skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Is Uranus Associated with Aries?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5040
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Quote:
As far as I can see no one here has yet provided a logical argument for a strong affinity between Aquarius and Uranus. Any takers?


Nixx wrote:
Quote:
A cerebral detached sign, a cerebral detached planet.

A transpersonal sign, a transpersonal planet. Uranus being the 'collective mind''

Some of Tarnas's keywords/concepts for Uranus '' intellectual brilliance, cultural innovation, technological invention, experiment, creativity, and originality''.


Thanks Nixx,

That is really the kind of thing I was hoping to get.

In case it isn't obvious I haven't personally closed down the possibility of this affinity. I just haven't seen much of a rational case made for it before now.

Your short pithy post has actually, given me a lot more to consider than most of what I have seen on this topic here.

Cerebral ok. But if we are talking cerebral why not Gemini or Libra? Its interesting that Uranus was in Gemini when it was discovered in 1781.

Are you linking Uranus more broadly to the air element then?

Air needs to talk and communicate its thoughts so it is certainly associated with the mind. However, pure air is not associated with much action. Air just likes to talk and debate but have you ever tried to get a strongly air sign person to take action? Air is happy to play with ideas back and forth without any particular outcome.

It could be suggested that the apparently rapid change associated with Uranus fits an air sign.

But why a fixed sign? Surely a mutable or cardinal sign reflect this better?

And is Uranus purely about air? What about fire? Creativity, pioneers, initiators, philosophers, explorers. Lets also not forget the Uranus associuation with violent social change. Surely, there is a fire component inherent in all that too?

Ultimately. I'm not sure its ever that helpful to identify a planet with just one element. The traditional planets can have domicile or exaltation rulership in 2 or 3 signs by element.

I see the Aquarian association with social change as more about its Saturn rulership. As a diurnal, masculine sign Aquarius wants to externalise change while Capricorn is more interested in making individual social progress. The Sun is also weak in this sign ( detriment) so there is a natural inclination to focus more on the collective and ignore the individual. I see Aquarian detachment as again partly related to its role as a Saturn ruled sign.

For an excellent representation of a traditional view of Aquarius see this article by Deborah Houlding:

http://skyscript.co.uk/aquarius.html

Quote:
A transpersonal sign, a transpersonal planet. Uranus being the 'collective mind''


Interesting. Quite an attractive point that. Uranus may or may not be a transpersonal planet. However, Aquarius is certainly a human sign concerned more with the collective.

This argument that Uranus represents the 'collective mind' is intriguing What is your source for that?

My main difficulty here is why then does Uranus so often link in to mavericks, rebels and non-conformists who challenge the collective consensus? Or do you see it as some kind of cosmic catalyst initiating the change in human consciousness?

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1526

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:
Quote:
It goes without saying (but I will anyway!) that I don’t see Uranus that way. As far as I can see no one here has yet provided a logical argument for a strong affinity between Aquarius and Uranus. Any takers?


A cerebral detached sign, a cerebral detached planet.

A transpersonal sign, a transpersonal planet. Uranus being the 'collective mind''

Some of Tarnas's keywords/concepts for Uranus '' intellectual brilliance, cultural innovation, technological invention, experiment, creativity, and originality''.


Right but we need to thread carefully here, we need to make sure that the associations of Uranus haven't been attributed precisely because of its modern rulership over Aquarius, and vice versa, that Aquarius' meaning hasn't been altered to suit Uranus.

For example, in 'my' astrology, all the fixed signs have an affiliation with the idea of attachment - attachment to power, ideology, desire, resources - they are all related to an attachment.

Now let's examine a fixed air sign, is this 'really' detached or is Aquarius actually quite attached to its ideologies and philosophies? Has Aquarius become noted for detachment precisely because of its affiliation with Uranus instead.

Cerebral, perhaps, but in what way do we link it as being both cerebral as well as something non-personal, what sense of a non-personal 'cerebrum'? Possibly this collective mind idea, well if so how does this directly relate to (and presumably either only to, or more strongly to) Aquarius specifically?

Tarnas links key words to Uranus, but in what sense are we identifying them with Aquarius. In fact, wouldn't a link to the Sun (such as its domicile or exaltation) be a more fitting association for "intellectual brilliance", and if not, perhaps mercury would be better suit it, or all the air signs as a whole. But surely the Sun, which has a traditional has an association with both brilliance and intellect, would be a more fitting connection than the one sign that actually the Sun finds itself in detriment?

Do we really associate fixity with innovation more than we do cardinality or mutability? Whilst we might associate air and fire, is there really anything about Aquarius that is innovative, or at least more innovative than other signs?

Originality and creativity? Again think of Aquarius in terms of it being fixed in its expression, relating to uniformity (the converse of creativity and uniqueness) and being, correspondingly, the detriment of the sun - the key indicator of originality and creativity.

I think instead what we see emerging is that Uranus and the Sun have some linking. Bailey says links them as being 'veiled' with one another, and the same for Moon and Neptune. Now I am not a big fan of Bailey, but I kind of see what she means here. Both the Sun and Uranus promote individualism and creativity bursts. So yes, these key words help us recognise some quality about Uranus, but actually when we think about them, do they really tell us anything about what signs relate to those key words, and if so, does the finger really point to the description of Aquarius prior to Uranus' affiliation with it?

In my view it doesn't, but perhaps others see it differently. It's certainly worth thinking along these lines though because actually when we think along them more and more I actually think it makes a more compelling case away from linking Uranus with Aquarius.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3601
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nixx - glad you chimed in to bonk these 2 air signs over the head with something they like. my touchy feeling approach hasn't done anything!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 960
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul, please don't play the aggrieved party with me. You don't have to respond to my posts, but if you wish to respond to them, I request the same courtesy from you that you require for yourself. I gave you the courtesy of responding politely to most ot your points. Our public exchanges are still posted at Astrologer's Community, despite your departure; as well as at Astrodienst.

Mark, it occurs to me that it would be helpful to take a deeper cut at Uranus; and subsequently to see if or why Aquarius is a decent fit. Let's move beyond ancient Greek science, Uranus as "sudden change" and our strong mutual agreement that wars and killing people are generally bad things. Wars can liberate some people, yet harm others. Got it.

"Sudden change" works well enough for certain circumstances and certain types of charts. Alice Portman www.aliceportman.com suggests that Uranus can actually be helpful in chart rectification, or in determining which house system works best for a certain natal chart. We might expect "sudden change" to occur as Uranus transits from one house to the next. Someone with natal Uranus in her 7th house might find that her relationships begin and end suddenly.

Disruption can be something as serious as a bomb dropping on your house, but most of our disruptions in peaceful societies are not of this magnitude. Having a new baby is very disruptive, and makes a real break from the past, but the majority of babies are welcome additions.

Logically, however, people do not live on a steady diet of "sudden change." If they did, then a volatile sort of life would become the new normal. In a field of relentless "sudden change" it becomes an everything-nothing proposition with nothing to differentiate change. Everyone has Uranus in his chart somewhere, but we don't assume, for the Average Joe, that some major segment of life undergoes unrelenting turmoil.

So "sudden change", whether disruptive or welcomed (like the unexpected check in the mail) is only one possible reading of Uranus.

Let's build on Nixx's comments.

Innovation, Novelty. Change involves a break from the past that preceded it. It symbolizes something new, or different. Novelty could be as trivial as the latest fad, or it could be as serious as a major scientific research project or technological inovation (like the Internet) of benefit to society.

Either way, there is a sense of moving into the future. I don't mean to glamourize science, but there is a way in which it actually does push the frontiers of knowledge.

Originality ought not to be confused with cardinal signs, or the qualities of hot and dry. Original research-- as it is practiced in the lab or library-- can take years or even decades of careful work. Darwin (sun Aquarian) got his ideas for natural selection as a young man, then spent years gathering enough evidence to substantiate it "beyond a shadow of a doubt." A novel idea without significant substantiation behind it remains a phantasm, because there is nothing behind it.

Liberation is potentially a positive outcome of Uranian change. Sometimes people have to fight for it ongoingly, but most of us living in functioning democracies take political liberation for granted.

I argued extensively above, that most political liberation movements have a strong ideological component. They require fixity of purpose. Otherwise you may just get a protest march that leads nowhere.

Although liberation movements may have a leader, who seems in hindsight to have master-minded the movement, actual histories of liberation movements point to multiple leaders, and a strong backing from supporters.

If the idea of liberation isn't kept constantly alive, then you may simply get a turnover of one dictator replaced by another. The czar gets replaced by Stalin. Egalitarianism has to be a foundational component of any liberation movement. It may be for one disenfranchised group, or it may be for society as a whole.

Similarly, individuals have to make a commitment to their personal liberation if it is contested but they wish to keep it. There is something Uranian about New Years resolutions, and something un-Uranian in people's failure to keep them.

Whether socially or individually, liberation is not a one-day wonder. It requires a commitment to manifest it ongoingly.

No doubt there is more to be said about Uranian qualities of change, originality, and so on, but we can start with these. In my next post, let's think about Uranus-sign affiliations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Therese Hamilton



Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1492
Location: California, USA

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the sidereal forum I've posted what I believe to be the correct planetary rulership/exaltation scheme of the zodiac which includes the outer planet affinities. When this scheme is outlined in circular format, I don't see that it can be easily adjusted.

However, when we consider what has been observed about sign characteristics based on planetary affinity―as I see it―this scheme works only in the sidereal zodiac which is why I have posted my messages on the sidereal forum. The foundation of the scheme is the ancient division of the zodiac into solar and lunar halves. I have also added a philosophical note as to why the outer planets were only recently discovered. For anyone curious about this scheme, please refer to this link:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=86322#86322
_________________
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 960
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(continued from my previous post)

To recap, here is a list of key words describing the Uranian archetype:

sudden change
innovation
novelty
future
originality
liberation
ideology
fixity of purpose
egalitarianism
commitment


Some definitions or synonyms
Affiliation: association, connection, alliance, alignment, attachment, relationship, &c

Domicile, sign ruler : king in his castle, man in his own house, special strength, capability. Further ,a sign or house cusp ruler is expected to work well in specific methods: as a significator in a horary chart, or as a house cusp ruler or lord in a natal chart.

Then we really have to unpack some of the complexity of signs. Since Antiquity, signs were not restricted to just elements and qualities. They were bicorporeal, crooked, straight, gendered, and assigned all sorts of human character traits.

To cite the Riley translation of Vettius Valens (2nd cent. CE), for example, the sign of Aries is "masculine, tropic, terrestrial, governing, fiery, free, upward-trending, semi-vocal, noble, changeable, procuratorial, public, civic, with few offspring, servile...the cause of rank, two-toned..unaspected and ecliptic...." associated with men who are "brilliant, distinguished, authoritarian, just, hard on offenders, free, governing, bold in thought, boastful, great-hearted restless, unstable haughty, inflated, intimidating, quickly changing, wealthy." The other signs are also given a long list of human character traits.

So we can't be too simplistic in contemplating a seriously meaningful sign affiliation for Uranus. A sign has meant so much more than just its element or modality for the past 2000 years. Nevertheless, I'll try to focus on some basics.

I take Paul's point, that we need to avoid circular reasoning in ascribing Uranian traits to Aquarius. Unfortunately, this is kind of how planet-sign affiliations have worked since ancient times. Valens has nasty things to say about Capricorn and Aquarius, which match his negative view of Saturn, for example.

We also have to acknowledge time-tested planet/sign affiliations that seem surficially contradictory. Mars: hot and dry, right? So why assign it to Scorpio, a feminine water sign? Why give Venus to a masculine air sign? Both Mars and Venus each rule one cardinal and one fixed sign, so there doesn't seem to be much about a planet's traits that affiliate with cardinality, fixity, or mutability.

Sure, we have Ptolemy's tree of planet-sign rulerships, which seem logical according to one template, but not according to others.

In a general way, we can say that fire indicates action and initiative, and air symbolizes mental, even intellectual work. Except when they don't. Jupiter is the philosopher and theologian, but his signs are in water and fire.

So maybe "sudden change" seems like a decent fit with firey, cardinal Aries; but this hardly exhausts the meaning of Uranus.

In terms of the character traits associated with the different signs today, I suggest that each of them has a particular relationship with time.

Aries? Here and now. Not known for advance planning or persistence.
Pisces? Time is simultaneous
Scorpio? Time is circular (think phoenix)
Capricorn? The past and its traditions.
Aquarius? The future

As I discussed in my previous posts, Uranian traits require a fair bit of fixity of purpose if they are to become more than a flash in the pan.

Originality may seem more Arian or cardinal, but original anything starts with an idea, and then it takes time and persistence to manifest it. Originality requires a grasp of the future, and a commitment to one's project.

New ideas and ideology are airy in nature.

fixity of purpose and commitment are fixed in nature.

Liberation and egalitarianism if they are to incubate and succeed over time, are both airy and fixed in nature. They also partake of Uranian change.

As I stressed above, any planet can have a positive or negative manifestation. We agree that "sudden change" is unwanted in the context of a bomb dropping on your roof. In this regard, cool, impersonal Aquarius is not a bad match for a planet that many people experience as uncomfortable.

So I think the Aquarian-Uranus affiliation is there, and stronger than a more simplified view of Aries-Uranus.

I would personally go a step further, to say that Aquarius does work as a modern ruler of Aquarius, still keeping Saturn as its traditional ruler.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 960
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul, you wrote:

Quote:
... we need to make sure that the associations of Uranus haven't been attributed precisely because of its modern rulership over Aquarius, and vice versa, that Aquarius' meaning hasn't been altered to suit Uranus.


Don't you think this is what happened with the "original" rulerships, as well? The malefics and benefics go back to ancient Babylon, before our present-day signs were developed.

Quote:
For example, in 'my' astrology, all the fixed signs have an affiliation with the idea of attachment - attachment to power, ideology, desire, resources - they are all related to an attachment.


Can you unpack this one? Any sign has an attachment to something, according to its nature. Capricorn has an attachment to the material and practical, for example.

Quote:
Now let's examine a fixed air sign, is this 'really' detached or is Aquarius actually quite attached to its ideologies and philosophies? Has Aquarius become noted for detachment precisely because of its affiliation with Uranus instead.


Apples and oranges! Aquarius is emotionally detached. A touchy-feely water sign it isn't. If Aquarius cares about certain ideas it will attach to them. It may also criticize ideas it dislikes, and have no attachment to them. The republican has no attachment to the idea of monarchy.

Quote:
Cerebral, perhaps, but in what way do we link it as being both cerebral as well as something non-personal, what sense of a non-personal 'cerebrum'? Possibly this collective mind idea, well if so how does this directly relate to (and presumably either only to, or more strongly to) Aquarius specifically?


Say what? Ideas can be pretty impersonal. Or someone can identify with them. The non-personal attributes of Aquarius refer to its more unemotional nature (compared to, say, a clingy Cancer or domineering Scorpio.)

Quote:
Tarnas links key words to Uranus, but in what sense are we identifying them with Aquarius. In fact, wouldn't a link to the Sun (such as its domicile or exaltation) be a more fitting association for "intellectual brilliance", and if not, perhaps mercury would be better suit it, or all the air signs as a whole. But surely the Sun, which has a traditional has an association with both brilliance and intellect, would be a more fitting connection than the one sign that actually the Sun finds itself in detriment?


Can you unpack this one, as well? In my above post, I addressed ties between Uranus and Aquarius as a fixed air sign. By the sun's affiliation with intellect, are you referring to its association with the Graeco-Roman god Apollo? Note that Mercury rules both our routine thought processes as well as the hands. Through the latter, we get its close affiliation with Virgo.

Some early astrology related to the Mediterranean climate as much as to the solar rounds. The sun is at its epitome climatically in late July-August, which are hot and rainless. Its light seems dimmed and distant during the midst of the cool rainy season, epitomized by Aquarius.

Quote:
Do we really associate fixity with innovation more than we do cardinality or mutability? Whilst we might associate air and fire, is there really anything about Aquarius that is innovative, or at least more innovative than other signs?


Astrology seems to work more with ideal types, rather than with statistical probabilities. Aries the soldier. Capricorn the business executive. Cancer the mother. Aquarian scientists and inventors like Darwin and Edison exemplify ideal types. Of course, none of these affiliations has worked out statistically, so far as I know. Science is a mental activity requiring a lot of persistence. So there's our affiliation with Aquarius.

As I explained above, a good idea isn't going to manifest itself in the laboratory without a lot of commitment and persistence.

Quote:
Originality and creativity? Again think of Aquarius in terms of it being fixed in its expression, relating to uniformity (the converse of creativity and uniqueness) and being, correspondingly, the detriment of the sun - the key indicator of originality and creativity.


Paul, I suggest you let go of the unsubstantiated views that fixity equals uniformity, that originality is inconsistent with fixity, or that the sun in detriment means a lack of originality and creativity for Aquarius. You seem to be trying to develop a logical system, but its legs are pretty shaky.

The sun is hardly the only planet symbolizing creativity! Venus rules the fine arts. Mercury rules writing and the hands. Jupiter rules philosophy. The concepts of fixity and uniformity are simply on different wave-lengths. You could have uniformity with cardinality or mutability, as well.

Quote:
I think instead what we see emerging is that Uranus and the Sun have some linking. Bailey says links them as being 'veiled' with one another, and the same for Moon and Neptune. Now I am not a big fan of Bailey, but I kind of see what she means here. Both the Sun and Uranus promote individualism and creativity bursts. So yes, these key words help us recognise some quality about Uranus, but actually when we think about them, do they really tell us anything about what signs relate to those key words, and if so, does the finger really point to the description of Aquarius prior to Uranus' affiliation with it?


Paul, you could pick any planetary pairs, and find areas where they share commonalities. Uranus and sun for individuality? Sure. Uranus and Mercury for rapid original thinking? Yup. Sun-Moon for parental images? Yes. And so on. If I understand your argument correctly, it is fallacious.

1. The sun and Uranus relate to individuality, and Bailey linked them.
2. The sun is in detriment in Aquarius.
3. Therefore Uranus does not affiliate with Aquarius.

Quote:
In my view it doesn't, but perhaps others see it differently. It's certainly worth thinking along these lines though because actually when we think along them more and more I actually think it makes a more compelling case away from linking Uranus with Aquarius.


I don't think so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1526

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
Paul, please don't play the aggrieved party with me. You don't have to respond to my posts, but if you wish to respond to them, I request the same courtesy from you that you require for yourself.


The curtesy I require would be that you do not turn posts about Uranus into a diatribe about me or your presumed behaviour of me. There is no need for it in order to discuss Uranus. If you do not wish to respond to the posts of mine, the style of which you employ yourself whilst being critical of me when I do the same (point by point analysis) then you do not need to. If you cannot reply to them without making any personal reference or remark about me or my character then try to refrain from posting at all.

I simply do not have the time or the energy to put up with personal remarks when the subject is about something else entirely.


Quote:
Don't you think this is what happened with the "original" rulerships, as well? The malefics and benefics go back to ancient Babylon, before our present-day signs were developed.


Of course - but then I'm not the one making the argument that the way to discover the correct domicile assignation of a planet is to retrospectively examine the connections after the fact. Nixx was, indirectly, mentioning an argument which appears to however. I am merely highlighting why that is a circular reasoning. Nixx was explaining a reason why Uranus might well fit with Aquarius, and I am just warning about circular reasoning. After all if Uranus was associated with Aries all that time ago, then the same argument could be leveraged to 'demonstrate' that Uranus rules Aries - or any other sign.

Therefore my point isn't that this was never done before, but rather that this isn't a rationally sound way to determine rulership. Traditional rulership has an astronomical basis, and then other associations grew up around it. The reason, then, that Mars rules Aries (or Scorpio to use your example later) is for astronomical reasons, not because of sign-planet affinity.
But modern astrology does not recognise that pattern (see Pluto) and instead models its 'rulership' on affinity, not on the same astronomical principles that the traditional planets are modelled on.

I have no idea what recognition that the concept of malefic and benefic stretches to ancient civilisations has to do with the point I made.

Quote:
Can you unpack this one? Any sign has an attachment to something, according to its nature. Capricorn has an attachment to the material and practical, for example.


I could, but I think I have unpacked it enough, perhaps attachment in the sense of preservation and stabilisation would make better sense? If not, so be it, I don't think I will unpack this anymore than I have.

Quote:
Aquarius is emotionally detached. A touchy-feely water sign it isn't. If Aquarius cares about certain ideas it will attach to them.


Thank you for making my point so eloquently - let's remember that I am talking about intellectual attachment, and you agree that Aquarius attaches to its ideologies. This in contrast to the point that Nixx made that I referred to which wasn't that Uranus is emotionally detached, but rather that it is a 'cereberal detached' planet. Cereberal detachment with a sign recognised as being ideologically and intellectually attached? Doesn't gel with me. Maybe it does with you.

Quote:
The non-personal attributes of Aquarius refer to its more unemotional nature (compared to, say, a clingy Cancer or domineering Scorpio.)


Right, and perhaps I wasn't obvious enough - when I spoke of fixed signs and attachment, I meant they attach to the symoblism of their element. Aquarius is not a water sign, therefore I am not arguing that it is emotionally attached (like a scorpio, as you say).

Quote:
Can you unpack this one, as well? In my above post, I addressed ties between Uranus and Aquarius as a fixed air sign. By the sun's affiliation with intellect, are you referring to its association with the Graeco-Roman god Apollo?


I'm not sure what caused confusion here - I am not (explicitly) referring to Apollo, were I to be, I would have said Apollo - but instead to an ancient recognition of the sun as Intellect, sometimes as Divine Intellect, and also with its association of brilliance. Cultures may or may not attribute this to Apollo, you may better understand it by that association (I do not know) but it is not the focus of my point. My point was that intellect and brilliance are solar qualities, and it makes sense, to me, to attribute similar qualities (from Uranus) to Solar-like themes/places - and certainly not to places where Solar-like themes/qualities are said to operate poorly or be corrupted. We do not need to mention Apollo whatsoever to discuss that.

Quote:
As I explained above, a good idea isn't going to manifest itself in the laboratory without a lot of commitment and persistence.


Well it depends if you really think Uranus rules Science - I don't. I happen to think it relates better to innovation and invention - and by proxy then to technology perhaps, more so than science. But that's just my view. If you think a pursuit requiring persistence and discipline are Uranus words then so be it. Or is it not that whenever we want something to be persistent with this discussion we can say "look, that's Aquarius" and the total opposite of that, disruption and innovation, we can say "look, that's Uranus". Really the point that I think is being made here is that actually those things are at cross purposes in terms of affiliation. Oh sure, we can take one field, and note it requires persistence and it can require innovation - but then we could do that for a whole host of things not related to Uranus, Science, or Aquarius.

Quote:
Paul, I suggest you let go of the unsubstantiated views that fixity equals uniformity, that originality is inconsistent with fixity, or that the sun in detriment means a lack of originality and creativity for Aquarius. You seem to be trying to develop a logical system, but its legs are pretty shaky.


Actually what is shaky is your understanding of my point. I have never said that fixity equals uniformity etc. perhaps I am not communicating clearly enough. You misunderstood me. Aquarius as a sign is one I associate with uniformity rather than originality. It is the converse quality of the domicile of the Sun - original and creative. The bracketed part of my post refers to the creativity and uniqueness which I hoped, from context, would be understood as a reference to the sun, and that aquarius is fixed in that regards (as opposed to the qualities of Uranus). Apologies if this wasn't clear here. Perhaps I worded this poorly.

You may not like the idea of detriments (I know you do not from previous discussions) but it is part of my symbolic landscape and so I am happy to discuss these ideas without any need for 'substantiation' - something which we will be waiting a long time for with astrology.

Quote:
The sun is hardly the only planet symbolizing creativity


No, but then mercury isn't the only planet symbolising the mind, and the Moon isn't the only planet symbolising emotions. However, the Sun is THE MAIN planet for symbolising creative spark.

Quote:
Paul, you could pick any planetary pairs, and find areas where they share commonalities. Uranus and sun for individuality? Sure. Uranus and Mercury for rapid original thinking? Yup. Sun-Moon for parental images? Yes. And so on. If I understand your argument correctly, it is fallacious.


Right. You do not understand my argument correctly I guess - at least not in full. My point wasn't to link planets by some common theme. My point was in demonstrating that, what I feel are the 'main' or core or prime significations of the two planet's involved share commonality in a way that the Sun, and, say, Mercury do not. I was not, for example, linking the two by way of commonality of a theme - parents with Sun and Moon - and rather at its more essential and fundamental quality of signification as I understand it (and citing Bailey as a source, for comparison, with a similar view worded differently).

Hey, that's isn't in your symbolic landscape, or how you recognise the core quality of the planets? Great, it won't make sense to you and you are free to abandon the idea.

Quote:
I don't think so.


No, but then there was never going to be any other way.


Last edited by Paul on Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:18 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1526

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Therese Hamilton wrote:
On the sidereal forum I've posted what I believe to be the correct planetary rulership/exaltation scheme of the zodiac which includes the outer planet affinities. When this scheme is outlined in circular format, I don't see that it can be easily adjusted.

However, when we consider what has been observed about sign characteristics based on planetary affinity―as I see it―this scheme works only in the sidereal zodiac which is why I have posted my messages on the sidereal forum. The foundation of the scheme is the ancient division of the zodiac into solar and lunar halves. I have also added a philosophical note as to why the outer planets were only recently discovered. For anyone curious about this scheme, please refer to this link:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=86322#86322


Thanks for the link Therese, however I don't find the logic you employ compelling at all. I will reply on that thread.


Edit
Thank you for your thoughts on this Therese, I find your arguments more compelling now you have explained the chart in further detail, though, as I say, the idea of it relating to sidereal only seems without basis.


Last edited by Paul on Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems to me that when it comes to astrological perspective, that some astrologers try to use the same perspective everywhere. I prefer to keep each perspective within the context from which it was formed. This is why I use Uranus as "ruler" of Aquarius for certain issues and Saturn for others (more notably the realm of the concrete particular). The modern perspective of rulership as "affinity" is where I see Uranus having considerable freedom to operate in Aries as if it was in it's own "element".

I think it's important to expand ones vocabulary and understand that there are far more relationships between the planets and the signs than just "ruler" and "exaltation". When "ruler" is used by those coming from the modern perspective, it is important to realize that term had a different meaning historically that is very different from the way it is used now.
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3601
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zoidsoft wrote:

I think it's important to expand ones vocabulary and understand that there are far more relationships between the planets and the signs than just "ruler" and "exaltation". When "ruler" is used by those coming from the modern perspective, it is important to realize that term had a different meaning historically that is very different from the way it is used now.


curtis, how do you respond to those who claim that a previous system or way of doing astrology, referred to typically as traditional astrology, has a built in 'philosophical esthetic' that can't accept an outer planet, let alone the possibility of it having some ''affinity or rulership'' over what this same tradition defines? and speaking of perspective - we all have a modern perspective in spite of anyone's attempt to cloak themselves with an ideology or system that has long since died. anyone practicing traditional astrology today is either very good at fooling themselves if they think they are capable of letting go the 'modern' perspective that they are born into, or not being truthful with others to state they have something other then a modern perspective as i see it..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil



Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 51

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The way I intuit Uranian energy is not as the red, flaming, consuming energy of Mars or even the Sun. I picture Uranian energy as more of a “cool” blue energy, this even though it is certainly hot. Not the fiery flare of the Sun; more a blue streak of lightning. Or a spark of electricity. Ever seen a spark plug work? Kind of like that. It’s hot in that there is certainly energy there, but it’s not raging, consuming, or engulfing anything. It won’t in and of itself grow out of control like Mars’ flame (which is what makes Mars “malefic”). Although in the right setting of other things, a reaction can occur, one that grows, possibly out of control, for better or worse.

Uranian energy is thus catalytic. Condition A might be headed in a certain direction, but when it is in the right state, a bolt of Uranian energy will quickly change it to Condition B. I’m not sure there is fixity here: The sometimes persistent forces (social, in some examples given above) trending towards the turning point may be driven by non-Uranian energies. For instance, the willpower, vision, and diligence of the countless unremembered people working towards a particular social change could be Solar or Mars-related forces. Or Mercurial, or Venusian, etc. But that catalytic event, force, or person, or that last change in circumstances that shoves things inexorably forward, is Uranus at work. By forward I don’t mean towards a better place, just that there’s no going back.

Other than operating at this focused point of time, I have no idea if Uranian forces are responsible for some of the prior build-up, if any, or the posterior maintenance of the new status.

Maybe, as this catalyst, Uranus simply amplifies the beneficence or maleficence of aspecting planets or other chart factors with which it interacts. At the very least, if Uranus is a pure catalyst, this explains its above mentioned lack of contribution (being a “dumb note”) in the chart if there is no substrate.

Maybe cold, Saturnine, and seemingly inert Aquarian conditions or temperaments more often provide the exact materials needed for some reaction to occur? Maybe that’s the affinity?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Morpheus



Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 764
Location: Rawalpindi/Islamabad (Pakistan)

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have to confess that after so many months an interesting debate is taking place in 'Skyscript'.

Some of my thoughts and experiences.

The ancient system of one sign for Sun and One for Moon (luminaries=Nayyarain) and Two signs each for rest of the 5 planets (Khumsa Mutahayyara=Five Wanderers) was in fact a complete system for that time. No need was felt nor dual signs were given to planets because they thought that future generations would have to find and explore 5 additional planets.

It is also a fact that Humans as a species have evolved on the cultural and Moral grounds for the past 3,000 years.

The ancient systems though extremely simple and authoritative to use are inadequate to answer the problems of Humanity from 50 years from now.

So, yes we can with effort incorporate Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in our Traditional Astrologies without disturbing the original scheme of ruler ships.

Primarily I am a Traditional Astrologer, however, I was coaxed into studying Modern Astrology few years back at the behest of my very good friend. At that time we had experimentation with Modern predictive System (Progressions, returns etc etc). My experiments suggest that though on a theoretical basis 'Uranus' seems ought to have an affinity for Aquarius, however, it was not confirmed through experiments. On the other hand Uranus Transits are so obvious in Natal charts that it can not be ignored. Now, I use Uranus transits as to fine tune the Traditional Astrology findings however, with a difference that it has no apparent affinity with any sign.

The case for Uranus having affinity for the sign of Aries is much weaker. Ancients did not assign ruler ships on the basis of hot and cold. I have not seen anyone in this thread refuting waybread on a fine and valid logic. How can a Trans-personal and Social planet i.e Uranus has an affinity for a personal and asocial sign i.e Aries?
_________________
Regards

Morpheus

https://horusastropalmist.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
curtis, how do you respond to those who claim that a previous system or way of doing astrology, referred to typically as traditional astrology, has a built in 'philosophical esthetic' that can't accept an outer planet, let alone the possibility of it having some ''affinity or rulership'' over what this same tradition defines? and speaking of perspective - we all have a modern perspective in spite of anyone's attempt to cloak themselves with an ideology or system that has long since died. anyone practicing traditional astrology today is either very good at fooling themselves if they think they are capable of letting go the 'modern' perspective that they are born into, or not being truthful with others to state they have something other then a modern perspective as i see it..


Indeed, the bold is what Schmidt says about secondary intentionality and its insidious effect on our mental state. One can only do the best one can and verify through experience. I wouldn't say that it died because parts of it were preserved in the medieval and modern interpretations. But I've been working in the traditional field for over 20 years now. For nearly 20 years before that I was of the psychological school and my practice drastically changed during the period that Uranus and Neptune were conjunct my natal Saturn in Capricorn 3rd...
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zoidsoft



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 983
Location: Pulaski, NY

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PS - Oh and saying that traditional astrology has a built in philosophical esthetic and therefore can't accept an outer planet doesn't invalidate a perspective or philosophy. It just means that it is defined for the parameters that are specified and returns undefined when the parameters go out of scope (to use programming terminology). That's why it's called a perspective, because it has predefined bounds and is only valid within those bounds. This is why I use traditional methods for the concrete particular, but when it comes to spiritual or hidden issues, I use modern psychological and evolutionary techniques (Steven Forrest in particular).
_________________
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 6 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated