While I have this Pluto 2 deg past my asc, (though Venus is partile conjunct asc) I will never see this Pluto return, not in the chart nor in the night sky, as I will Venus again and again.
Should I make it to 104 yrs of age as I predict (~grin) I still will not have seen Pluto return to the sign of virgo.
Though I will see Uranus return to 28 Leo (if I make it past the crucial half point of my life-not so far away now) in the chart, he will not be seen with the eye towards the sky.
I shall not see Neptune back into 09 Scorpio, not in the chart nor in the sky.

and neither will anyone else in my lifetime. This then bears noting, cataloging and left for future astrologers to determine any meaningful significance to these 3 very slow moving bodies that take more then the average lifespan to complete one, just ONE revolution.

On perusing astrology forum's I do note the prolific use of these 3. It truly amazes me that so much credence is given to such nonexistent study of them. It's like we have all these mediums and channels who are masquerading under astrologer. I hear of new ruler-ships and dignities given, special significations of degree's and yet no background, no studies brought forth, NOTHING to back up their words.

It is truly frustrating and yet understandable why most people consider astrology hogwash when I see such postings.

Two dimensional charts are maps drawn from the sky. If you can't see it, why are you using it in your map? for what purpose? It could only be that which is not manifested on Terra and therefore of what use is it? Especially if you don't know what it's essence is, how it behaves, what qualities it possesses, who it's friendly with or vice versa, etc....etc...

I suppose I am still some what bitter about all those years of being mislead about an art that did not work in a useful way. The difference between modern and traditional astrology is like the difference between Hollywood and real life. It makes alot of money but is of no real practical use to the masses, for entertainment purposes only.

I make no apologies for raising a subject that may or may not have been done to death elsewhere. New people join this list all the time. I am one such fellow. Therefore a new person with a fresh slant on it is as original as my finger print. Themes might be there but not everyone has read the same books, philosophy, methods; nor had the same teachers. It is a narrow minded soul who thinks they've heard it all before and thus has nothing new to learn. There are only 7 original stories. They have been rehashed zillions of times so what. I may have seen a boy meets girl movie a zillion times it still doesn't spoil my entertainment, only when the acting is lousy.

Yes I thought decanates were the faces but I have no idea what 'bounds' are please elaborate and how are they actually applied. I take it they are traditional.

Mr Kurt Cobain

God knows how I became a modernist but Margaret Hone is not a traditionalist because dern dern dern she mentions and deliniates the outers in her beginners book. I'm sorry but Esoteric Alice Baily, Rudyar write beautifully. So what? The teachings apply now as they did then. Where the hell do you think astrology came from - you think they didn't divine and channel energy? Although I do kinda squirm at the Sabian Symbols - the moons phases and Baileys teaching ain't new.

Now I will definitely take time to draw up my chart make notes about the traditionalist rules and read it from that perspective. Primarily because I know myself more than any other and I want to see whether it is more in depth. However, back to Mr Cobain.

Your language is complicated and I make two jumps across the oppositions and I come up with the same language. So what takes me 2 minutes to surmise takes you 10 minutes.

Pluto on the Asc, 12th house. His self undoing, his own worst enemy, obssessive, violent thoughts blah blah blah. Venus is opposite Pluto more obsession, infatuation, unhealthy attitude to (venus) money, (pluto )power. These oppose a stellium and I am going to use wide orbs because they are too obvious a gravitational pull within his psyche. Venus, conjunct saturn, mercury. Depressive, control freak (lead singer of a band me me and more of me please) but don't love me for it please cause I hate you all this stellium opposite his ascendent and in his 6th and 7th house (Health, open enemies, marriages) His song: 'I want you but I'm not coming back' perfectly encapsulates this. Then he has mercury opposing uranus which makes him both a genius and a mad man who suffers with his nerves. So what does he do escape through drugs, grand trine in water all too easy for him to thrash about and ignore his mission, his responsibility in life. Oh and north node in Taurus he was the grand daddy of the 'grunge' movement, trailer parks convoys, rainbow festivals in open country and all that. With his mars on the south node I would say he was a warrior in a previous life and has come to discard that rage and anger. He was peace loving but encouraged the smashing up of sets and the destruction of authority. Also he was due his Saturn return and possibly he deep down knew he just wasn't cutting it. His 8th house cusp is Aries and dies by his own hand violently to the head. I could go on but its five in the morning.

Yes I thought decanates were the faces but I have no idea what 'bounds' are please elaborate and how are they actually applied. I take it they are traditional.

Bounds is another name for terms. It is fourth in the list of essential dignities of the planets, placed between triplicities and face. Yes, it is traditional and goes back to ancient astrologers before Ptolemy. When a planet is in its own terms/bounds it is in a position of temporary strength. For example, Venus does not usually do well in Aries. However, if it is in the 7th to 13deg 59? of Aries, it is in its own terms and therefore has some strength. The Sun and the Moon do not rule any terms. Each of these essential dignities contributes to the planet?s ability to act in a given situation. The most commonly used table for Essential Dignity is that of Ptolemy, although many traditionalists use the one by Dorotheus. There is a copy of Ptolemy?s table along with a full explanation on this website at: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html

I make no apologies for raising a subject that may or may not have been done to death elsewhere. New people join this list all the time. I am one such fellow.

Very good point, Skippy. I know it's something that I, for one, tend to forget. Of course, I may moan if someone revives the Algol thread....

Tom wrote:

perhaps outer planets can used as fixed stars.

Given your view of traditional v. modern, that looks like a post hoc rationalisation. Apart from the question it raises of orbs (which you don't address), the tendency to use only the ecliptical longitudes of stars, regardless of whether they are on the ecliptical or on the pole of the ecliptic, seems a far more dubious practice than using the outer planets in the first place.

I'm not naive, you are way undereducated in this subject, particularly if you can do no better than Baily as a primary source.

I think readers are quite capable of determining what is prejudice, ignorance, and slavish adherence to dogma.

I will bother only to correct one thing to avoid unecesary wild-goose chases after red herrings. The source alluded to is not "Baily" but "Bailey", and you don't have to go much further than here to find it: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/texts.html. Two (!) health warnings should be attached: (1) it is not for you if you like familiar concepts and your ideas predigested, (2) you WILL have to think about what you read. (A private joke, sorry).

I will never see this Pluto return, not in the chart nor in the night sky, as I will Venus again and again.
Should I make it to 104 yrs of age as I predict (~grin) I still will not have seen Pluto return to the sign of virgo.
Though I will see Uranus return to 28 Leo...

I suppose I am still some what bitter about all those years of being mislead

I take it you believe in electricity? If you are still interested in pursuing the truth, I suggest you widen your investigation of the outer planets beyond returns, and look at transits: sextiles, squares, trines, oppositions, parallels, contraparallels, to the natal planets. While everyone experiences returns at about the same age, the pattern of transits, particularly in regard to declination aspects is quite individual. To avoid misleading conclusions, bear in mind that aspects to the natal angles are subject to the known accuracy of the birth time, and that the expected effect of a transit is subject to the natal condition of that planet, i.e. you cannot expect a lump of lead to chime like a crystal when struck.

I take it you believe in electricity? If you are still interested in pursuing the truth, I suggest you widen your investigation of the outer planets beyond returns, [/quote]

Here Here. What a lame argument. The outers cannot possibly influence the earth coz they ain't going to revolve around me myself and I. Purlease. Waddles off >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think readers are quite capable of determining what is prejudice, ignorance, and slavish adherence to dogma.

I agree with this comment.

In that case, I wonder why Coder is so determined to sell a theosophical construct.

Kim

If there is a progressive astrologer on this list who does think we should move with the times and the processions I'd really like to hear what you think about the new planetary discoveries.

I mean all this talk about slavish adherance to dogma on either side really another argument is that we are all completely out of sync and thus all our deliniations in modern and ancient astrology are erroneous.

If there is a progressive astrologer on this list who does think we should move with the times and the processions I'd really like to hear what you think about the new planetary discoveries.

There's more than one type of progress. Many of us here were originally taught the type of astrology inherited from Hone/Carter or from a theosophical standpoint (Leo to Rudhyar etc). It's only relatively recently that we've been able to access texts and theories predating the late nineteenth century. I'm amongst those who think I made progress by rejecting numerous modern theories that don't appear to to be effective in favour of older techniques that work. For a long time, we only had the option of watered down versions of the old techniques, and they didn't really stand up well against modern astrology.

Of course, it does depend on what sort of astrology you do. It's far easier to make a case for the outers if you're practicing mundane or modern esoteric astrology. It's much harder for horary/electional.

But saying that we need the outer planets because times have changed, we've lots of new inventions, people are different now etc is about the weakest rationale as far as I'm concerned. It assumes that times didn't change dramatically during the millennia that we used only the classical planets - which is clearly nonsense. We can move with the times, but one way in which we can do this is through greater respect for our heritage and by shedding the idea that all people were inherently stupid until the last couple of centuries.

There may well be a place for outer planets, asteroids, hypotheticals etc etc etc. But just because something is discovered in our lifetime, that doesn't make it more important. Allocating associations based on observation/research is one thing, sharing out rulerships previously delegated to the seven classical planets so that the new ones don't feel short changed is another. As is throwing out older techniques because we have a philosophical objection to them, or it's hard to fit them into a system that places so much value on the newer planets. But then, everyone is in such a hurry...

It's been very simple for me. Although an outer planet aspect or transit can resonate when I'm doing a chart, the same information appears through more traditional approaches and as I don't like clutter I don't generally use the outer planets.

Moving with the times is fine, so long as we continue to look backwards as well as forwards. This isn't really the venue for the type of "progressiveness" you seem to want.

Kim

Btw Coder, I note that you picked up Tom on his mispelling of "Bailey," so you'll obviously want to be aware that "Rudhyar" is the correct spelling.

Kim:

I am about as psychic as a sausage roll

And synchronicity exists after all <ironic>. As inside, so outside. By coincidence I had just read Garry's interview with you on this site, and was idly wondering about enquiring of you both, which one of you thought you were being the more subversive of astrology <grin>.

why Coder is so determined to sell a theosophical construct.

As I seem to have materialised you in person, and the only referent in the above statement I agree with is the word "Coder" (and even that is not real), and this seems more about theosophy than astrology, I'd better do the honourable thing and take it off thread. E-mail you... well, I expect you already know when (I don't).

be aware that "Rudhyar" is the correct spelling.

Tho not the original name. Would he rotate in his grave as fast to get it wrong?

skippy:

I suggest you widen your investigation of the outer planets beyond returns,

{Colorful exegesis removed here} The outers cannot possibly influence the earth coz they ain't going to revolve around me {and here}

An interesting view - refreshingly different from the usual "traditional/modern" and visible/invisible to the naked eye" distinctions, and makes my suggestion irrelevant in principle. So how do you work this?

Does that mean excluding Neptune and Pluto, but including Uranus and Chiron? And how do you interpret those two? Do you adjust the set of planets depending on the life span of natives known to be deceased, so that for infants dying in the their first 11 years you don't exclude Jupiter and Saturn from consideration, etc? (Forget Methuselah and animals). Do you restrict the set of planets in prognostic charts to those which have completed an actual revolution in the life of the native when the chart is drawn up? Do you avoid delineations of the future beyond that time when the next planet out completes a revolution - i.e. for a native age 18 you forecast only until they are 29 or so, since after than the inclusion of Saturn might make a difference to the forecast?

Seems perfectly "workable", even if you are pulling our leg(s). Shame about not getting any of that Pluto sex stuff in, tho. Still, as outside, so inside.

Coder I haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Kim is there some une - written rule on this forum which states that one cannot talk about progressive astrology. If so, point me to it and I'll be out on the next train. New people can and will join this site all the time. I have written to the big wigs who postulate about the topic and asked them if they want to join as I am sure it is a free country and a list where open and free debate is actively encouraged nay welcomed - one hopes. I'm all for keeping history alive, the meaning of the word progress is to advance, to gain, to move forward. Whilst you are burying your noses steeped in history you will notice that there has been shifts in the cosmos at the same time.

Also for those who have made snide remarks about history repeating itself. I haven't actually seen anything discussed previously about new planets and their possible meanings. Just stuff about traditional versus modern. As an old Scezhuan saying states:
'It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white just as long as it catches mice'.