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:
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Is Pluto really a planet
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
granny_skot



Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1633
Location: California, USA

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GarryP
Moderator


Joined: 23 Oct 2003
Posts: 207
Location: UK

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you'll find that Tom Cruise has been reclassified due to the eccentricity of his orbit and very small size.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike



Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 72

Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found this interesting discussion of the status of Pluto:
http://cura.free.fr/18solsys.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SGFoxe



Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 201
Location: Chicago, IL

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

representative from the Kuyper belt?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 210
Location: San Josť, Costa Rica

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike



Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 72

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 210
Location: San Josť, Costa Rica

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike



Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 72

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 210
Location: San Josť, Costa Rica

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SGFoxe



Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 201
Location: Chicago, IL

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 210
Location: San Josť, Costa Rica

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike



Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 72

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 210
Location: San Josť, Costa Rica

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael wrote:
Mr. Revilla, your position seems arrogant and juvenile because you are supposing that traditional astrologers are wrong and you are right.

Traditional astrology is not my field and I haven't said a word about it. But I have questioned some things that some traditional astrologers assume about Pluto and the recent debate about its astronomical classification, which is the object of this thread.

Here are my constributions so far to the thread:

1-) while labelling Pluto a "planet" or a "dwarf" or whatever should not have any importance to astrologers --everybody in this thread seems to agree on that-- there is an angle to this that is being overlooked: the realization that Pluto belongs to a class of which there are many others and which --as more are discovered-- will make it harder for astrologers who use Pluto to keep ignoring them.

2-) a priori dismissal of Kuiper Belt objects of relatively small size and high eccentricity and inclination (like Pluto, or marginally smaller than Pluto) 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.

3-) 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 planets, the mind looses focus... 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.

4-) acknowledging the astrological power and significance of very small objects in the Kuiper belt that have not even received a name yet, violates 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 a chart.

5-) 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.

Juan


Last edited by Juan on Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike



Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 72

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree with three of your
five points. And due to your
presumption of intellectual
superiority I'm going to do
a rebuttal of those I
disagree.

1. I think that the labeling
of a planet does affect astrological
meaning because astrology is
based on concepts fundamented
by the collective unconscious rather
than on scientific data.

2. The apriori dismissal of kuiper belt objects in
astrology is a matter of methodology and not of
ignorance or prejudice as you say.

3. This is nonsense. Adding more planets to the
mix won't make astrology better. Even heard of
the adage quality is more important than quantity.
Traditional astrology is very useful and powerful
not old or inadequate as you are saying.

4 & 5. I agree with those points.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan



Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 210
Location: San Josť, Costa Rica

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael wrote:
1. I think that the labeling of a planet does affect astrological meaning because astrology is based on concepts fundamented by the collective unconscious rather than on scientific data.

Yes. Labels and classifications have cognitive and social consequences. If I decide to call you "juvenile an arrogant", that will influence others who do not know you yet, and who may come to think that you are this or that based on that label. But once they got to really know you, that label wont't have any effect on them.

Quote:
2. The apriori dismissal of kuiper belt objects in astrology is a matter of methodology and not of ignorance or prejudice as you say.

One or several particular astrological methodologies may exclude them, just like there are others that include them. I am not arguing this. Each astrologer uses the astrological model with which he or she feels more comfortable, or thinks is most useful for the task at hand. But to proclaim as an absolute astrological truth that they are insignificant per se regardless of which model one may be working with, is only ignorance and prejudice.

Quote:
3. Adding more planets to the mix won't make astrology better. Even heard of the adage quality is more important than quantity. Traditional astrology is very useful and powerful not old or inadequate as you are saying.

Yes, I agree, but you are assuming that working with a large number of planets means "adding them to the mix", i.e., to keep working within the same astrological paradigms. I already mentioned that the mind "looses focus" and that meaning dissolves away into meaninglessness and superficiality when one does this.

To avoid this regression into triviality and meaninglessness, you must develop new methods, new paradigms, new approaches to interpreting a chart, new concepts of what "a chart" is. In particular, you must device techniques for selecting which are the ones to use in a specific context, so that you can work only with what you need and discard the rest in order to keep the analytical focus tight and sharp.

You can read more ideas on the use of Occam's Razor when working with (e.g.) centaurs here:

http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/essays/razor.html

Juan
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, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
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