Just saying

[katydid]

That's Modernistic astrology

That's Modernistic astrology
That's Not Traditional astrology
& you have mentioned without citing references
some solid notes from traditional sources are required
because
Modernistic discussion is inappropriate on
TRADITIONAL BOARD

That's Modernistic astrology

That's not Traditional astrology

Discussion clearly NON-Traditional Modernistic astrological chat

***Please Read Before Posting On This Board***

This is the Traditional Astrology forum. Out of all the different boards in this forum, this one is the home for traditional astrologers. It was created so that traditional astrologers can discuss traditional astrology with each other, without having to justify it to non-traditionalists or be...

www.astrologyweekly.com

.

I can delete my posts if you would like me too. I was just posting about a reply to a post about what Zipper Dobyns was teaching about. I did not mean to discuss any modern theories. Do you want me to delete the posts? I'm happy to do so.

 

[FraterAC]

The OP was about whether Planet and Sign meanings are equivalent. Since Ms. Dobyns was a source of at least one take on that question, I think comments about her approach are relevant.
BTW, the OP specifically mentioned three outer planets not considered by Traditional (or Vedic) astrologers.
IMO there is no need to delete anything. Please don't.

 

[FraterAC]

Modernistic astrology

Please define what is meant by this. There is no term recognized as "Modernistic astrology."

 

[Osamenor]

good point

HOWEVER
currently is off-topic TRADITIONALLY

.

This thread was not started on the Traditional Astrology board, and the OP specifically talks about modern planets. However, a moderator moved it there back in 2012. See the note in brackets in the first post. (No one who was a moderator in 2012 is still moderating today.)

I have now moved it to the Modern Astrology board, because it includes modern astrology from the beginning. So non-traditional posts are not off topic for this thread.

 

[athenian200]

Yeah, as far as the OP is concerned, I am not even sure there would be a 100% consensus on a set of rules as to whether Pluto rules Scorpio, Neptune rules Pisces, or Uranus rules Aquarius.

First of all, I can imagine some modern astrologers saying that they don't believe in the system of traditional dignities at all, much less modern planets fitting into it. They might dislike the notion of Mercury in Pisces being a worse or less comfortable placement than Mercury in Virgo, and just suggest that Mercury expresses itself differently in each sign, but that both of those ways are valid. Perhaps considering traditional dignities to be value judgements of an ancient culture that may have no bearing today.

The thing I wonder, with regards to modern astrology is... what exactly happens to the traditional rulers? I keep picturing this funny scenario in my head... basically, when Uranus was discovered, then Uranus and Saturn had another fight over the sky, and Saturn lost this time, leaving Uranus as the god of the sky once again. Then when Neptune was discovered, he fought Jupiter for control of the seas, and managed to take his rightful position as god of the seas. And finally, when Pluto was discovered, he took over the underworld and Mars lost territory, his empire reduced to just Aries when he once ruled both Aries and Scorpio.

That leaves me with an open question... did the traditional rulers really not react to this change at all? It's just, in real life, countries don't tend to react well when others claim territory that they used to hold without dispute. Things like two rulers claiming the same territory is the kind of thing that causes wars. So, if there was such a war, how did the outer planets "win," and is there anything stopping the traditional rulers from coming back later and reclaiming their old territories from the challenger once they're in a position of strength? What happens if, say, Jupiter and Neptune are both in Pisces, Mars and Pluto are both in Scorpio, or Saturn and Uranus are both in Aquarius? Which one rules over the other? Someone has to be on top, right?

It also kind of seems like a sign having a new ruler should have more implications than it does for other planets, since the new ruler might have different attitudes towards the other planets passing through than the old one did. I don't know, maybe I'm just overthinking it. LOL.

I did think of a potential solution, though. If the traditional ruler enters the sign while the modern ruler is in it, maybe it's considered to be debilitated somehow where it would normally be domiciled, because they are now in enemy territory in what used to be their kingdom. A "foreigner in their own land," so to speak. But once the modern ruler leaves the sign, the traditional ruler can enter their old territory and "take the sign back" until the modern ruler returns... which, in the case of the outer planets, could be over 100 years. It occurs to me that the outer planets would need a lot of time to get back to their sign to actually do anything about the traditional planets reclaiming lost territory. Meaning that effectively, the modern outer planets are only treated as rulers of a sign while they are in that sign and able to repress the traditional rulers, and the moment they leave everything is back to business as usual.

It's like, picture this. Pluto only enters Scorpio every 248 years. Mars will enter Scorpio every 2 years. Meaning that once Pluto leaves Scorpio, Mars can take it back and Pluto can't physically do much about it for the next two centuries. Same with Neptune and Uranus, though to a lesser extent. If Neptune leaves Pisces, Jupiter will enter while Neptune isn't there within 12 years, and Neptune won't be back for 165 years to stop him from reasserting control. Though in the case of Uranus and Saturn, they're a lot more evenly matched. Uranus will be back in Aquarius within 84 years, and Saturn will reach Aquarius within 30 years, meaning he doesn't have much nearly as much time to rule over Aquarius without Uranus coming back to interfere, compared with the other two.

 

[FraterAC]

In my experience with progressions and returns, Sign rulerships appear to be valid, because when manifestations of a given house occur, the planet(s) with "rulership" of the signs on those house cusps are aspected (or otherwise prominent). I see both traditional rulerships (eg Mars for Aries), and modern co-rulerships (Jupiter and/or Neptune for Pisces) manifesting.
(Planets actually IN houses too of course).
So the usually accepted rulerships seem to work for me.

 

[athenian200]

In my experience with progressions and returns, Sign rulerships appear to be valid, because when manifestations of a given house occur, the planet(s) with "rulership" of the signs on those house cusps are aspected (or otherwise prominent). I see both traditional rulerships (eg Mars for Aries), and modern co-rulerships (Jupiter and/or Neptune for Pisces) manifesting.
(Planets actually IN houses too of course).
So the usually accepted rulerships seem to work for me.

Ah, so would that mean the modern perspective wouldn't involve anything like Mars losing Scorpio, Jupiter losing Pisces, or Saturn losing Aquarius?

I think originally I assumed that must be the case, but I eventually noticed that there was no astrology software out there that actually didn't list the traditional planets as rulers of the sign. Which seems to suggest there was never really a "transfer of power," and whatever dignity the modern planets have, it isn't regarded as the kind of rulership that would actually knock the traditional planets off their thrones.

 

[Frisiangal]

First of all, I can imagine some modern astrologers saying that they don't believe in the system of traditional dignities at all

Brought up on astrology that includes the effect of the outer planets, it's been many years since I bought an astrology book that presented any 'new' ideas beyond those that have been discussed for a century or more. [A book first printed in1958 couldn't give a decent description of Neptune and Pluto influences, although the rest was very good for learning purposes, including physical complaints effects between planets.]

I used to think I was astrologically ignorant because I ignored traditional astrology thought. I couldn't understand how or why it did not take planets that have since been proven to orbit the Sun into account. It felt to be a blockage in its teaching, making me wonder how the ancients would describe planetary effects if they lived in the then 20th century world ( a question that was squashed during a seminar!!).
I bought J.W Green's book "Pluto' and was SO relieved to read that because he didn't practise traditional astrology, he didn't use dignitaries, etc. The planets were judged through/by the influence of the sign they tenanted at birth. House transit, yes, but I don't recall him using natal house rulership influence, which I has been taught and was expanded upon by B. Brady in her 'Eagle and the Lark 'book.

The thing I wonder, with regards to modern astrology is... what exactly happens to the traditional rulers?

I think it is a question of a balance of both, an alternate mind set, and the effect of pre-determination versus free will.
I have observed that if a past conditioned Moon (and youth) is of dominant influence in a chart, the traditional rulers of a sign 'work for' it. E.g. Jupiter would be influenced by Pisces more than Sagittarius. If and when the Sun is/becomes the dominant influence, it's the modern as'sign'ed influences that take precedence. When there is a soft/easy aspect between Sun and Moon, a combination of mod./trad. sign rulership can be of influence.

It seems to be evident that the outer planets are seen as 'conscious - raising influences', which means Sun is the most important.

But that could be just my perspective.

 

[FraterAC]

the modern perspective wouldn't involve anything like Mars losing Scorpio

In my experience, it does not seem to be an either/or proposition. More like an either/both.
Not everyone agrees with my methods. For example, I use the antiscion positions of the planets to receive aspects also.

To give examples, if Pisces is on the 5th house, and the antiscion position of Neptune is in some other location of the chart, if the Sun progresses to the antiscion position of Neptune, a 5th house experience is manifested. Jupiter may or may not be involved, could go either way.
If Aquarius is on the 8th house, and antiscion Saturn is somewhere else, and the progressed Moon squares antiscion Saturn, an 8th house experience results. Uranus may or may not be activated.

 

[FraterAC]

maybe I'm just overthinking it.

We might be a little cautious about ascribing human qualities to these forces. I doubt Saturn was intimidated when Herschel observed Uranus.

Another thing to consider is that the so-called outer planets were always there. Just because known civilizations did not have devices or astronomy capable of observing or tracking them for several centuries, does not mean those planets didn't exist. Lowell didn't create Pluto. He just identified it.
Just because some school of astrology does or does not recognize some body in the heavens does not change its existence, efficacy or influence in the slightest. Whatever influence it may have, it has independent of our acknowledgement of it.
If that is not true, this is nothing but fantasy and we'd all be better off studying marketing or something.

 

[katydid]

We might be a little cautious about ascribing human qualities to these forces. I doubt Saturn was intimidated when Herschel observed Uranus.

Another thing to consider is that the so-called outer planets were always there. Just because known civilizations did not have devices or astronomy capable of observing or tracking them for several centuries, does not mean those planets didn't exist. Lowell didn't create Pluto. He just identified it.
Just because some school of astrology does or does not recognize some body in the heavens does not change its existence, efficacy or influence in the slightest. Whatever influence it may have, it has independent of our acknowledgement of it.
If that is not true, this is nothing but fantasy and we'd all be better off studying marketing or something.

Theoretically I agree that the outer planets were always there , but not sure that I agree that the recognition of each one did not change its influence in the slightest. I may be way out in fantasy land with this belief---but I do think there is something to the notion that humankind was only able to tap into the powers of Uranus after it was accidentally seen and recognised as a planet. And the same with Neptune and Pluto...

[Events from the year 1781 in the United States. This year marked the beginning of government under the Articles of Confederation as well as the surrender of British armed forces in the American Revolution.. ]

 

[FraterAC]

not sure that I agree that the recognition of each one did not change its influence in the slightest.

My position is that the influences seem to be there whether we (humanity) know it or not.
The so-called minor planet Eris was officially discovered in 2005. Yet when I look at the chart of Marie Antoinette's execution in 1793, transiting Eris is in conjunction with her 8th house Saturn within 28' of arc, and square transiting Sun to 40' (of course other indications, progressed, returns, etc also supported).
I don't think any astrologer on Earth would have noticed that configuration for 212 years at least.
Transiting Neptune, also yet to be discovered (1846) was transiting the actual Midheaven (conjunct transiting Midheaven) at the time of her execution.
Transiting Pluto (discovered 1930) was exactly (01') square the fixed star Algol on that fateful day.
Granted one case doesn't prove anything, but to me these are highly suggestive.
So I maintain from these and other examples those forces were at work long before astrologers were aware of them.





[This writer ran the astrology of Marie's transition into the ether in a thread, here

• #95]

 

[Frisiangal]

Theoretically I agree that the outer planets were always there , but not sure that I agree that the recognition of each one did not change its influence in the slightest. I may be way out in fantasy land with this belief---but I do think there is something to the notion that humankind was only able to tap into the powers of Uranus after it was accidentally seen and recognised as a planet. And the same with Neptune and Pluto...

You're not alone in this belief. Dutch astrologer Karen Hamaker believed and said the same during a Dutch Annual Conference, quoting similar examples to your own. My Natal Uranus in Gemini got into trouble again when asking what would have been the result had Chiron been called Mickey Mouse. That said, I think there to be a lot of truth in that time correspondence belief.

But then I think of the beginning of the Christian era. Did its period not take in the personification of Jesus of Nazareth as other than merely Human Man? Yet in the old testament the people returned to idol worship when Moses was elsewhere. Didn't that correspond to a Neptune influence? Can J.C. life's influence be justified simply by The Age of Pisces, whilst Neptune's influence goes back much further?

I have the Time-Life book of the 1960's, 'The Age of Faith'(= Pisces). It wasn't just about christianity but described the religious faiths around the world, their similar themes, the human sacrifices involved in worship of an intangible deity through the power of the priesthood. That would surely bring in the themes of both Neptune AND Pluto, even if they weren't visible to the naked eye.

When did man create fire that provided warmth? Maybe the invention occured during a Uranus in a fire sign.

Neither traditional or modern astrology has all the answers, yet each works within the concepts of its theories.