Planetary ruler of Astrology

[RayAustin]

The thing is I also don't like, is that if I respect the rules of the ancients.. I have to be labeled a "traditional" astrologer.. no, I'm just giving credit to the more reliable school, but that doesn't mean, it's all I give credit to. I'm just a student of astrology..

 

[AquariusT]

Why is this here and who moved it? I did not start this thread.

 

[RayAustin]

It was moved because it was a big tangent.

 

[waybread]

I hope this discussion doesn't devolve into a debate between modern vs. traditional astrology. I take a pragmatic view towards astrology. If something works, I'd like to learn it and use it. Maybe a good question to ask on this thread, is why would it matter, what planet rules astrology? The answers might suggest which planet is best to consider.

Re: my previous post on pre-modern astrologers not being scientists in the modern sense of the term:

Now that's not very fair. That's just how they rationalized how astrology worked, through the idea that the gods controlled them and they controlled us, I don't see modern astrology offering any better ideas as to why it works, either. Today's scientists have better tools available to them, the ancients only had their eyes and minds and saying that they "weren't scientists" is sort of an insult considering all they did and set up. You know, modern medicine, astronomy, mathematics...everything.

It's no insult, Kaiousei. I have a lot of respect for what these early astrologers accomplished.

A little known-fact is that Caludius Ptolemy is considered one of the founding fathers of modern cartography (map-making). In attempting to cast better nativities, he set some foundations for our modern system of latitude and longitude. He demonstrated that the earth had to be curved, not flat.

In the 12th century Albertus Magnus, a devotee of astrology, developed a rudimentary classification system for plant and animal species that laid the groundwork for the Linnean system currently in use, and discovered the element arsenic.

This list could continue for a long time...but the point is that in acknowledging its historical roots, science today is very different from the kind of work these men accomplished.

But here are just sample quotes from these two authors' influential works of astrology:

"India, Ariana, and Gedrosia have familiarity with Capricorn and Saturn; therefore the inhabitants of these countries are ugly, unclean, and bestial."[Tetrabiblos II.3, the latter 2 countries were in SW Asia]

"If [the moon] be Sovereign of the nativity, she maketh the children born honest, honourable, inconstant, loving wet and moist places, and given to see strange countries; of stature tall, white and effeminate." [The Book of Secrets. Much of the rest of this book includes really bizarre charms.]

My point was merely that despite my respect for traditional astrologers and astrology's forebears, I have trouble in using a lot of their work today because society no longer exists in the way it did in past centuries; and most sensible people today no longer think of nations or individuals in these terms.

I have no difficulty with traditional astrologers who use the old techniques in speaking to people's lives today.

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

My point was merely that despite my respect for traditional astrologers and astrology's forebears, I have trouble in using a lot of their work today because society no longer exists in the way it did in past centuries; and most sensible people today no longer think of nations or individuals in these terms.

That may be true and the effects of countries and regions of the world being associated with various signs may be different, but they're still there and still very applicable. Case in point, North and West Europe and North America...

But owing to the vespertine configuration of Jupiter and Mars as well as the masculine condition of the anterior parts of the triplicity, and the feminine condition of its latter parts, the said nations regard women with scorn and indifference.

Now you'll probably find that unfair and "outdated", but I have to ask, is it really? Especially when you consider in America how women haven't even had the right to vote and own property for one hundred years yet and that we still have chronic glass ceilings with women only being able to go so far in their careers (because they're women) and getting paid less (because they're women), I think Ptolemy hit it right on the head, and he didn't even live in that part of the world.

However, I fail to see how a discussion of the planetary and sign associations for parts of the world and countries can easily be linked with the idea that traditional authors "weren't scientists in today's terms", which suggests a them/then < us/now attitude.

 

[freedomlover]

Kai wrote:

Yes and no. I don't see it written anywhere else where the study and the student are separated by two separate significators. The art and artist are Venus, the war and warrior are Mars, the religion and priest are Jupiter, etc, etc, etc.

No, Kai, you and I are saying the same thing.

I see Uranus as representing the Astrologer, and the study of Astrology - as Uranus refers to intuition and the "higher mind". Uranus/Aquarius also rules "genius" - and, regardless of what other may think, Astrology brings out the "genius" in oneself.

I stated that the study of astrology and the person who studies are both signified by Uranus, from my viewpoint-- so that is "the study and the student", as you put it.


The other part I wrote was this:

However, for the way Astrology works - for Astrology itself - the magnetism of energies that cause it to work ----- that, I would assign to Jupiter. This is because Jupiter rules Sagittarius, and I see Sagittarius as ruling these kinds of energies. Jupiter/Sagittarius also rules faith. When you truly have faith, you are aligned with Divine Will, and thus, with the natural realm- attracting what you desire.

However, Astrology, as it refers to the way it works - the magnetic energies at work- brings "God" or the "God-force" into the picture. This makes its ruler, Jupiter. If you study astrology, you can't deny that there is a Higher Power at work in the Universe that makes everything work the way it does.

Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.

FL

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

.
I stated that the study of astrology and the person who studies are both signified by Uranus, from my viewpoint-- so that is "the study and the student", as you put it.

Right, but that's not what I'm saying. You're saying there are three things involved. The student, the study, and the art. I'm saying that's not right, the only thing that's there is the student and the art. The study of it is not something that stands by itself, but is only brought into existence when the student meets the art.

Basically what you're saying is that the student of astrology and the study of astrology are Uranus but that the art of astrology, astrology itself, is something different. That's what I was talking about. The student is never separated from their art and if you wanted to get technical the study of anything would be Mercury. The study of art would be Mercury, but the art itself is Venus. I think of it as a verb/noun thing. You may be studying (Mercury) but that's not the important part, the important part is what you're studying, art (Venus).

Hope that makes sense.

 

[freedomlover]

Right, but that's not what I'm saying. You're saying there are three things involved. The student, the study, and the art. I'm saying that's not right, the only thing that's there is the student and the art. The study of it is not something that stands by itself, but is only brought into existence when the student meets the art.

Basically what you're saying is that the student of astrology and the study of astrology are Uranus but that the art of astrology, astrology itself, is something different. That's what I was talking about. The student is never separated from their art and if you wanted to get technical the study of anything would be Mercury. The study of art would be Mercury, but the art itself is Venus. I think of it as a verb/noun thing. You may be studying (Mercury) but that's not the important part, the important part is what you're studying, art (Venus).

Hope that makes sense.

Kai,

No, I'm afraid you still don't understand what I am saying. In an effort to clarify, let me say:

I am saying that there are 2 categories, not 3. I am saying the student, the study, and the art are one - both signified by Uranus ( although I can see the lower generalized significator of Mercury, as it refers to study and communication and learning.)

The third category you are saying I'm trying to make is saying that there are: 1) the student 2) the study 3) the art. I've already stated that these 3 are 1, which has already been covered. The "other" part, that you seem to not understand, is the "mechanics" of astrology. Maybe I shouldn't even call it "astrology". Maybe I should call it "what you are studying when you study astrology.". Yeah, that seems to fit.

Does that help your understanding of what I was trying to say?

FL

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Does that help your understanding of what I was trying to say?

*sigh* No, you just said it all over again, but this time you denied saying it first.

I've already stated that these 3 are 1, which has already been covered.

Maybe I should call it "what you are studying when you study astrology."

However, for the way Astrology works - for Astrology itself - the magnetism of energies that cause it to work ----- that, I would assign to Jupiter.

The astrologer, the study of astrology, and astrology are all Uranus, but astrology itself and what you feel makes it work is Jupiter. Right. Gotcha.

Anyway, the topic is getting off track now that you and I have started our back and forth (well, actually it may have been the Ptolemy thing). I just think that assigning the student and the art two different significators is a bad way to go since the student isn't learning if they aren't even the same planet as their field. It's something that is seen time and time again in Lilly's sections on the qualities and professions of people signified by a planet. The person and the profession are the same planet and in the case of astrologers and astrology, it's quite clear that Mercury is the go-to-planet. After all, what are astrologers if not messengers of the heavens.

 

[freedomlover]

Kai,

*sigh* No, you just said it all over again, but this time you denied saying it first.

I'm sorry you don't get what I'm trying to say. I don't know any other way to try to explain it to you. What do you mean I "denied saying it first?" I don't understand what you are referring to.

Anyway, the topic is getting off track now that you and I have started our back and forth (well, actually it may have been the Ptolemy thing).

I'm still talking about the planetary rulership of Astrology. However, this "back and forth we have" is getting very old.

I just think that assigning the student and the art two different significators is a bad way to go since the student isn't learning if they aren't even the same planet as their field. It's something that is seen time and time again in Lilly's sections on the qualities and professions of people signified by a planet. The person and the profession are the same planet and in the ca

Sigh..... I've explained till I'm blue in the face. You just do not get what I am trying to say. (Either you do not get it or don't want to get it - not sure which.)

it's quite clear that Mercury is the go-to-planet.

I do agree Mercury has merit, as a "catch-all" generalization for astrology, as I said before - although I believe it can be given clarity by the divisions I specified.

After all, what are astrologers if not messengers of the heavens.

Something we can definitely agree on!

FL

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

What do you mean I "denied saying it first?" I don't understand what you are referring to.

Sorry, the "first" was meant to show an order of things. As in, you saying they were all the same thing first, but then dividing it which contradicted your point.

I do agree Mercury has merit, as a "catch-all" generalization for astrology, as I said before

Of course Mercury has merit, it only signified the art for thousands of years. I'm glad that you can respect that.

although I believe it can be given clarity by the divisions I specified.

But why does it need to be divided in such a manner? In my opinion, nothing needs to be divided like that since it's more than just the sum of its parts. It's this sort of thing that bothers me about modern astrology. Didn't "types" of the same thing are put in different places and it causes way too much effort when it's really quite a simple thing. The art, the student, the study, the implications, etc, why does any of that even matter, and why give them all different significations? That just pulls them apart.

Something we can definitely agree on!

Strange how you can agree with that but not see how intimately (and elegantly if I do say so myself) it connects with Mercury.

 

[freedomlover]

Kai,

Sorry, the "first" was meant to show an order of things. As in, you saying they were all the same thing first, but then dividing it which contradicted your point.

Okay, I see. But I did not contradict myself - you misunderstood. What I was saying is the "all the same" is this: The student, the study, and the art - which agrees with what you say, if I am understanding you correctly.

But why does it need to be divided in such a manner? In my opinion, nothing needs to be divided like that since it's more than just the sum of its parts. It's this sort of thing that bothers me about modern astrology. Didn't "types" of the same thing are put in different places and it causes way too much effort when it's really quite a simple thing. The art, the student, the study, the implications, etc, why does any of that even matter, and why give them all different significations? That just pulls them apart.

The "dividing it" had to do with the "student,study,art" as Category 1 - and category 2 is something I tried to explain, but you didn't understand what I was talking about. So, to hold down on confusion, Kai. Let's leave it as this: I agree with you that "the student, the study, and the art" all fall under the same significator. I agree with you that Mercury is the general signifcator for this. I also say it can be further categorized by Uranus. Call them co-significators, if you like.

Strange how you can agree with that but not see how intimately (and elegantly if I do say so myself) it connects with Mercury.

We actually agree on more than you give me credit for.

FL

 

[astro.teacher]

waybread,

If you think about it, it is kind of ironic for either a traditional or modern astrologer to insist upon scientific evidence as supporting their truth-claims.

This is a point I have often wrestled with because a lot of Traditional and Ancient Astrology relies so heavily on understanding philosophy, mythology & religion. I find that that is a point which many have a difficult task proving their case with. However, since we do have a current system laid out now, it is up to those who wish to change it to provide evidence it is contrary to what has been followed. Galileo, Copernicus, & many other Astronomers didnt just write books stating the earth was round and revolved around the Sun (which was actually believed by Pythagoras to be a fact). They showed calculations, observations and much data to prove their cases. So my question, where is the data, calculations, observations recorded that prove Uranus has dominion over Astrology? That is all I am truly asking for. If we did have true Philosophers/Astrologers in this time, these new Planets would be heavily studied and observed, and with the amount of data we have available, conclusions would be easily shown. I mean a true Astrologer is also a Philosopher and a Philosopher is someone who is obsessed with the persuit of knowledge (and even more important, new knowledge, things never before studied). We need more Philosophers and less parrots.

Now please do not think that I myself do not have the responsibility to also prove my case, and in fact it is quite a lot more difficult than research started from scratch but I am slowly trying to bring out reasoning and methods to people (which cannot happen simply in a forum discussion) through my research, my website and books. I am obsessed with knowledge, I am obsessed with obtaining it, and more importantly im obsessed with sharing it. Unfortunately, being that Astrology (especially Classical and Traditional) is very Philosophically based, it makes it difficult to "prove" my stance without specific data. I apologize for digressing from the Mercury/Uranus = Astrology issue.

 

[waybread]

Wonderful, thoughtful response, astro.teacher!

As I suggested above, I think the attribution of Uranus to astrology is based in mythology: Uranus/Ouranos means "the heavens" or heavenly."

I don't think we can know today how much research the pre-modern (let alone classical) astrologers actually conducted. It seems to be a matter of faith among traditionalists that they did this. In that regard, I don't find traditional astrologers' assumptions so entirely different from modern astrologers' assumptions.

I suspect but cannot demonstrate (for now!) that Mercury was cited as the traditional ruler of astrology because....what other planet was there? None of the luminaries or planets used by traditional astrologers really fits. Not even Jupiter, because prior to the PC, constructing a chart required a lot of careful mathematical calculations. Possibly Saturn in a fatalistic sense, but he's too material and practical. The "as above, so below" meta-theory of astrology (pre-theosophists) seems especially suited to Mercury as the one god (of winged feet) who could freely travel between the underworld, surface world, and heavens/Mt. Olympus. (Cf. Greek Hermes, Egyptian Hermanubis.)

But you've raised an interesting point: if modern astrologers did research Uranus as a decent modern replacement for Mercury, who were they? I don't know. John Addey and R. Ebertin come to mind as men of an early generation of astrologers who did a lot of research. But hopefully someone on this thread knows more history of astrology than I do.

If astrology were reinstated as an academic subject, this would make a great grad student research paper!

 

[freedomlover]

If astrology were reinstated as an academic subject, this would make a great grad student research paper!

Ah, yes, that is my dream - that they would offer at least basic astrology as a course in public schools.

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I suspect but cannot demonstrate (for now!) that Mercury was cited as the traditional ruler of astrology because....what other planet was there?

Waybread, I'm pretty sure that that's how any and all significations are assigned. There's something that has to fit somewhere, so we go through a little thinking and decide that this planet must be it because no other compares.

War? Who else would rule war but Mars? There's no one else who can match well in the traditional planets, so I guess we'll just have to "settle" until something "better" comes along.

 

[RayAustin]

I don't think we can know today how much research the pre-modern (let alone classical) astrologers actually conducted. It seems to be a matter of faith among traditionalists that they did this. In that regard, I don't find traditional astrologers' assumptions so entirely different from modern astrologers' assumptions.

Hey Waybread, I just have to quote you on this out of curiosity--how is it a matter of faith that they did tests & calculations? I think there is a lot more proof like left behind documents and such that they did, than otherwise. That said, I wouldn't know where to specifically find either of them for whichever school.

Ray

 

[waybread]

Ray,

My comment was in response to Aaron's statement that:

"...since we do have a current system laid out now, it is up to those who wish to change it to provide evidence it is contrary to what has been followed. Galileo, Copernicus, & many other Astronomers didnt just write books stating the earth was round and revolved around the Sun (which was actually believed by Pythagoras to be a fact). They showed calculations, observations and much data to prove their cases. So my question, where is the data, calculations, observations recorded that prove Uranus has dominion over Astrology?"

I agree that a number of early astronomers (and some were both astronomers and astrologers) did lay out some of their mathematical calculations. I don't recall astrologers claiming Copernicus and Galileo among our number, but I may have missed something.

It seems harder to find evidence for rulerships based upon empirical data in astrology's foundational texts. A number of classical, medieval, and renaissance texts in astrology are available in English today in public or university libraries, googlebooks, Project Hindsight, or through used booksellers. The Loeb Classical Library publications include Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and Manilius. I have a tiny collection of historical material: I admit that I haven't read the majority of what's out there.

I haven't seen where these authors explain the evidence upon which their assumptions about rulerships or personality traits are based, which makes them comparable to modern authors who don't explain their evidence. As mentioned above, at least a few modern authors like John Addey, Reinhold Ebertin, and the Gauquelins did conduct their own research and indicate the basis for their conclusions (see also Garry Phillipson, Astrology in the Year Zero as a more recent summary), but I haven't seen a lot of this in modern works.

Manilius (Astronomica) for example attributes astrology to Mercury--phrased as a kind of praise or homage to the god of intelligence and learning; not based upon evidence gleaned from working with clients. Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos) doesn't give a ruler for astrology so far as I can tell, although he does say that Mercury rules human souls, which seems fitting in light of Hermes' repution as "the conductor." Aratus (Phaenomena) starts out with praise and homage to Zeus, not Mercury, as the creator of the heavens, which doesn't even quite jive with modern understanding of the pantheon. I guess one might conclude that rulership of astrology in classical Greence and Rome was based more upon the properties of the gods whose planets bore their names than upon evidence in an empirical sense of the term; and that classical astrologers disagreed as much as modern astrologers do about various facets of their discipline.

In Hellenized Egypt, however, Mercury becomes associated with the Egyptian god Toth, the scribe, who was believed to rule astronomy. So then you get the association of various occult practices with the mythical figure of Hermes Trismegistus, (Thrice-great Hermes). Hermetic texts, many written long after this period, infused occult and magical thinking in Europe during the Middle Ages and Dark Ages (Eugenio Garin, Astrology in the Renaissance), and was probably the reason for Mercury becoming standardized as the traditional ruler of astrology.

So my reply to Aaron was basically that I think modern and traditional astrologers are about at par, regarding his point, above, about factual evidence.

 

[RayAustin]

Waybread, thanks for the very thorough and educating response.
You're saying their ascribement of astrology to Mercury had nothing to do with data, more like philosophical stuff. In that sense, I'd have to agree. I think the complexity of astrology is where the ascribement gets fuzzy, whereas things like love, and war, have very discreet planetary rulers.. Astrology can easily fall underneath Mercury, Jupiter..because of the intelligence required, and then the philosophy/study aspect of Jupiter. And perhaps, Uranus.

Ray

 

[waybread]

Ray, thanks.

Incidentally with my own Mercury "exalted" in Aquarius, and with my Uranus conjunct MC trine my Aquarian sun, I figure I've got both astrology rulers covered.