position you have adopted. Before long you find yourself with a whole superstructure of a theory to defend. I am concerned that in the process of rapid debate and dialectic here I am at risk of prematurely painting myself into a corner with no room for manoeuvre.

This rather conflicts with my personal motto which is 'always reserve the right to change your mind'.

What is clear to me now is that the original starting point of this thread thread was , as Deb has suggested, something of a red herring. From a traditional perspective Uranus has no essential dignity in any of the 12 signs. The key issue is how we define the nature of Uranus. From that we might or might not choose to follow up Brady's idea of association or affinity with a particular sign without any implication of rulership. However, if we cannot agree on the nature of this planet such sign associations seem totallly irrelevant. Moreover, as any such alleged sign association inevitably fits outside any essential dignity system it is going to be peripheral at best to most traditional astrologers. Curtis Manwaring suggests that since there are numerous forms of dignity for the traditional planets (domicile, exaltation, triplicity, bound/term and face/decan) we might consider such an association as a possibility for the outer planets. Its remains unclear though if such an idea really has any practical benefit at this point.

I think I realised things were going a bit too far for me when Waybread asked me to produce my 'meta-theory' in one of her recent posts. Let me make clear at this stage I dont have some kind of epic 'meta-theory'. I am not sure I want one either since once you start adopting totally fixed positions like that you stop enquiring and thinking. I dont feel I have spent long enough on this subject to reach definitive closed conclusions. The only thing I am absolutely clear on at this stage is that I remain unconvinced by the core belief of modern astrology that Uranus and Aquarius are inextricably linked together.

However, ultimately, this isn't a life or death issue for me. Since Uranus is not a sign ruler in my approach to astrology the fact that it might be associated differently doesn't radically change my attitude to this planet. I can readily understand why this feels much more of a direct challenge to the beliefs of those who see Uranus as the sole or joint sign ruler of Aquarius.

Still, I do feel I need to do the modern approach to this subject some justice by at least reading more widely on it. Hence, I have ordered the Richard Tarnas and Liz Greene books on Uranus cited above.

For now I will leave you with a little fable by the Indian spiritual teacher Krishnamurti that sums up my current thinking:

You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?" "He picked up a piece of the truth," said the devil. "That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend. "Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to help him organize it." Krishnamurti

Mark

This thread has become too long and complex to adequately review. However, Atlantean, I'm happy to see Cayce's quotes here about Uranus. I tend to agree with some traditionalists that much of what has been attributed to Uranus belongs to traditional planets. Revolutions, for example, are not new.

I've been pulling up groups of charts in AstroDatabank4 with Uranus in various prominent postions, but no discernable pattern has emerged...EXCEPT a large number of tragedies including SIDS when Uranus is above the ascendant within 5 degrees. The fact that the aspects of Uranus to planets show no significant pattern reaffirms my belief that Uranian energies are primarily internal as Cayce described. (Yes, I'm now reading Prometheus the Awakener after seeing the reference on this thread.)

As I see it, the zodiac question is the elephant in the room when attempting to relate the mythology of the gods to signs. I had forgotten that I had posted the relationship of the Uranian myth to (sidereal) Aquiarius on my web site. I plan to post additional notes on this on the sidereal forum (Topic: The outer planets and the zodiac), but for now here are a few paragraphs from my article, slightly modified:

Aquarius and the Uranian Myth
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/AquariusLZ.htm

Astrologers have rather solidly placed Uranus with Aquarius, even though in the tropical zodiac this is something of a mismatch. To understand Uranus as it relates to the zodiac, we have to review mythology. Uranus is actually the oldest of the gods assigned to the zodiac, as Gaia (Mother Earth) was the first to emerge from Chaos, and it was she who brought forth Uranus, the starry sky. This makes Uranus the most remote of all the gods, and this can apply as well to sidereal Aquarius, which (as the sky area of tropical Pisces) is a little understood sign. Isabelle Pagan, a tropical astrologer (From Pioneer to Poet) describes Uranus well:

...The impression left upon the mind of the student after meditating on the myths...is of something remote, far-off, immeasurable, vast, indescribable and undefinable.

This sign (as tropical Pisces) has been poorly understood and has been called the victim or martyr. Why is this when the traditional lord of Pisces, Jupiter, the ruler of all the gods with supreme power was never anyone's victim? The myths of Uranus and Cronus (later Saturn) much better relate to victimization. With Uranus Gaia bore the Titans, Cyclops and Cronus. However, Uranus hated his children and refused to let them see the light. Thus, he pushed them back into the lap of Gaia.

However, with a sickle given to him by Gaia, Cronus castrated Uranus and destroyed his power of generation. Cronus took over the role of leadership. The myth of Uranus at least partly explains why the planet has been associated with unexpected disasters, tragedies and sudden events. There is also the suggestion that since Uranus is the most remote of all the planetary gods, this energy may relate to deeper psychic and spiritual forces or realms only now beginning to be recognized....
End Quote

Since everybody's time is short here, I don't expect a detailed reply on this one. Possibly misunderstandings arise from quick readings -- I don't feel quite "gotten" on some of my points, but no matter!

Mark, just to cut to the chase on your reasoning with your planet-pairs, if you read my summary of syllogisms, you will see where my major point of difference lies. Syllogism seems to be your principal rhetorical strategy, but I don't think it supports your position.

Have you got an on-line reference for Schmidt on the metaphysical sun? If you didn't have an underlying philosophical basis for your comments about the sun, has he got one?

Next, re: the concept of the sun as divine consciousness, such that this affects how one interprets the Uranus-Aquarius connection.

Deb: My point about Firmicus Maternus's cosmology did not relate to his subsequent conversion to Christianity, although he clearly envisioned a supreme deity very similar to the Christian God in his Matheseos Libri VIII.

Both FM and Valens were real compilers. Some of their statements on a given topic (like the sun and divine consciousness) seem contradictory, so it is best to take them as a body. Oftentimes compilers let contradictions amongst their sources simply stand as a conservative editorial strategy, or sometimes they probably saw connections between disparate facts but didn't explain them.

As best as I can make out from the passages I cited above, FM's cosmological heirarchy is: God > Roman Emperor > Sun (variously defined) > other planets. The planets are also described as gods, or at least as under their immediate tutelage. So we need to be careful in how much we claim for the sun based upon this source. (I could go through the others this way, but we'd all fall over sideways. )

I restrict my comments to the ancient period. I defer to your knowledge of subsequent medieval writers, but based on my generic knowledge of Christianity, wouldn't they be saying that divine consciousness does not reside intrinsicially within in a particular planet, but is sourced from the Creator God? Of course, the sun is a lot more "creative" and less "destructive" in temperate latitudes.

My whole point about the colour of Mars is to stress that originally astrology was not based upon planetary appearances or their position in the solar system, but on the characteristics of the gods whom the planets symbolized, generally since the days of the Sumerians.

Modern astronomy does add new insights to our understandings of the planets today, but these were unavailable to astrologers for most of our history. Mars still isn't bright red, but the reddish-brown of the American southwestern sandstone deserts. We have to go back to the gods to understand astrological Mars.

I wrote:

Surely we can grasp the principle of the sun and moon being opposed to the principle of Saturn without seeing it as an argument contrary to the planet Uranus (which is astronomically "darker" than Saturn) as the modern ruler or affiliate of Aquarius.

This was largely in response to Mark's view on why Aquarius is not a good match with Uranus.

You wrote:

My argument is simply that we don't need to give the outer planets rulership over any sign, for the sake of giving them something to do. The more people keep wanting to mess about with the dignity scheme, the more I sigh.

Sorry to be the occasion for dismay but If this were the true purpose of assigning modern rulerships, I wouldn't care for them, either. As you know, the Uranus-Aquarius connection has been around for decades. Uranus is the modern ruler of Aquarius in modern astrology because it works well as an accidental house cusp ruler. I gave examples of Uranus at work with house cusps in four natal horoscopes/2 posts near the bottom of p. 7.

I haven't proposed modifying the dignity scheme at all, beyond adding modern rulers to traditional rulers for 3 signs, a practice in widespread astrological use for enough decades that we can all see whether it adds interpretive value or not. It does in my work. I have equally stressed that I have no problem with anyone who does not wish to use the modern outers in this way, or in any way.

On the nature of the sun as potentially destructive, I refer to a slightly larger set of Hellenistic sources, my current focus in traditional astrology. I wonder how many astrologers do understand the environmental contexts in which their authors wrote: they are important. The mid-day summer sun in Alexandria, Egypt can be desctructive, indeed. As you know, the Greeks had an astro-meteorological lore before the introduction of horoscopic astrology, designed for farmers and mariners, and they experienced long, hot, rainless summers annually.

We get similar readings from Valens on the sign of Leo and the type of weather occuring when the domiciled sun is in this sign (bk 1): "Leo is hot...[Regulus] is fiery and stifling... to 20 degres is stifling, causing diseases of animals in the zones and places subject to it. The right side is moveable, fiery, the south part is wet; the lower parts are destructive to everything...." (more references available upon request.) Valens notes that Leo types of men have both excellent and negative qualities, the latter including "imperious, ... irascible, inflated with their lofty thoughts."

This doesn't sound wonderful to me. But I never assumed or stated that I thought your knowledge of the astrological sun was too restricted.

Thanks for the link to the older thread. I look forward to reading it.