Mark,

Just focusing on the French Revolution, wasn't it years if not decades in the emerging?

The Varley example might need a chart? Have anecdotes like this given the planet some ?quick?, and sinister, qualities in the minds of some Astrologers?



James M,

To find out how Uranus?s meanings were generated one would need to forensically analyse untold amounts of books/papers from the time of its discovery. Bearing in mind the adage a perception repeated often enough becomes the truth. Incidentally I vaguely recall some of the 20th century Theosophical writers lens on Uranus being closer to how Psychological Astrologers might view Neptune nowadays.

Mark's last post has given me some food for thought...

Is it possible that whatever sign Uranus Transits it affects those countries or parts of world which are ruled by that sign (from the point of view of Uranian changes)..., however, I would like to mention that I have no experience whatsoever with Mundane Astrology...


Cheiro's World Predictions (Sagar Publications)

P.30

"...I suppose it is not generally relaised that nations, as well as individuals, since long past ages, have their own Zodiacal sign. And it is ighly significant, how significant we can not fully relaise, that the sign governing London as the capital of the British Empire, literllay the heart of the Empire, is what is known as the Sign of Gemini; and it is revealingly significant that this same sign governs the United States..."

P.32

"... The reminader of England, that is England with the exception of London, the heart is influenced by the Zodiacal Sing of Aries-the First House of the planet Mars. And, looking out among the neighbouring nations we find that exactly the same house and warlike planet govern Germany..."

P.34

"..Paris-the heart of France-is governed by the planet of Mercury in its Second House, which is the Sign of Virgo..."

P.35

"...France as a country is governed by the Sign of Leo...."

P.46

"...Heavens to following generations had for the some nfathomable reason attributed to that vast country of Russia in the Zodiacal scheme of things the sign of Aquarius with Saturn, its ruler, to ber her symbol..."

Deb wrote:

Maybe I can come back to that last point another day Mark, when I have more time. It's something I've thought about a lot and my views are not settled. But generally I don't feel comfortable with the idea, because so much of the notion of phase is based on the shifting quality of light throughout the synodic cycles with the Sun. On the other hand, there is physical light, and celestial light, and one of the things that distinguishes between them is that celestial light (at least as far as medieval philosophers explain it), is not visible as physical light is. But still, it is supposed to accompany physical light, so this is a tricky one. (Celestial light, BTW, is what is said to convey astrological influence, whereas physical light just has the physical effect we associate with sunlight).

Thanks Deb. I find this whole issue of light in traditional astrology fascinating. Have you written further on this anywhere? Alternatively, can you recommend any sources where I can investigate this issue further?

Deb wrote:

Also, to clarify: above I made reference to Mars being the dispositor of Aries - it is only by extension of that principle that I think of it as the dispositor of anything that takes place in Aries. I'm not sure how that could be controversial or unusual.

I don't think I suggested your comments were 'controversial or unusual' exactly. I was just pleased to have your views clarified on this. Leaving aside the views of modern astrologers not that many traditional astrologers have much, if anything, to say on the subject of outer planets. Not surprisingly I suppose as there are by definition no traditional references how to deal with this issue.

Quite a lot of astrologers simply exclude outer planets entirely.

If we do work with outer planets but utilise traditional astrological principles are there not at least two distinct approaches possible?

One approach takes the view, which you have stated, that outer planets have dispositors by the simple fact of being located in a sign. However, this doesn't necessarily imply they are being treated exactly like one of the traditional planets. These bodies have no rulership so there can be no mutual reception with the traditional planets. They can receive aspectual contact from the traditional planets by presumably have no aspectual orb of their own. Traditionally, invisible points like nodes and lots were seen to have planetary dispositors based on their sign position.

On the other hand these bodies are outside the realm of the 7 traditional planets. Both the lots and nodes are derived from the 7 traditional planets.
In contrast these bodies are outside the traditional rulership system and its dignities. On that basis might not a neo-traditional astrologer take the view that outer planets have no dispositors? The analogy I am thinking of is fixed stars. Generally, in horary, electional or natal astrology the sign of a fixed star is treated as irrelevant. These bodies are so slow moving they remain in signs for millennia. Even the fastest moving outer planet (Uranus) spends approximately 7 years in a sign which is almost 3 times as long as Saturn, the slowest moving planet in the traditional cosmology.

I don't actually, favour the latter view but I thought I better at least put it out there as a potential perspective.

Mark

Interesting food for thought. As a modern astrologer with a keen interest in the early history of astrology (which was "traditional" in some form for about 2000 years) I conclude that it's best to leave well-enough alone. Modern and traditional astrology overlap and agree on many points, but the significant areas of difference are likely to continue with two distinct branches, each with their multiple twigs.

Just as traditional astrologers are likely to despair about moderns trampling on their time-honoured system, I am starting to feel like an old conservative, indeed, in not wanting some young upstart of a traditionalist (just kidding, you guys, just kidding!) messing with "my" system.

I found Kim Farnell's article on the history of astrological Uranus to be fascinating. In my collection, I've got astro-cookbooks that simply assume the Uranus-Aquarius connection as a given, going back at least to mid-20th century. Surely in this day and age, that's long enough to develop a track record-- or not.

Given the explosion of electronic communication today compared to centuries past, the democratization that computer software has meant for horoscope construction (very Uranian-Aquarian, to me) and interpretation; and astro-discussion forums such as this one; I don't think sheer longevity argues against the now-canonical modern rulership of Aquarius as Uranus.

So perhaps everybody is happy if traditional astrologers don't use the modern outers, or use them only as a separate class of heavenly objects for particular purposes. That way, the traditional system remains intact. Speaking for myself, I think modern astrologers would be just as happy to leave it at that; because it's a tenuous logic to change our system for reasons that do not related to much modern astrology to begin with.

I mean, we might change the sign rulership (or "affinity") if it worked with the methods more central to modern astrology; such as aspects or house cusp lords. But not to change it on the grounds that Uranian history is illogical according to the lights of a system that many moderns do not follow in practice.

Mark, you've got an impressive set of dates! My only concern about mundane astrology (not restricted to your work) is that unless an event has widespread significance, it becomes necessary to explain why it happened at Point A, but not at Point B, even though the planets overhead were in essentially the same position. A modern astrologer might narrow down location through planetary lines, I am not sure how you would do it.

Paul, I am not out to "discredit your argument" through Hellenistic astrology! Rather, I had hoped to be helpful to Mark's OP project (which apparently he has now moved-beyond) of identifying one strand in traditional astrology's rich history that seemed to offer an opening for a more flexible view of planets in detriment, exaltation, and fall. This thread has generated a lot of discussion about "modern" astrologers, from Varley to Bailey. If anyone else wishes to delineate a different astrological strand from another time or place, that would be super. I have some awareness of your vast astrological knowledge: my focus on Hellenistic astrology flows from my own particular interests.

I am not "hoping to abandon fall/detriment." Traditional astrologers here will use these; some of the modern astrologers here will not. My posts were suggestive (and I hope historically accurate,) not prescriptive.

Paul, I am unclear on your comment on "the Hellenistic doctrine." I haven't argued for one, and I think there were several; sometimes harmonious, sometimes in competition with one another. Ptolemy is such an interesting case, though, is he not? I cited him partly because people interested in medieval or subsequent branches of traditional astrology know how influential he was.

You wrote:

.... if we want to examine this all from purely Hellenistic perspectives then we ought to recognise Uranus as having association, even if we do not want to call it domicile dignity, with Aquarius (and capricorn) and so on for the other planets, which puts Pluto as being aligned with Scorpio, yes, but also Aries. If you're happy to deviate from that, then you're happy to deviate from Hellenistic doctrine - and hey, so am I. Otherwise I can't help but think that we ought only to strictly look at Hellenistic doctrine if and when it suits your position.

I find this passage bewildering. If it relates to the OP, then I hope you will clarify it. However, if you feel I've belaboured Hellenistic astrology for too long already, perhaps this is a digression, as well? Again, the Hellenists had multiple doctrines: do you mean, something more specific, like a method/ology?

I find the syllogism format or outline to be very helpful in delineating certain types of arguments. This wasn't a formal logic production! If you do not find it to be helpful, then there's no problem. Focus on the falsifiability of the opening premise: no problem. Maybe it's a bit subtle but it seemed to me that Mark asserted his propositions as not falsifiable.

In the matter of terms, faces, triplicities..... The opening argument ran something like this. 1. Mars (A) is like Uranus (C). 2. Mars (A) rules Aries (B) 3. Therefore Uranus (C) affiliates with Aries (B). My point was that essential dignities don't entirely work this way. There's no straw man: just the table of essential dignities to substantiate my point. We have several traditional authors stressing the significance of traditional sign divisions, for example. To Firmicus Maternus 2.6.1:

"Although the sign itself is the home of a planet, yet the degrees of the signs are divided among all the planets, and these degrees are called terms of the planets...We must observe these terms carefully; for when a planet is found in its own terms, it is just as if located in its own sign." Ptolemy 1.20-21 notes the lack of apparent logic (to him, not Deb!) in assigning planets to terms. To some authors, a planet in Aries in the terms of Venus might make a man effeminate; but others seem to use term planets in a simple, straightforward fashion.

My memory of past posts is good but imperfect. On an association of Mars with cardinality I'll merely stand by what I wrote. Say it again, Paul--that I am not "damned if I do, and damned if I don't." I wonder.

Waybread wrote:

Again, there is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" problem. If I do not discuss the two together, I fail to make my case. If I do discuss them together, I am liable to the charge of conflating their natures. (Not a problem arising, apparently with a discussion of Uranus and Aries??!)

Its evident you feel this thread obliges you to defend your existing viewpoint of an integral link between Uranus and Aquarius. I had been really hoping people might see this thread as a thought experiment trying to look at Uranus without any preconceptions. In true Uranian spirit the Aries sign association I raised here was in part intended to shake people out of their astrological complacency.

I am still hoping we might retrace our steps intellectually and ask fundamental questions about Uranus. It is well known that astrology was at a fairly low ebb in the early 19th century so I don?t see why we have to accept the hunches they grasped at. Many traditional fundamental ideas were thrown out to accommodate the outer planets by these astrologers. Not just the traditional rulerships but also the traditional philosophy of orbs for aspects. Modern astrology also moved to a position I call ?signism? which represents a much heavier focus on delineating charts through signs (as opposed to planets) than you find in traditional practice.

We have access to a much sounder understanding of the astrological tradition than these astrologers possessed and we have the advantage of far more empirical evidence of the operation of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto through history. So I dont think we need to be over reverential in accepting the positions these astrologers adopted provisionally.

However, if your mind is already hard wired to see Uranus and Aquarius as inseparable there is really no room left for an open minded exploration of this issue from first principles.

Maybe as someone steeped in traditional astrological principles I am asking far too much of those already wedded to a modernist mindset here.

Waybread wrote:

We can see highly conservative people who at the same time challenge the status quo if they percieve it as too liberal, godless, or dictatorial. The shoe is on this other foot in American politics today, with the right-wing libertarian Tea Party movement claiming that they are the "rebels" challenging the evils of Washington, D. C.

Yes as the mundane moderator I am obviously well up on all this. The suggested Tea Party chart is interesting. I might stick that up on the mundane forum.

Waybread wrote:

If you are not interested in seeing how I read charts with Uranus and Aquarius "pulling" together, then it will be harder to make a case for you. but I would encourage you to consider the chart of Sarah Palin, conservative politician turned public speaker:
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Palin,_Sarah (Rodden DD, so we'll skip the houses.)

I was taught astrology the way you still delineate charts Waybread. You don?t need to argue your case. I understand it all too well. So I don?t really need a demonstration. Its not that I don?t comprehend your joint rulership approach. I just find it a much less precise way of delineating charts. Especially, if you are required to indicate accurate timing or offer specifics to someone. Your touching on a raw nerve for me here. My utter frustration and disillusionment with the outers as sole rulers and/or joint rulers was a major reason I abandoned modern astrology about 10 years ago in favour of traditional astrology. So I guess I am the ultimate ?hard sell? on this issue.

Waybread wrote:

Palin has 5 planets in Aquarius, including her sun and moon, so her Aquarian credentials are solid. This is one chart where I would see Saturn and Uranus working simultaneously: Uranus disrupts the leftist status quo, while Saturn prefers the "good old days," whatever those supposedly meant. I find her personality to be quirky, and she wrote a best-selling book called Going Rogue which sounds much more Uranian than Saturnine to me. She is not a revolutionary although she is pro-gun lobby.

Yes I gave this chart as an example myself earlier in the thread. I think that exceptionally powerful Saturn conjunct Mars explains the gun fixation and the hawkish stance. I am glad she never attained national office. I think she is a very scary woman! ?Palin for President? reminds of that old movie with Christopher Walken, the Dead Zone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Zone_(film)

Waybread wrote:

By "democrats" I believe you would include the Republican party?

Yes. The natal examples I gave were from the UK and France, not just the USA. I mean people committed to democracy.

Waybread wrote:

Perhaps I should also reiterate that I didn't invent the Uranus-Aquarius relationship. I cut my astro-teeth on it, however, and it seems to have worked out fine in practice for the majority of modern astrologers for the past half-century or so.

Ok. This rather highlights the gulf between us in terms of what I was hoping to do with this thread.

Mark wrote:Modern astrology also moved to a position I call ?signism? which represents a much heavier focus on delineating charts through signs (as opposed to planets) than you find in traditional practice.

hi mark,
i suppose cosmo-biology would be an exception to this description of modern astrology as i understand it.

on another note - uranus related, i happened to watch an interesting 6 part video "checkmate - strategy of a revolution" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-LSrsd0fw
a few nights ago.. i was making charts for the main characters that i could get birth data on - all mostly just for the day, while drawing parallels with what has been happening in ukraine the past while.

the focus of this documentary is on romania.. "Eventually his ( Nicolae Ceau?escu) authoritarian government was toppled in December 1989 during the Romanian Revolution." the date of the event is marked by a close sun/uranus conjunction dec 21st 1989.. of course ceausescu - feb 5 1918 has sun conjunct uranus/venus in opposition to the saturn/neptune conjunction from 1918 area - a year when a lot of 'revolutionary' dynamics were at play. stelian telnasse - feb 17 1952 sun in aq was very involved in the process of overthrowing ceausescu's rule. the writer doina cornea - may 30 1929 - gemini sun 60 aries uranus was an influencial writer helping along the process of change here as well. laszlo tokes - april 1 1952 - uranus at top of t square, also played an important role in the change over.. wiki page here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl ... 91k%C3%A9s

there are other important players and this is definitely not a conclusive study by any means, but overall one comes away with an impression of how uranus can play out differently in each chart depending on how it is situated in relation to the other planets, more so then by sign as i see it.. i guess i am more drawn to a type of astrology with less emphasis on sign position.. it is one reason i avoid the issue of 'is it tropical or sidereal' as it is of less interest to me personally for similar reasons..

Paul wrote:

Mark, I too accept a lot of Deb's point, but I personally still think we can make comparisons between planets and signs based on some shared affinity for symbolism. That said I think James has made a good point, or rather a good question, regarding isolating that symbolism between planetary expression and sign associations (Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:16 am).

Yes James has now created his own thread on this so I think I will follow this up on that new thread.

Paul wrote:

For me, the more interesting question isn't so much whether we associate an outer planet with a sign, and more about, whether we do or don't, what we actually do with that information.

I feel we are exactly on the same page on this now as I already made the same point myself here.

Paul wrote:

I do not recognise modern rulerships. As soon as I started to learn horary I began learning traditional astrology generally and recognised quickly that what I thought I understood by rulership was actually not what it implied within horary or traditional approaches to astrology, and I began to realise that modern rulerships are actually understood, in some way, along the thinking (even if not exactly the same) as the astrological alphabet. Pluto is like Scorpio is like the 8th house. This is different to the thinking of traditional astrologers.

I agree. This probably explains much of the mutual miscomprehension and confusion of each others positions between modern and traditional astrologers.

Paul wrote:

Therefore, I agree with whomever says that we ought not to start associating signs with outer planets if, by that association, we imply a kind of dignity or attempt to shoehorn the traditional approach to dignities onto it. So, therefore, let's not do that.

Yes I think it was Deb but whoever it was I agree. I was of course never proposing Uranus as a ruler of anything. However, its easy to see how my comments could easily be misconstrued by a modern astrologer.

Paul wrote:

We can still recognise something of the same kind of 'keywords' between Uranus and Aries, and we get back to Curtis (via Bernadatte Brady) of what we call that association then, and, for me more importantly, what do we do with it? How is it useful information? Do we suggest Uranus operates better in Aries, in which case we need to know what we mean by that, does it do Uranus things more Uranus-like (as per modern astrology) or show a more dignified and less malefic timbre to its signification (like in traditional astrology) or is it neither, and simply an association that is absent of real practical interpretive value?

Again this is really identical to my own views on this now so I can only agree. You may want to check out the historical evidence I presented in my earlier thread though. If we want to see Uranus as a planet of revolution Aries is even more prominent than Aquarius. However, I think that can be well explained by the planetary dispositor point made by Deb earlier.

Paul wrote:

Having had this aries-uranus (etc.) idea for a while, I'm disinclined to see it that Uranus operates in a more dignified way in Aries,

I never suggested it was 'dignified' in Aries. Just that in terms of world events it is far more activist than many other signs. However, the analogy I made with Mars and the Sun being dignified in Aries sounds very like that so it was rather a weak and confusing way to make a point about a Mars-Sun nature to Uranus.

Paul wrote:

therefore I do not believe this affinity, if there is one, is in any way related to the dignity scheme, and is, for me, more useful in simply recognising that the symbolism of the two overlap and so when, for example as is happening, Uranus transits Aries we can expect a great deal of symoblism associated with their shared meaning.

Yes. Actually this is a rather good Trojan horse argument to get modernists to question their allegiance to outer planet rulerships! But of course that was never my intention here.........


Paul wrote:

So then does it really matter if we see affinity between planet and sign? Probably not. This is why I am not all that invested in convincing anyone else of the idea, ultimately I'm not sure how practically useful it is to begin with, other than as perhaps a mnemonic or as a thought experiment.

Yes despite creating this thread I was never that personally committed to convincing people of this. My real intention was to get a serious discussion going on outer planet rulerships. As a traditionalist I really don't know what to do with any potential association argument here involving any outer planet and signs. The more I contemplate Brady's idea of 'association without rulership' the more nebulous and impractical I feel it is.

At present I am more interested in the discussion around the quality of Uranus i.e. hot vs cold, or dry vs moist etc.

Paul wrote:

Ultimately we cannot escape the notion that actually you and I are probably talking cross purposes with others (Waybread included) because really you and I are not trying to talk about essential dignity, and I think that for modern astrologers the whole concept is too tied up with the idea of rulership that it becomes impossible or at least incredibly difficult to separate.

I think that is very perceptive observation Paul. That is the conclusion I have reached myself too. (Gosh I am beginning to sound like your clone!)

Paul wrote:

Ultimately I think seeing Uranus as an alloy of the Sun and Mars is more practically useful than necessarily associating it with any sign, it's just, at least for me, something about that merging of symbolism really lends itself well to similar keywords with Aries.

Well yes I prefer the planet analogy better than the simple sign association argument I originally used.

Mark

Nixx wrote:

Just focusing on the French Revolution, wasn't it years if not decades in the emerging?

Yes. Its not really my theory. You need to take this up with the modern astrologers who argue this. I know John Frawley rather ridiculed this approach to the outer planets in his book The Real Astrology. The basic idea being that the historical events surrounding the discovery of a new planet give a clear idea of its nature. This might make for an interesting thread topic.

Nixx wrote:

The Varley example might need a chart?

The article by Kim Farnell cited mentions Varley's notebooks appear to have been lost so I am not sure if we have a specific date. I seem to recall the incident also gets a mention in Patrick Curry's history of this period entitled A Confusion of Prophets: Victorian and Edwardian Astrology. I will check if Curry gives more information on Varley. I am away from home at present but I will definitely look into this when I get back.

Nixx wrote:

Have anecdotes like this given the planet some ?quick?, and sinister, qualities in the minds of some Astrologers?

A great question. Hard to definitively answer without reams of historical research I suspect.

Nixx wrote:

To find out how Uranus?s meanings were generated one would need to forensically analyse untold amounts of books/papers from the time of its discovery. Bearing in mind the adage a perception repeated often enough becomes the truth. Incidentally I vaguely recall some of the 20th century Theosophical writers lens on Uranus being closer to how Psychological Astrologers might view Neptune nowadays

Yes, this really requires an authority on this period like Kim Farnell , Patrick Curry, or Philip Graves. Getting access to many of these books is a signifcant challenge for most researchers. It also requires sufficient interest in the topic. I think it would be a real eye opener for the astrological community which tends to accept attitudes about the outers that seem to have little real research behind them. We have largely forgotten how diverse opinions were on this subject not that long ago.

Mark

James_M wrote:

hi mark,
i suppose cosmo-biology would be an exception to this description of modern astrology as i understand it

Hello James,

I think it makes more sense to reply to you on the thread you have just created on this rather than this excessively long thread.

Mark

Ouch, Mark. Oh, well. In either modern or traditional astrology, Aquarius is a fixed sign.

My attitude on Uranus is that if it's not broken, don't fix it. I don't feel "reverential" or "hard wired" about it: after using Uranus for roughly 23 years in natal chart interpretations and their derivatives, I just think its Aquarius rulership works. So does Saturn. I am all for thought experiments in astrology-- but it is surprising what sorts of astrologers dislike having their traditions tampered with, is it not?

I agree that we shouldn't adopt "whatever hunches [astrologers in the 1820s] grasped at." It would be OK to look at the past 60 years of astrological practice, however.

Think of it like a recipe. I don't know whether or not you enjoy baking, but inventing new sourdough recipes is one of my hobbies. Some recipes you can fool around with and still come up with terrific bread or cookies. Others (like my sourdough brownie experiment that just flopped) need a lot more attention to the structure of the original cookbook recipe that actually works before I modify it further. That original liquid-to-flour ratio may be essential, for example.

Inventing new relationships in astrology seems sort of like that. Some recipes and ingredients lend themselves to creative re-interpretation and others only get worse with major modification.

And why stop at the Big Three? We now have trans-Plutonians that are probably bigger than Pluto. I suspect that Eris (which is one of them) is a better match for Aries than Uranus, but I haven't done the research.

I gave a bunch of examples, peppered throughout this thread, of key words and thematic rulerships that I thought were Uranian. I didn't invent most of them. They include: sudden change, innovation, ideological and political revolutions, aviation, science, electricity, things futuristic, and scientific research.

The majority of these thematic rulerships either roughly coincide with the discovery of Uranus, or else relate to things that were only weakly developed prior to the discovery of Uranus. We could add to aviation the Montgolfier brothers' first manned balloon flight in 1783. In contrast, the Aries-Mars connection was around since Antiquity without airborn innovation.

Scientific research and political ideologies seem very much like fixed air activities to me.

Incidentally, I am not one of the modern astrologers who conflates signs and houses. This actually bothers me some. I can use Uranus as a valid ruler for Aquarius without somehow conflating them with the 11th house.

Also, I don't see signs as important as aspects. I am mindful that most of our planets would move back about 24 (or 27) degrees if we switch from a tropical to a sidereal zodiac, yet Vedic astrologers still produce good results. The essential dignity system, nevertheless, is very much sign-based.

I don't do a lot of predictive work in astrology. (For someone who does, and who does all kinds of research in modern astrology using the modern outers, see: www.aliceportman.com.) I wonder how well a planet symbolizing "sudden change" or unpredictability actually could work in forecasting events. If it did work, could it be Uranus?

Certainly one could make a case for using Uranus in some types of astrological interpretation, but not in others. I decided not to use modern outers as sign rulers in horary, because it bothers me to think that any question asked over a 7-year period (or potentially 20, in the case of Pluto) could have the same significator in a particular sign. But if Uranus seemed relevant, I would look at what it is doing.

Mark, I hope others on this thread have posted more to your liking.

Hi Waybread

Mark, I hope others on this thread have posted more to your liking.

I'm sorry if you felt my comments were overly negative in your direction. However, as Paul has said I just think we are just at cross purposes here and our differing outlooks don't have much common ground. Its rather like reading a discussion between a convinced tropicalist and siderealist. No amount of history, philosophy or comparative charts is going to convince the other side. Both of us clearly feel convinced by our own experiences.

Perhaps the deeper question for us both to contemplate is can two logically contradictory approaches be equally accurate? Our answer, whatever it might be, surely tells is something profound about the nature of astrology.

Waybread wrote:

Ouch, Mark. Oh, well. In either modern or traditional astrology, Aquarius is a fixed sign

I detect a fair degree of 'fixity' in your outlook too at times Waybread.

Waybread wrote:

My attitude on Uranus is that if it's not broken, don't fix it. I don't feel "reverential" or "hard wired" about it: after using Uranus for roughly 23 years in natal chart interpretations and their derivatives, I just think its Aquarius rulership works. So does Saturn. I am all for thought experiments in astrology-- but it is surprising what sorts of astrologers dislike having their traditions tampered with, is it not?

Yes I should have anticipated lots of modern astrologers would hardly welcome my ideas with open arms. In reality the thread wasn't really intended for those kind of astrologers. But my initial post was a provocative so I guess I should have expected to reap the whirlwind...

Waybread wrote:

I agree that we shouldn't adopt "whatever hunches [astrologers in the 1820s] grasped at." It would be OK to look at the past 60 years of astrological practice, however.

Look at it yes but automatically accept it? No as I see it. It seems to me astrology hasn't asked itself serious questions about the outer planets since before WWII. The demotion of Pluto to a dwarf planet and discovery of a host of Kuiper belt buddies surely necessitates some serious rethinking? I don't see why that cannot include looking at this from first principles.

Waybread wrote:

Think of it like a recipe. I don't know whether or not you enjoy baking, but inventing new sourdough recipes is one of my hobbies. Some recipes you can fool around with and still come up with terrific bread or cookies. Others (like my sourdough brownie experiment that just flopped) need a lot more attention to the structure of the original cookbook recipe that actually works before I modify it further. That original liquid-to-flour ratio may be essential, for example.

Waybread, Are you strongly Cancerian? lol

Waybread wrote:

Inventing new relationships in astrology seems sort of like that. Some recipes and ingredients lend themselves to creative re-interpretation and others only get worse with major modification.

Well I tend to agree. But I am thinking more about the abandonment of the traditional rulership and dignity system.....

Waybread wrote:

And why stop at the Big Three? We now have trans-Plutonians that are probably bigger than Pluto. I suspect that Eris (which is one of them) is a better match for Aries than Uranus, but I haven't done the research.

Eris has been in Aries for ages hasn't it? I don't check much I admit. I think the discovery of these new bodies is an excellent opportunity to re-evaluate the associations previously made. It seems to me all the Kuiper belt bodies may operate in a plutonic way.

Waybread wrote:

I gave a bunch of examples, peppered throughout this thread, of key words and thematic rulerships that I thought were Uranian. I didn't invent most of them. They include: sudden change, innovation, ideological and political revolutions, aviation, science, electricity, things futuristic, and scientific research.

Have you noticed the strong historical association between Uranus in Aries and revolutions and rebellions? How do you reconcile that fact with your existing views?

Waybread wrote:

The majority of these thematic rulerships either roughly coincide with the discovery of Uranus, or else relate to things that were only weakly developed prior to the discovery of Uranus. We could add to aviation the Montgolfier brothers' first manned balloon flight in 1783. In contrast, the Aries-Mars connection was around since Antiquity without airborn innovation.

As I said to Nixx this would be an interesting thread on its own. I have no desire to be drawn into that topic here as this thread is already ridiculously long.

Waybread wrote:

Scientific research and political ideologies seem very much like fixed air activities to me.

Ok. Again another thread another day I feel.

Waybread wrote:

Incidentally, I am not one of the modern astrologers who conflates signs and houses. This actually bothers me some. I can use Uranus as a valid ruler for Aquarius without somehow conflating them with the 11th house.

You may not be following this approach but this attitude is very common today. Hopefully, books like Deborah Houlding's Houses, Temples of the Sky have done a lot to challenge such stereotypical thinking throughout the astrological community.

Waybread wrote:

Also, I don't see signs as important as aspects. I am mindful that most of our planets would move back about 24 (or 27) degrees if we switch from a tropical to a sidereal zodiac, yet Vedic astrologers still produce good results. The essential dignity system, nevertheless, is very much sign-based.

Well true but nearly every modern astrologer I have read relies just as heavily on the tropical zodiac and house rulers based on signs on the cusp. Its a valid point though. Newer techniques like midpoints or out of bounds planets are an interesting exception to this. I do look at out of bound planets and have been thinking of exploring midpoints more. I think declination is a much neglected topic.

Waybread wrote:

I don't do a lot of predictive work in astrology. (For someone who does, and who does all kinds of research in modern astrology using the modern outers, see: www.aliceportman.com.) I wonder how well a planet symbolizing "sudden change" or unpredictability actually could work in forecasting events. If it did work, could it be Uranus?

Its not that I think Uranus isn't useful. It is. However, the outers tend to go back and forward over the same point several times by transit so accurate timing is tough. However, anyone that thinks any kind of predictive astrology is easy is kidding themselves.

Mark