Should Modern Astrologers Accept the Names Given to Newly Discovered Celestial Object

[aldebaran]

is
So, the Muse does relate to astronomers, but that doesn't guarantee they get the naming right every time as it relates to astrology--that's a decision for astrologers to make for themselves.

I never heard of any Strike made by Astrologers or Astronomers against Urania, at any time. That's why I don't believe the Goddess does respect those categories...

In other words, Astronomy and Astrology are very relative things. Astrology is confused with mythology and any sort of presight; Astronomy is a shy Newtonian physics condemned by Einstein but that deny any sort of meaning for compromises with Kant - it's a Chimera.

Everyone that deals with knowledge, however, is able to follow Uranian paths.

 

[david starling]

I never heard of any Strike made by Astrologers or Astronomers against Urania, at any time. That's why I don't believe the Goddess does respect those categories...

In other words, Astronomy and Astrology are very relative things. Astrology is confused with mythology and any sort of presight; Astronomy is a shy Newtonian physics condemned by Einstein but that deny any sort of meaning for compromises with Kant - it's a Chimera.

Everyone that deals with knowledge, however, is able to follow Uranian paths.

I have the Goddess, daughter of Mnemosyne and Zeus/Jupiter, as the correct Domicle-ruler of Aquarius (in place of her deceased grandfather, Uranos/Caelus, who was the castrated victim of patricide). I have to post it as Urania, or it would be misinterpreted as the insignificant asteroid the astronomers chose for Her.
Notice that "Uranian", meaning "of the Heavens" works perfectly for our Muse. The astronomers attempted to "Latinize" Uranos, in an O.C. need to have all the major planets named for the Roman gods and goddesses. In which case, they should have named the 1st planet beyond Saturn, "Caelus", the Roman version of Uranos. Instead, they grafted the "us" from Caelus onto the Greek root "Uran". "Zeupiter" would have been a cool Latinized version of Zeus/Jupiter, but "Uranus" has become the butt of many jokes.

 

[norbertsco]

Hello,

should one adopt the names of "new" material objects in the
solar system given to them by astronomers?

I would say: The names already for reasons of colloquial language.

The associated assignments to ancient myths not.

But I'll go back a long way.
There are the ancient celestial bodies of astrology.

Sun and moon:

They are known to man even before language even existed in the modern sense. And the different cultures have given them different names, depending on which everyday significance has been attributed to them. The sun has a different everyday meaning in Africa than in northern Siberia. Sometimes feared at the equator; longed for in very northern latitudes.

Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn: They have also been known to humans for millennia. And I assume that today's naming is done only after the knowledge of their properties. So the assignment of astrological properties to the names is to be assumed as safe. First the property and its myth was there. Then the name took place.

Uranus and Neptune are believed to be an interface between old and new planets.

And then there are two relatively new planets or sky objects.
Pluto and Eris.

Since they are both pretty much the same size, you can hardly see a reasonable, worth mentioning difference in the hierachy of the astrologically accepted material objects between Pluto and Eris.

The question now is, to what extent do the properties of the names of gods found or suspected from Greek mythology meet on the astrological properties too?

I do not accept a connection between the name and the characteristics of the many "rocks" in the material size of an earthly mountain.

Pluto is established from many astrologers.
The Eris is far from it.
Maybe there are "factual" reasons for that.
Maybe it's just the habits of astrologers who are slow to get started on "new things".

It is now safe to assume that the names of Pluto and Eris are far from astrological knowledge the properties of the planets Pluto and Eris are done.
You should not think, that is a "intuitively correct" or "divine" inspiration of the astronomers
In Eris astrologers are still approaching the astrological properties. For Pluto there are established attributes. And in a reasonably accurate comparison of these characteristics with the myths about Pluto you can only find some parallels there.

Best regards
norbertsco

 

[Cypocryphy]

David, when you look at the various things ruled by the different planets, mythology really comes to the fore. The god Mars ruled warfare, for example, so the astrological planet Mars rules war and soldiers.

Just noticed this. How do we know this is not the cart before the horse? What if this planet heralded war when rose in Mesopotamia and was named for its effect, which later gave rise to other names relating to its effect. The planets were always messengers or Gods, and they had to be attributed qualities that signified their effect on our world. These names came after the planets. That we know. Saturn was associated with agriculture and named Ninurta. Mars was named Negral by the same people and was considered to be modern day "Pluto." But death, destruction, etc. were associated with it.


Maybe names followed the events of the planets? It's seems probable.

 

[aldebaran]

These names came after the planets. That we know. Saturn was associated with agriculture and named Ninurta. Mars was named Negral by the same people and was considered to be modern day "Pluto." But death, destruction, etc. were associated with it.
.

Nergal character is very similar to Ares/Mars, Ninurta(agriculture and soldier) very close to Kronus/Saturn.
The difference is on the Rulership of the Underworld, in Mesopotamia it wasn't atributed to a character like Plouton/Yama.

The primary rulership was to Ereshkigal, I didn't understood very well the Myth of her neither of Persephone to see if they are similar, but some people say so.

What I find unquestionably interesting is that they didn't consider Enki or Enlil as any planet! Even when Enki is very often seen as a somewhat "imanent", "practical" God, so, it wouldn't be for theological reasons.

Marduk, however, which in myth seems similiar to Zeus/Jupiter/Indra is the Planet Jupiter.

What I mean is that Ninurta in Assyria is not as important as Enki/Enlil, he is not even a Ruler of the World at a certain time, like in Greece; this indicates they named the Planets by attention to their effects, not simply naming them for their highest Gods, as many people suppose.

 

[Cypocryphy]

Nergal character is very similar to Ares/Mars, Ninurta(agriculture and soldier) very close to Kronus/Saturn.
The difference is on the Rulership of the Underworld, in Mesopotamia it wasn't atributed to a character like Plouton/Yama.

The primary rulership was to Ereshkigal, I didn't understood very well the Myth of her neither of Persephone to see if they are similar, but some people say so.

What I find unquestionably interesting is that they didn't consider Enki or Enlil as any planet! Even when Enki is very often seen as a somewhat "imanent", "practical" God, so, it wouldn't be for theological reasons.

Marduk, however, which in myth seems similiar to Zeus/Jupiter/Indra is the Planet Jupiter.

What I mean is that Ninurta in Assyria is not as important as Enki/Enlil, he is not even a Ruler of the World at a certain time, like in Greece; this indicates they named the Planets by attention to their effects, not simply naming them for their highest Gods, as many people suppose.

Right!! That’s the point I’m making. Planetary effects came first and names that best qualified those effects followed, attempting to fit the pantheon in. If the gods you speak of were not planets per se or “moving stars” I believe they were fixed. But I’d have to check on that and the cuneiform surviving tablets have been destroyed/lost/mislayed so it’s hard to say for certain

 

[david starling]

Right!! That’s the point I’m making. Planetary effects came first and names that best qualified those effects followed, attempting to fit the pantheon in. If the gods you speak of were not planets per se or “moving stars” I believe they were fixed. But I’d have to check on that and the cuneiform surviving tablets have been destroyed/lost/mislayed so it’s hard to say for certain

Enki was Neptune. Neptune's influence was felt strongly without having to even identify it with a planet.

 

[Cypocryphy]

Right!! That’s the point I’m making. Planetary effects came first and names that best qualified those effects followed, attempting to fit the pantheon in. If the gods you speak of were not planets per se or “moving stars” I believe they were fixed. But I’d have to check on that and the cuneiform surviving tablets have been destroyed/lost/mislayed so it’s hard to say for certain

I believe that’s an incorrect reading of a clay tablet. I know the guy you’re referencing but forget his name. I think he discovered that interpretation after a heavy dose of DMT Just playin’

As far as I know, Uranus can be seen with the naked eye under certain Conditions, so it raises the possibility with THAT PLANET. I truly have no idea because of a lack of evidence and doubt any Mesopotamian civilization associated anything with the outer planets. Only by understanding gravity would it have been possible to ascertain a large moving mass in space and neither Sir Isaac Newton nor Hans Lippershey were alive back then.

I’m not saying I’m right. I’m saying there’s no evidence I am wrong.

 

[david starling]

I believe that’s an incorrect reading of a clay tablet. I know the guy you’re referencing but forget his name. I think he discovered that interpretation after a heavy dose of DMT Just playin’

As far as I know, Uranus can be seen with the naked eye under certain Conditions, so it raises the possibility with THAT PLANET. I truly have no idea because of a lack of evidence and doubt any Mesopotamian civilization associated anything with the outer planets. Only by understanding gravity would it have been possible to ascertain a large moving mass in space and neither Sir Isaac Newton nor Hans Lippershey were alive back then.

I’m not saying I’m right. I’m saying there’s no evidence I am wrong.

The felt effects came first. Then came association with Sun, Moon, and Planets, if such could be identified as a link to those effects. Interesting that the Greco-Roman pantheon had two major gods that were invisible, because they were beneath the Earth's surface: Neptune was deep in the Sea, and Pluto was in the Underworld.