61 by granny_skot ahhh, but you should never say never! after all, Astrologers agree that the sun rules leo and the moon cancer. and maybe even one or two other things, like Venus rules Taurus and hmmmm the zodiac calendar starts with spring solstice. I can think of many things AStrologers agree upon, but then I take things literally. (I think they all agree that Jupiter appears blue in the night sky too) Granny PS all my local astrology friends have agreed that Brad pitt is sweet and Tom Cruise is an arogant a.... um well, not a nice person. so see astrologers can agree on some things... Quote Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:47 pm
62 by GarryP I think you'll find that Tom Cruise has been reclassified due to the eccentricity of his orbit and very small size. Quote Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:49 pm
63 by Mike I found this interesting discussion of the status of Pluto: http://cura.free.fr/18solsys.html Quote Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:50 am
65 by Juan Michael wrote:I found this interesting discussion of the status of Pluto: http://cura.free.fr/18solsys.html After dismissing the astrological significance of ateroids and midpoint simmetries as "diarrhea" and "consolation of the astrologically inept", Guinard postulates that the term "planet" refers to... "... a category that relates specifically to causality, to energy, that one could call physical or astronomical operators. These are the physical bodies, tangible, extant, which influence the psyche by virtue of the organic integration of their cycles." He then attempts to justify why Pluto is a "planet" based on physical and orbital criteria which today is obsolete point by point. His a priori dismissal of Kuiper Belt objects of relatively small size and high eccentricity and inclination as "astrologically insignificant" is based on ignorance and prejudice rather than on serious research, and mirrors the attitude of many astrologers when faced with the problems introduced in Astrology by this new class of objects. Juan Revilla Quote Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:59 am
66 by Mike Good analysis Juan. I thought Guinard was flawless. I guess I need to develop my mental faculties a little bit more. Or maybe it's my ignorance of astrology the culprit since I'm just a beginner. Quote Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:40 pm
67 by Juan Rather than "analysis", consider it the opinion of someone who is very familiar with the material he is writing about (the Kuiper Belt). His arguments are based on astronomical data that today is obsolete. I can personally attest to the astrological power and significance of very small objects in the Kuiper belt that have not even received a name yet, violating many of the "principles" dear to many traditional astrologers. Like Pluto, these objects have a collective and group side but also a very personal psychological side, and like Pluto, they can be extremely powerful depending of how they are positioned in an astrological chart. Juan Quote Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:09 pm
68 by Mike I think that you are right about the astrological influence of the objects of the Kuiper Belt. The point is that using the traditional 7 planets is probably good enough to make a good chart, since excessive complexity can be a burden. M. Quote Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:50 pm
69 by Juan Michael wrote:The point is that using the traditional 7 planets is probably good enough to make a good chart, since excessive complexity can be a burden. M. Yes, but working with them is not a matter of "complexity" but of methodology. If we use an approach based on only 7 planets that has been perfected over centuries or millennia, to analyze a chart made of not 7 or 10 but of 50 or 700 elements, the mind looses focus and the reading dissolves into meaninglessness. This is not because using those elements is wrong or because their astrological significance is very little, but because we are using a wrong approach, we are using old tools and inadequate techniques that were not devised for that task. Kuiper belt objects (e.g. Pluto), centaurs, asteroids, etc. do not represent "complexity vs simplicity", that depends on your approach or methodology. You can use very simple techniques to deal with them, much simpler and sharper that the techniques of traditional 7-planets Astrology. Not every astrologer is inclined to try and experiment with the new. That is an expression of certain psychological traits, of the personal preferences and talents of each astrologer, part of the multitude of viewpoints (and ideas about what are the "fundamental astrological principles) that by necessity exist in Astrology. The problem, to me, starts when astrologers use their own private understanding of what these "astrological principles" are to dictate what "good astrology" and "bad astrology" is supossed to be. Juan Last edited by Juan on Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total. Quote Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:57 pm
70 by SGFoxe A rose by any other name and all that. The 500 year Ne/Pl cycle -- perceived prior to discovery of these two celestial entities was known as the Phoenix -- and synchs in with the rise and fall of civilizations (I cite, but really haven't read, Spengler) -- Pluto has been measurably affecting life on earth since recorded history -- Herodotus details the rise of Cyrus who was born roughly contemporaneous to the Ne/Pl conjunction of 586 BC & Alexander's inroads into his Empire some 250 years later with the NE/PL opposition (exactly opposed each other 11 times!) is convincing -- plus the NE/PL conjunction ca 1400 AD contemporaneous with Tamurlane, the Scythian shepherd who too rose to reign "gloriously in Persepolis" Whether Pluto is a planet, our local system's representative from the Kuiper belt, or the will of God manifest neither negates nor enhances its affect upon us and history. Quote Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:15 pm
71 by Juan SGFoxe wrote:Whether Pluto is a planet, our local system's representative from the Kuiper belt, or the will of God manifest neither negates nor enhances its affect upon us and history. I agree that whether Pluto is defined as a planet or not is of no consequence or concern to astrologers. It is the same, in my experience, with the name that astronomers give to the new "planets" (I know this is heresy to many astrologers). Whether Pluto is called "Donald Duck" or "Hamburger", its astrological meaning and power (or "influence" as you say) will be the same. But there is one aspect of the new definition that is in my opinion of real importance: the fact that Pluto belongs to a new class of objects --called the "plutons" by the original IAU proposal (that was rejected), the "icy dwarfs" in the transneptunian region. The solar system today is not the same as it was 15 years ago. There are at least a dozen "dwarf" Pluto-like planets that astrologers mostly ignore or don't even know that they exist. As the number of objects marginally larger or smaller than Pluto increases, astrologers will find it harder to justify their seeing the power of Pluto and keep ignoring all the others like it. Juan Last edited by Juan on Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total. Quote Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:29 am
72 by Mike Mr. Revilla, your position seems arrogant and juvenile because you are supposing that traditional astrologers are wrong and you are right. It seems you have an exaggerated sense of self importance that makes you blind to your own limitations and to the validity of the traditional ways of doing astrology. If you want to be innovative, you can take a look at Uranian astrology or even Cosmobiology, as Afred Witte and Reinhold Ebertin rethinked astrology in novel ways. I hope you stop trying to impress other people and begin doing serious contributions. Quote Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:01 pm