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 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
james_m



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

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
Mark wrote:
The more I contemplate Brady's idea of 'association without rulership' the more nebulous and impractical I feel it is.


Right, in fact it may just be a case of paying lip service to both traditional and modern astrologers - it's okay traditionalists, your scheme isn't at risk, we're calling it something else, it's okay modernists, your planet associations are being kept. Sounds like a nice inoffensive compromise. But I just wonder about how practical it is, whether it provides us with any information that is useful.


i think you're both correct to focus on this idea in this manner, as i do see it this way too. but, lets break it down a bit more... i think it is really about the role of rulership in astrology and how a planet ruling a sign helps bring the astrologer back to the sign/house where the said planet is supposed to rule being an important source for giving us more information on what the planet will be doing in the chart.. that is how i understand the idea of rulership and the basis for the importance of making this 'rulership' as opposed to 'association' connection.

then there is the philosophical issue of the wonderful pattern of rulerships that is broken if one incorporates an outer planet into the concept of rulership. it is almost like you are making a particular fashion statement, as opposed to focusing on the usefulness of it, or the clothes have to be useful in a specific manner and why bother adding something into this that isn't useful - or to use both of your word 'practical'?

personally i think there is something more to this then whether it is practical or not, but then i am not all that practical a person! i like the concept of a planet having an association with a sign. i think this is really what the basis of mars and sun have an association with aries and would have been some or much of the basis for the idea of rulership too.. at any rate, perhaps it all depends on the type of practicality one expresses whether they will incorporate uranus or not and just how they will incorporate it at all.. some astrologers very much into traditional astrology include uranus in their observations - deb, mark, and etc. etc. - and some don't - konrad and etc. etc.. the reasons for including it or not are all very personal it seems and may or may not be based on the usefulness or practicality of including uranus in all of this..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil



Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 51

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx,

I wonder how much of Uranus' "sudden change" personality derives from the fact that the discovery of this planet is the very exemplar of sudden change to astrology. The American and French Revolutions obviously fit in here, buttress the case. But the revolution closest to home could arguably be that, after some three or four thousand years of astrology with seven planets, we suddenly had an eighth.

I think all the common descriptors of Uranus would apply to the subjective experience of astrologers as the planet was revealed and regarded. Here is something that came out of the blue, in a relative flash, challenging the old order, etc. Here is a planet literally acting its part.

Also, Uranus' sudden discovery and location beyond Saturn seems congruent to its symbolic relationship to that planet of limitations and boundaries.

It would then beg the question: was Uranus acting its part, or defining its part? Looked at from an "as above, so below" standpoint, this question becomes moot.

Phil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 960
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark-- you wrote:

Quote:
Perhaps the deeper question for us both to contemplate is can two logically contradictory approaches be equally accurate? Our answer, whatever it might be, surely tells is something profound about the nature of astrology.


Yes, absolutely! Perhaps we've all seen traditional and modern western, as well as Vedic/jyotish astrology, produce uncanny results. And the differences between these systems are striking. More and more, this leads me to think that astrology is a form of divination.

Hey, Mark-- with my sun, Mercury, and Venus in Aquarius (and sun trine Uranus conjunct MC) would you really expect me not to stick up for my beliefs????

While I don't think the Uranus-Aquarius rulership of modern astrology is inviolable, to poke sticks at it should equally make traditional astrology's standards open to question, no?

Quote:
Have you noticed the strong historical association between Uranus in Aries and revolutions and rebellions? How do you reconcile that fact with your existing views?


I don't see a contradiction here. You do not argue for a Uranus domiciled in Aries-- as I understand your argument. However, in claiming a stronger "affiliation" for Uranus with Aries than for Uranus with Aquarius, you seem to depose Uranus's long-term rulership in modern astrology. This concerns me because Uranus operationalizes well as the ruler of Aquarius in modern natal astrology (alongside Saturn.)

Since Uranus changes sign every 7 years, on a global basis we will find all kinds of revolutions, novel events, and scientific breakthroughs happening throughout its 84-year orbital period. With Mars ruling Aries, it might make more sense for "martial" events to occur with Uranus in Aries. But then we might associate some sort of agricultural innovation to occur with Uranus in an earth sign; or a scientific discovery with Uranus in a mental air sign.

Michael, thank you for your informative post.

I suspect the idea that Uranus bursts through Saturnian structures comes from the old theosophical influence on modern astrology. The theosophists were so taken with the concept of evolution of human consciousness. They invented the idea (so far as I know) of an evolutionary order to the signs and houses. It would accordingly follow from this type of thinking that Uranus had to represent something dramatically different from grumpy old Saturn in human consciousness.

In a previous post, I argued that science partakes of both Saturn and Uranus energies. Uranus provides the innovative ideas, while Saturn offers the determination and persistence to complete the research. A similar pattern occurs with other Uranian phenomena like aviation and space travel.

Phil, I think your thesis that the discovery of a planet beyond Saturn shook up the astrological establishment makes a lot of sense. It would be interesting for a historian to look up newspapers, &c from the years post-1781 to see how Uranus was treated by the press and astronomers. I wonder if they used phrases like "sudden discovery" or "unexpected finding," such that the iconoclastic nature of Uranus in the public mind transfered over to astrology, ready-made.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 960
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul, my references to Hellensitic astrology are consistent with a site dedicated to traditional astrology, and where a variety of traditional and modern perspectives are entertained. As I mentioned above, I think early Hellenistic astrology offers some openings for Mark's overall project of working with Uranus from a traditional perspective, that seemingly close with subsequent astrologies; namely working with a modern planet while acknowledging that it doesn't fit into traditional tables of essential dignities.

This raises another question for me as a modern astrologer, as to whether the Uranus-traditional astrology problem isn't truly "a square peg in a round hole" mismatch all around.

I focus on the sun and Mars analogy with Uranus in a moment, but first some preparatory material on why I think you find my approach self-contradictory.

You are familiar with the distinction between "lumpers" and "splitters". Lumpers prefer aggregates, splitters prefer delineation and drawing distinctions. To talk about "Hellenistic astrology" in the whole cloth as though it comprised an essentially unified tradition is "lumping." Drawing out specific threads from the cloth is "splitting." To a lumper, "the tradition" seems an integrated whole that cannot readily be teased apart. ( I. e., If you believe A about it, then you must also believe B, C, D, &c or risk self-contradiction.) To a "splitter" component parts can and sometimes should be analysed separately, because their logical connection to other components is not essential to their individual natures.

So far as this sun, Mars, Uranus discussion goes, I am a "splitter." I do not agree in homogenizing "modern astrology" or "Hellenistic astrology" in instances where I see very distinct strands, for example. From this perspective, there is no contradiction in what I wrote about Hellenistic astrology, because I can assert "A" without thereby having to adopt "B, C, D, &c for purposes of a given discussion.)

Hellenistic astrology (whole cloth) evolved over many centuries, incorporating many different threads. We can look to early Hellenistic astrology for a more weakly developed concept of detriment, exaltation, and fall by sign (distinct strands) in a way that might just further Mark's overall project in a way that subsequent astrologies might not afford. Detriments seem a later development in Hellenistic astrology (cf. Caesar's pride in having his moon in Capricorn,) for example.

This strategy wouldn't work for traditionalists working from later traditions, obviously.

I also noted that the sun is not necessarily a vivifying agent in Hellenistic astrology. There are times when it clearly works as a malefic (as Ptolemy noted. Cf the recent sun thread.) While this doesn't make a clear case for Aquarius and Uranus, it hopefully clarifies the multi-natured operation of the sun.

Have we covered Hellenistic astrology sufficiently? Then moving right along into contemporary traditional astrology.....

If I understand your argument correctly, it works something like this: the sun and Mars share properties with Uranus. The sun is domiciled in Leo and exalted in Aries (ruled by Mars). The sun falls in Aquarius. Therefore Aquarius is a poor match for Uranus because it is like the sun (and/or Mars.) Moreover, the sun is a vivifying agent so it wouldn't be at home in Aquarius. Because the sun is like Uranus, Uranus wouldn't be at home in Aquarius, ruled by the sun's antithesis Saturn.

I see a fair bit of slippage in the comparisons, having pointed out multiple cases where Uranus and Aquarius work differently than the above scheme.
In traditional astrology today, the sun works well in detriment in Aquarius (or should I say, does not work well!) but this says nothing about Uranus and Aquarius (or another sign) if the sun-Mars-Uranus correspondence is questionable.

Regarding terms, faces, triplicities, &c. Here I think my point is missed. No, Mark did not mention them. He steers clear of essential dignities, prefering to talk about affinities. Yes, I mentioned essential dignities, in order to demonstrate the more general point of all kinds of planet-sign matches in traditional astrology. So let's agree that we are discussing planet-sign "affinities", "affiliations", or "correspondences" of which essential dignities would be a much higher order of affiliation than you or Mark intend.

However, where you find a planet-sign essential dignity, wouldn't you think you've got something? It is the basis of your argument from the sun and Mars, incidentally.

Again, if your argument runs something like sun/Mars/Uranus:Aries (or Leo) and not Aquarius on an affinity/aversion basis, then I find it interesting that Mars somehow winds up with terms in Aquarius, and anti-sun Saturn gets both terms and a face in sun-domiciled Leo. Wouldn't you think this couldn't happen if planet-sign aversions were so absolute? (And yes, I have read Deb's interesting article on terms.) So whether we call terms and faces "essential dignities" or a more inclusive, less concise term like "affinity", it seems clear that "affinities" of planets and signs are not strictly based upon like-minded characteristics.

If not an argument for a Uranus-Aquarius affiliation, it is at least not evidence against it.

Traditional attributes of Aquarius are not a problem for Uranus.
(to be continued)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


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

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Waybread,

You have previously asked where I got the idea of Uranus as the transcendant Sun. I did provide you with the link to Curtis Manwaring's website where I first came across this idea. However, I suspect you missed this in the fast pace of exchanges here.

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/planet-signification.html

I have selected the relevant part of Curtis's website and highlighted the sections referring specifically to Schmidt's ideas. As you will see it is totally different from the straightforward Sun-Mars association that has been proposed here. Schmidt proposes a single planetary association but it is more complex than a simple cross over of planetary symbolism. In large part because the nature of all the outer planets is seen as 'transcendental'.

As you can see below Schmidt suggests Uranus as the 'transcendental Sun', Neptune as the 'transcendental Moon' and Pluto as the 'transcendental Mercury'.

It would be great to have more from Robert Schmidt on this subject in article form. Unfortunately, all we seem to have is the short summary of Schmidt's ideas provided by Curtis Manwaring. These were from Robert Schmidt's lectures at Cumberland, MD in December 2000. I dont know if these were recorded or not.

Whether you accept Schmidt's theory on the nature of the outer planets or not it is certainly thought provoking. Because of their transcendantal and transpersonal nature Schmidt doesn't consider the outer planets relevant for more mundane matters like rulership of signs.

I decided to vary from Schmidt's theory and adopt my own by adopting a dual nature to all the outers. So I am using the term transcendant Sun not transcendental as Schmidt adopts. By the term I am thinking of Valens reference to the astrological Sun as 'the light of the mind'. In terms of its more positive manifestation I think Uranus can be a catalyst for the creative spark , genius or awakened states of consciousness.

Quote:
There is even the issue amongst traditional astrologers if they can have rulership at all. Schmidt has brought up the fact that if the outer planets are transcendental, then for them to signify something in particular in the world is to degrade them from their transcendental nature. He instead says that they distort or perturb the significations of the inner planets while signifying absolute qualities of human life.

.For the time being, when I look at the outer planets, I ask myself how they are distorting the significations of the inner planets, not what they signify themselves. This is because, as Schmidt has said, giving an outer planet stewardship over a given area of your life is to degrade it from its transcendental status.

….Some astrologers have said that the outer planets are higher octaves of the inner planets, but there are a number of schemes relating to this issue. One sect says that Uranus is the higher octave of Mercury. This is probably because communication as represented by Mercury often takes electronic form these days. Also if the mind and thought patterns are represented by Mercury, then mental breakthroughs are represented by Uranus.

However, another sect says that Uranus is like the higher octave of Mars. The reasoning here is that Uranus represents disruptions, violent lightening storms, and wars as represented by Mars. The scientific symbol for Uranus looks very much like Mars but with a dot in the center of the circle. Incidentally, the dot in the center of the circle is reminescient of the Sun which brings me to

the third sect that says that Uranus is the "transcendental Sun" The idea here is that if Uranus represents enlightenment and breakthroughs in understanding, then it is somehow a transcendent form of the Sun, the realm of Nous which is the realm of the pure ideas (called eidetic forms) or the absolute idea.

Schmidt calls Neptune the "transcendental Moon" stating that Neptune represents the absolute existent; which generates illusion when compared to the existent of human life.

Schmidt says that Pluto is the "transcendental Mercury", representing alogos rather than logos (which is Mercury) because it distorts by trying to relate the absolute idea to the absolute existent. This is especially interesting because transcendence itself is a Mercurial matter. For Mercury to be transcendent beyond it's normal transcendent state could be seen as an impossibility, so Pluto, by relating absolute idea and absolute existent creates enigmas, paradoxes and contradictions.


The fact that the outer planets can be schematized in these ways hints that they are transcendent and are somehow beyond normal everyday 1:1 signification or representation.
[/b]


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 Mar 04, 2014 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
Paul, my references to Hellensitic astrology are consistent with a site dedicated to traditional astrology, and where a variety of traditional and modern perspectives are entertained.


There is little point in repeating our points I think. I suspect you do not understand the crux of mine, and perhaps I am not understanding yours.

We shall have to just agree to disagree. I suspect that you have more involved in defending the modern rulership of Aquarius than I have in playing with a thought experiment of associating Uranus with Aries.

As I said, I always knew we would all leave this conversation just as fixed in our opinions as when we entered it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phil wrote:
Nixx,

I wonder how much of Uranus' "sudden change" personality derives from the fact that the discovery of this planet is the very exemplar of sudden change to astrology. The American and French Revolutions obviously fit in here, buttress the case. But the revolution closest to home could arguably be that, after some three or four thousand years of astrology with seven planets, we suddenly had an eighth.

I think all the common descriptors of Uranus would apply to the subjective experience of astrologers as the planet was revealed and regarded. Here is something that came out of the blue, in a relative flash, challenging the old order, etc. Here is a planet literally acting its part.


You might have expected a more negative reaction as its appearance presented so many challenges to the thinking’s and doings of the time. (To the extent these existed as horoscopy seems to have been the pastime of the very few in this era). It does appear to have been seen by some as ‘evil ‘or malevolent early doors, going by my skimming of Champions Vol 2 and Curry’s Prophets book. Campion does not seem all that fond of what he sees as this re-emerging stoical fatalistic astrology, Ignorant of Plato’s living universe, Aristotle’s celestial causes and the Hermeticists sympathies and correspondences. It might be crucial to process Uranus’s earlier meanings within this context? The Astrologers cited seem to be Sibly, Worsdale, Raphael and Zadkiel. If anyone has access to their writings they could seek clarification. I also looked briefly at Tarnas's Cosmos and Psyche as well, in this he seemed more focused on the Uranus/Pluto aspects and its relevance to the nativities of some folks more directly involved in the USA and French revolutions and the LATIN American and European uprisings in 1816-1824 than the events around 1781.

Other than the Varley anecdote I’m not noticing much about quickness of effect to date in this (1780-1850 ish) period


Quote:

Also, Uranus' sudden discovery and location beyond Saturn seems congruent to its symbolic relationship to that planet of limitations and boundaries.


It would then beg the question: was Uranus acting its part, or defining its part? Looked at from an "as above, so below" standpoint, this question becomes moot.

Phil


I’m not sure I understand your notions/questions here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 960
Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark (or Paul? Curtis?) could you say more about this concept of the esoteric sun? Either here or on the separate sun thread? I read Curtis's blog article, which offers some of the "what" but not background reasoning. If there is more to Schmidt's thesis, or some additional subtext to the sun-Uranus connection, it would be very helpful to read it.

It looks like the Schmidt lecture is available on CD through the “Phase lectures” of Project Hindsight”, one titled, “Transcendence and the Outer Planets.” The abstract for it is:

“How do we come to characterize the outer planets, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto? What does it mean when we call them 'transcendental' planets? Robert Schmidt offers a lucid philosophical approach to transcendence, framed in a discussion of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. He makes suggestions about the outer planets as the Transcendental Ideas outlined by Kant. In this talk, he presents a foundation for a new science to investigate metaphysical assertions, including the concepts of intensive magnitude and intensification and remission of forms”
http://www.projecthindsight.com/archives/lectures.html

If this set of ideas is the basis for your sun-Uranus connection, then please say more!

My knowledge of Kant is sketchy, but he doesn't use "transcendental" and "transcendent" in the identical way, nor does he use "transcendent" in the ordinary sense. If the meaning of "transcendent" is taken in a more usual way to mean a phenomenon beyond our ordinary awareness, as in “transcendental meditation” or “transcending ordinary existence,” then we probably don’t need Kant to do this.

I personally don’t find Uranus to be "transcendental" or "transcendent" in either sense. (Or put differently, all of the planets have both esoteric and ordinary meanings.) I don't see the outers as higher octaves or esoteric expressions of another planet: Uranus is its own planet. I am unclear as to what is achieved astro-logically by adding an intervening layer of esoteric interpretation here. (Cf. Occam’s razor.)

Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phil



Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 51

Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx,

My thinking is much more simplistic: the most basic, obvious trait of a planet having an influence on its enduring symbolism. Along the lines of blood red Mars, for instance. What were the moods of people - astrologers and non-astrologers - what were their feelings, regarding this new planet Uranus? Was there a popular feeling in the air of a great and sudden new discovery and breakthrough? If this was the popular feeling, apparent in, say, the newspapers of the day, as waybread considers, that's something. Even if not a pop sentiment, I'd have to imagine there was such a sense among astrologers of the day. This was the first discovery of its kind, basically ever.

I've read that myths take a kernel of truth, perhaps a real hero or event, and grow from this. But this kernel remains essential. Also, I've read that much of what we think we objectively see, or logically deduce, comes from somewhere deeper within us, a place much more steeped in feelings and emotions. It seems very coincidental that a paradigm challenging, flash out of nowhere planet is imbued with just these traits as its own symbolic essence.

More to your point, could the unexpected challenge of the planet, the vexing question of just what to do with it astrologically, be the germs of its definition as malefic? Even now we speak of "dealing with the challenges of" Uranus.

And the fact that this planet shows up beyond Saturn - with its own symbolism with which we are all familiar - usurping its place in a sense, could lead to what Joanna Watters writes here on skyscript:

"Uranus symbolizes the rebel and is a direct response to Saturn's austerity. Saturn plays by the rules, but Uranus says that rules are there to be broken or challenged. Saturn is sensible, Uranus throws caution to the winds."

This Uranus vs. Saturn dynamic-as-descriptor of Uranus seems pretty common. We don't see this with, say, Neptune vs. Saturn. Certainly the mythological Uranus vs. Saturn conflict would point in the opposite direction in terms of rebellion symbolism. I wonder how much the sudden astronomical usurpation of Saturn by Uranus plays here?

The "as above so below" part is my musing on astrologers’ use of the flow of symbolism. We often experience things on Earth, "below", then observe the skies, and deduce what things mean "above". Consider Ptolemy's statements on how even a fool can deduce some astrological facts based on simply knowing the seasons.

But if the aforementioned thoughts have any truth to them, here we'd have events in the sky itself that are being directly experienced. Uranus the planet literally did something: it suddenly revealed itself. That action, directly witnessed "above", might in fact have been extrapolated to provide a reason for what's going on "below". So which way is the symbolism, or the arrow of deduction, flowing? Is Uranus being defined by what we experience on Earth? Or is it defining itself by jumping out of nowhere and shaking things up? Just like Mars, perhaps, declares his own violence by being blood red.

To anyone, such as astrologers, steeped in the "as above so below" concept, the direction of this flow mightn't matter. The symbolic correlation would just speak for itself. That was the thought and I apologize if I’m way off topic!

Phil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 960
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good insights, Phil!

I just did a quick search on the history of the Uranus discovery, and found that the naming of Uranus was based on theogony-- the genealogy of the gods. I think everyone knows that Herschel originally named Uranus after George III, but this sat poorly with his continental colleagues.

" [Johann] Bode opted for Uranus, the Latinized version of the Greek god of the sky, Ouranos. Bode argued that just as Saturn was the father of Jupiter, the new planet should be named after the father of Saturn. ...Ultimately, Bode's suggestion became the most widely used, and became universal in 1850 when HM Nautical Almanac Office, the final holdout, switched from using Georgium Sidus to Uranus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus
http://blogs.rmg.co.uk/rog/2011/03/13/on_this_day_in_history_the_dis/

I had previously read but forgotten that astronomers prior to Herschel observed Uranus (beginnng with Flamsteed in 1690,) but the "discovery" part was really based on determining that it orbited the sun as a planet, vs. a star or comet (as Herschel originally thought.

John Lankford, ed History of Astronomy, (google book) gives Uranus as named for Urania, the muse of astronomy, but I couldn't find that verified.

One point that really comes across in the history of the discovery was that it catapaulted Herschel into fame and favour. King George III gave him a stipend for life plus the title of Royal Astronomer. Herschel was later knighted. Contemporary astrologers who might have greeted Uranus with resistence as an unwanted disruption do not seem to have had much sway in the public popularity of the discovery.

The genealogy of planetary gods by 18th century astronomers shouldn't seem surprising, as their education would have had a large classical studies component.

If theogony really was the basis for the naming of Uranus (Jupiter son of Saturn son of Uranus) then we are not exactly dealing with a logic which, by rights, could give Neptune to Pisces but should allocate Pluto to Aries as we move out from the sun and around the zodiac.

In fact, moving inwards from Jupiter-- Mars was the son of Jupiter and Juno. In some myths the parents of Venus, Mercury, Diana (moon) and Apollo (sun) were children of Jupiter and different goddesses-- but the sun and moon also of variously of deities symbolizing light and the ether. Pluto and Neptune were Jupiter's brothers.

Moving out from Uranus and earlier in theogony, Uranus is sometimes depicted as fatherless, but sometimes as the son of Aether-- the god of light and mists which seem very Neptunian-- by planetary nature if not by name.

Aether's father was either Chaos or Erebus, god of the primeval darkness, and Nyx goddess of night. Erebus is another name for the underworld of Hades (aka Pluto.) www.theoi.com (Compare Genesis 1.)

Obviously the mythographers had no idea of the modern solar system, but this genealogy nevertheless maps out well planet-wise, but without a necessary correlation to signs of the zodiac in strict order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 960
Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More on why Uranus got classified as malefic and attributed to Aquarius.

I just did a little more sleuthing on early descriptions of Uranus, following up on Kim Farnell's article. She viewed a lot of sources that I didn't, but I did locate as a google book Raphael's (Robert T. Cross), A Manual of Astrology, 1828.

Raphael believed that Uranus (called "Herschel") was a true malefic, nearly as bad as Saturn, but his primary reasons seem to be (a) its similarity to Saturn, (b) the discovery chart, and (c) "several thousand observations" which are unattributed except to himself and “men of skill and science in celestial philosophy”. (We could take this with a grain of salt.)

1. He took an extremely negative view of Saturn: "“most powerful, evil, and malignant of all the planets.” If Saturn was cold and dry, Uranus was “replete with evil...” “extremely frigid, cold, dry, and void of any cheering influence.” (pp. 70-72.) His descriptions of the two planets are similar.

In addition to his purported "thousands of observations," Raphael probably gave Uranus to Aquarius on the grounds that Saturn (which Uranus resembled) already ruled Aquarius, and it apparently seemed like a better match than Capricorn, being one sign further out from either Aries or Cancer/Leo.

Interestingly, Raphael used the discovery of Uranus as a reason for dismissing much of the significance of the traditional table of essential dignities. (Unlike today's trads-- Raphael turfed out the table, not Uranus.) In keeping the major "essential fortitudes" and debilities, however, Raphael wrote that Uranus had the same ones as Saturn. (132-5)

2. Raphael (and apparently in the McCann article on the Uranus discovery on this site) was apparently unaware of the serious limits of using a discovery chart to say anything about a planet's nature (236). In 1781, a planet could be discovered (a) only at night, with (b) the sun and moon tucked well out of the way. (c) The new planet had to be reasonably close to the zenith, because otherwise there is liable to be too much haze and distortion in the sky just above the horizon. Given the difficulty of manoevering the large old telescopes, an astronomer pretty much had to train it on one section of the sky.

This leaves the 11th through the 8th houses (roughly speaking) in which a planet in 1781 could be discovered. A discovery chart is therefore partly an artefact of the astronomical technology available at the time.

The problem seemed to be that Uranus in Gemini (in the 8th or 9th, depending upon which time one choses between 10 and 11 pm) was closely opposed from the 2nd by a Saturn-Mars conjunction. (236) (An aspect that would have remained in place all week.) Raphael didn't mention further their T-square to the sun.

3. It was probably based on the Saturn rulership, not in opposition to it, that Raphael stated, "the sign of Aquarius is one wherein [Uranus] much delights, and that he is fortunate in the airy trigon Gemini, Libra, Aquarius; and unfortunate in fiery, earthy, or watery signs.” (70-72) He described Uranus as having the effect of both Saturn and Mercury; the latter possibly because of Uranus's first sighting in Gemini.

Possibly based on his empirical work with Uranus, Raphael though Uranus did better in nativities where it was well-aspected by the moon or Mercury, when it was more apt to make original thinkers of a scientific bent. (70-72)

(to be continued)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 960
Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(continued)

In terms of the traits of Uranus [called "Herschel"], Raphael (Robert T. Cross) wrote:

“His effects are truly malefic, but what he does of evil, he does in a peculiarly strange, unaccountable, and totally unexpected manner. He causes the native born under his influence to be of a very eccentric and original disposition. Those persons born under his influence are unusually romantic, unsettled, addicted to change, and searchers after novelty. If the moon or Mercury and Herschel be well aspected, they are searchers after nature’s secrets, excellent chymists, and usually profound in the more secret sciences. He gives the most extraordinary magnanimity and loftiness of mind mixed with an uncontrollable and intense desire for pursuits or desire out of the “track of custom.” (pp. 70-72)

We get a curious juxtaposition here, of an "evil" planet causing iconoclastic individuals. Being eccentric or addicted to change were negative traits. With the passage of time, however, our society seemingly developed more tolerance for people "out of the track of custom" than was the case for Raphael and his era.

There is more to be discovered here if the data were available, like whether Raphael actually did a lot of empirical work on Uranus or read the work of others, and how much influence he had on subsequent astrologers.

Raphael gives a few worked-out examples of his use of Uranus in his Manual of Astrology in natal, mundane, and length-of-life calculations, so that we can see how he interpreted it. Which was usually like an old-fashioned malevolent Saturn: OK if safely tucked out of the way with the moon or Mercury, but extremely harmful in a hard aspect.

The idea that Uranus somehow liberated one from the bounds of Saturn and was thus antithetical to Saturn seems to come from a later period of modern astrology's curious career. To Raphael, they were much of a muchness, except that Uranus was quirkier.

As a post-script, Raphael's chart is posted on the Astro-DataBank at: http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Cross,_Robert .

His Uranus looks....troubled.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Atlantean



Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 396

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re: "More on why Uranus got classified as malefic and attributed to Aquarius."

Though I do consider Uranus a co-ruler of Aquarius, I don't see it as malefic.

Without the influence of true malefics, Uranus tends to neutrality. It is sometimes upsetting as it liberates, but the liberation is always needed. [It's not Uranus' "fault" if people have a hard time adapting to the sudden (needed) change...]

In the words of Alexander Marr,

"As already mentioned, Uranus is not at all a malefic, but stands for originality, love of freedom, true intuition and mental ability. In transits, midpoints and cycles where we must interpret the mutual interaction of several planets from the psychological point of view, Uranus often stresses suddenness, surprise and excitement. The character of the event depends on the other planets involved." [Emphasis mine]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Morpheus



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

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a partile Grand Trine all at 27 degrees (Air Signs) of Mercury (Aquarius)-Saturn (Gemini) -Uranus (Libra). I have seen benefits accruing from this combination. It is good in fields where your daily bread depends upon constant outpouring of creative ideas and innovations. Not fit for routine work.

I have further to add that Aquarius being my 7th Sign, I have not seen Uranus transits or progressed aspects affecting me in negative way. Marriage stable for past 20 years and still going on Smile. I am monogamous by nature.
_________________
Regards

Morpheus

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



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 520
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Atlantean wrote:
Quote:
Without the influence of true malefics, Uranus tends to neutrality.


The way I look at it, there are no "true malefics"; all the planets are neutral. Since all the planets represent indispensable functions of (human) nature. True, some influences may be easier than others. This depends on how a planet's influence gets modified by other planets, their placement in the zodiac, the kind of aspects getting involved etc. Also, it depends on what an individual or collective attracts according to the choices they have made, which reflects their level of spiritual evolution and what "lectures" they need in order for that evolution to proceed. To be sure, this is generally not the way traditional astrology looks at the planets, even though the Syrian Neoplatonist Iamblichus mentioned that the sometimes destructive influence of the malefics is not really their "fault" but has to do with the shortcomings in an individual's consciousness.

Waybread wrote:

Quote:
If there is more to Schmidt's thesis, or some additional subtext to the sun-Uranus connection, it would be very helpful to read it.


Waybread, the way I look at Uranus as correlated with the Sun involves its placement in the rulership scheme. Just like Venus is opposite to Mars, Mercury to Jupiter, and the Moon to Saturn, the Sun is facing Uranus. The first three pairs are in accordance with their order in the Ptolemaic geocentric model, linking the innermost "planet" (the Moon) with the outermost (Saturn) etc., but this doesn't hold true for the Sun-Uranus-association, unless you switch to the heliocentric perspective. It's interesting that it is again Uranus which upsets the classical view and leads us to assume a more cosmic perspective.

Regards
Michael
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 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 14 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