Hi Tom,

I agree it becomes fuzzy when you connect Uranus on the DESC with ?unusual? relationships. I used the term ?unconventional? and wanted to imply a break of social conventions. Social conventions meaning a social agreement about what is appropriate behaviour or not at a given time period.
By using the term ?unconventional?, I wanted to avoid the trap of value judgement. Yes, most man like beautiful women and would love to express it the way HH does, but they (at least those who could afford such a lifestyle) are blocked by social conventions they have accepted for themselves.
I regret but I can?t see much vagueness here.

I don?t want to criticise the traditional technique; my first look at a chart is at the traditional planets only. But when an outer planet ? Uranus or Neptune ? stands so closely at an angle I don?t think you can ignore it. Take e.g. Kepler?s Neptune at the ASC. Or Mystery chart 7, Jackie Robinson with Uranus at the DESC:

?A six-time All-Star, Robinson also became the first man to integrate the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1962. In 1997, as a tribute to the legacy he created, Major League Baseball retired his number 42 league-wide on the 50th Anniversary of his breaking the game?s color barrier.?

Breaking barriers or breaking with social conventions seems to be a genuine Uranus/Angle trait.

Cheers,
Ren?

By using the term ?unconventional?, I wanted to avoid the trap of value judgement. Yes, most man like beautiful women and would love to express it the way HH does, but they (at least those who could afford such a lifestyle) are blocked by social conventions they have accepted for themselves.
I regret but I can?t see much vagueness here.

I think most young men might have a fantasy of living the way Hefner does, but once a certain level of maturity sets in, we tend to see the advantages of a long term partner and accept the fact that as we age, we lose our physical attractiveness. Showing off the fact that I has multiple gorgeous females climbing all over me is about "me." Having a wife and partner and making a life together is about "us." Let's face it, Hugh Hefner never grew up.

Also, The American Heritage Dictionary defines "unconventional" as, "out of the ordinary," and "unusual" as, "Not usual, common, or ordinary." Not much difference that I can see.

The vagueness is not in the actions of Hefner but in the delineation. Yes, Hefner's lifestyle is, at times, unconventional, (flamboyant really) but we're cherry picking. Hefner was very conventionially married when he began his admitedly unconventional for the time, magazine. He even remarried and redivorced in the conventional way. There is nothing unconventional about a single man seeing, dating, or living with, single women - even if there are lots of them. There is nothing unconventional about an older man desiring younger women. It happens all the time. The difference is Hefner acts on his desires and because he is Hugh Hefner, there are women who will go along with it. Money and influence can be aphrodisiacs or put another way, there are some things some people will tolerate for money and influence that they would not tolerate otherwise. Hefner's current lifestyle, living with three women young enough to be his granddaughters is unconventional, but it took him to his 80s to get to something really off the wall, and trust me, if his name were Hugh Smith, these chicks would be someplace else. Does Uranus on the 7th only work for rich guys? And yet how different is he from the guy who married Anna Nicole Smith and does he have Uranus on the 7th? OK he's two girls different.

By saying that Uranus on the 7th means "unconventionial" or "unusual" or any other adjective we can think of we would expect, or I would expect, a lot more than a guy who likes girls and has the resources to keep them hanging around in his golden years. Hefner may be more flamboyant than most in his lifestyle, but he is wealthier than most and works at keeping up his reputation for marketing purposes. He wasn't on Larry King the other night to show off his trophys. He was peddling magazines. I see nothing seriously unconventional, no more than I see life-long unconventionality (?) that such a placement would imply. I do see seriously flamboyant. And if that is what Uranus mans, I would expect it on the ASC in Hefner's chart.

Finally, what is and isn't conventional? My wife and I travel a great deal and spend weeks apart several times a year. The guy next door rarely travels and hasn't spent two consecutive weeks apart from his wife since they were married 15 or so years ago. Is one of us "unconventional?" If I had Uranus on the 7th or my wife did (neither of us does), I can easily see a modern astrologer excitedly pointing to my chart and saying, "See!! Uranus on the 7th, you have an unconventional marriage! Uranus works.!"

That is nonsense. We can point to almost anything and say it is unconventional because it is different from something else.

Or Mystery chart 7, Jackie Robinson with Uranus at the DESC:
Quote:
?A six-time All-Star, Robinson also became the first man to integrate the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1962. In 1997, as a tribute to the legacy he created, Major League Baseball retired his number 42 league-wide on the 50th Anniversary of his breaking the game?s color barrier.?

This tends to make my point. Hefner has Uranus on the 7th and he has "unconventional" relationships - supposedly. Robinson has it and he is the prime mover in a major social change. Robinson was married and had children in a very conventional way. He was also a Hall of Fame caliber baseball player. In one case Uranus on the 7th has to do with a hedonist and magazine salesman, in the other with a social pioneer and baseball player. If we are going to argue that Uranus on the 7th has social implications, I might listen (although it would manifest significantly in very few charts, and we would be ignoring the 7th's main delineation as "partners"). But I can't see Uranus on the 7th meaning social change in one chart and multiple girlfriends in another. Either we argue that Hefner's publication of his magazine and Robinson's actions in Major League Baseball are indicative of the natives being involved with social change, and forget about Hefner's love life, or we damn Uranus to mean whatever we want it to mean, and that of course, tells us it means nothing.

Tom

Ren? wrote:

Yes, most man like beautiful women and would love to express it the way HH does, but they (at least those who could afford such a lifestyle) are blocked by social conventions they have accepted for themselves.

Damn! And there would be so many women in their 20's just dreaming of living with 80 years old men, but it's such a pity that those men are so restricted by the social conventions, they cannot fulfill those women's desires.

Sorry, as a woman, I couldn't resist

Hi Tom,

You've got me thinking about the Uranus on the 7th and its validity. Especially with your comparison to Robinson's chart.

I started thinking about he interpretation of the moon in the 7th. In Modern Astrology wherever the moon falls you will have some sort of cyclical change right which would be representative of the moon's phases. In the sixth a change in work routines, or jobs altogether. In the 7th with close relationships, etc. Am I wong in this?

Yet the moon also indicates the public, and an angular moon will have the native dealing with the public, perhaps famously.

So the moon has two meanings, sometimes one will manifest - the fame part, sometimes the other, sometimes both.

Keeping that in mind, if the 7th rules the "outer", that which is apart from oneself, perhaps Uranus on the DSC could indicate not only change, unconventionality, and upheaval within personal relationships, but also with the general public. Possibly.

As for the definition of convention, a 70 year old man living with several young beautiful women and having relations with all of them simultaneously falls into the realm of an unconventional lifestyle. That type of lifesyle simply isnt possible for most people, so how could it ever be a matter of convention? Comparitively, it is far more unconventional than being away from your family for some time out of the year. So I would put a point under Hef's 7th house relationships being unconventional.

I read a bit of Hef's bio, and if I recall correctly, his first marriage was marred by infidelity on his wife's part, another indicator of Uranus on the DSC. (Yes I realize that it is a loose causality as infidelity happens all the time and most people dont have Ura/DSC) After the affair was discovered, in an attempt to make things "right" between the couple, Hef was allowed to sleep with another woman. Thats just odd.

In fact, Hefner's associations with women over the years have been borderline polygamy. He has several girlfriends at any one time. Apparently he gave a good shot at traditional relationships(married twice) but apparently he figured out over 70+ years of life that having multiple partners was more his style. I don't know whether to attribute that to 5th house Aqua or Ura/DSC.

I can see why there are arguments for not using outers i.e Uranus, Neptune and Pluto and i am with Tom, cause once you use outers there is bit of confusion, as their key words embrace all kind of possible interpretations. In my heart i am tradionalist. But Outer on an an angle is one thing that i can not ignore.

I have Uranus, Saturn, and Mercury Partile Grand Trine in my birth chart.

Uranus is right on my IC.

Just consider Pakistan and our circumstances, my father belonged from a very orthodox family. But my father for me has been the most un-orthodox person ever i saw. For me and for my whims he always acted in an un-concentional manner and i am not his only son.

My father is a religious person but he took interest in my atheist leanings few years ago.

He is a very strict person, does not allow any person to smoke in his presence but when i started smoking he said that i am permitted to smoke where ever i want to.

When i was 12 years old , he went out of his own way and just cause i wished, he dressed me in army uniform and let me a part of an on-going army war exercise in a desert. He trained me and let me handle army weapons. He fought with authorities for this purpose.

I can cite a number of examples but my desire for privacy may not let me elaborate it further or explain. But yes, Uranus on a angle is important. Even if i am traditionalist and i am, but i cant ignore it if outer is on an angle.

In fact, Hefner's associations with women over the years have been borderline polygamy.

Good point, but if one of us can logically define it as near polygamy and the other as promiscuity, aren't we both guilty of making value judgments? This is where I find delineations for the outers so difficult to pinpoint. They can mean so much.

I also admit that I'm not overly fond of using one's own chart to make a point, but since that was done above, I thought I'd use my own to make the opposite case. I have Uranus in the 10th (Placidus cusps), not near an angle. Here is Sakoian and Aker on that particular placement:

Uranus in the Tenth House indicates an unusal profession and reputation. This position can produce leaders in scientific, humanitarian, and occult fields, electronics, mathmatics, and astrology are typical professions. Whatever the career chosen, there will be innovations in methods and techniqaues.

Natives are generally liberal or radical in their politics, they have no tendency toward conservatism. If Uranus is afflicted, revolutionary inclinations can be manifested.

While cookbook astrology is notoriously inaccurate, in my case the above paragraph is completely wrong. In fact one could argue that it is the reverse of my life and outlook, and no, Uranus makes no hard aspect to Saturn in my chart. This thing is just plain wrong. The phrase: " ... they have no tendency towards conservatism," is laughable.

I agree that Uranus on an angle should not be ignored, but here is an opportunity to articulate a major difference between modern and traditional astrology. In the modern model everything is related to the personality of the native, as we are discussing Uranus as it relates to Hefner's sexual practices and attitudes. In tradtional astrology the 7th house tells us about our partners and our enemies. Venus tells us about our relationships. So once we agree that Uranus on an angle is important, we need to see what it tells us about Hefner's enemies and his partner(s).

Speaking of Lee Harvey Oswald. I have not had the time to look at that chart the way I want to, but I do note that in Oswald's chart Saturn is in fall and in mutual reception with Mars in Aquarius in 8. Hefner's Saturn, although not great, is not as bad as Oswald's. Still we need to look at the planets that Saturn and Mars dispose like we did for Oswald. I suspect Oswald's is more indicative of evil and Hefner's more indicative of debauchery.

Tom

Uranus in the Tenth House indicates an unusal profession and reputation. This position can produce leaders in scientific, humanitarian, and occult fields, electronics, mathmatics, and astrology are typical professions. Whatever the career chosen, there will be innovations in methods and techniqaues.

Natives are generally liberal or radical in their politics, they have no tendency toward conservatism. If Uranus is afflicted, revolutionary inclinations can be manifested.

I think it?s possible to integrate Uranus successfully without reverting to cook-book twaddle. This is old, out-dated opinion ? since when was Uranus humanitarian? I see Uranus as an extremely dry, and therefore volatile influence, and its effect very often leads to separation. In fact it is very much about the principle of separation for me. It makes other planets act more quickly or spontaneously, and introduces an element of danger or risk. In mundane charts it can show the pressure point that collapses, or where an excess of heat causes accidents and over-reaction. Two of my immediate family members have Uranus bang on their midheaven. They work in entirely different fields, one intellectual, one managerial. I used to worry about this placement but both of them have overcome difficult circumstances to become extremely successful, far more than anyone could have expected of their circumstances. That said, neither of them cares a hoot about what anyone else thinks or says, nor bends to the opinion of others. It has served them well so far, but it is a risky and ?unusual? strategy that may yet prove to be their downfall. Uranus transits in my own chart have been compelling in the way they have matched with the most significant times of crisis at a physical and practical level.

In Hugh Hefner?s chart I think Uranus has much more significance than ?unusual relationships? by being placed exactly on an angle - although being placed where it is, you could not expect this person to make binding commitments at an emotional level. It adds a spark to the way that his mind works, and conjunct the MC-ruler would describe him just ?going? for something that other people would hesitate over. And I still maintain that he must have a volatile temper

That quote talks about ?Uranus afflicted? which is not a way I tend to think since it has no essential dignity, and unless it is accidentally strong I don?t think the effect is realised. For example, I don?t consider Uranus in the 10th house significant, it has to be close to the angle. I think of it as I would a very important fixed star ? Regulus in the 10th house doesn?t mean much to me either, but on the Midheaven itself I wouldn?t ignore it.

BTW Tom, I set my charts so that the traditional planets are printed in black and the outers are printed in grey. That way they don?t bog down my chart, but I can see when they are important. Of them all, I find Uranus to be much more reliable than Neptune or Pluto. In fact it occurred to me the other day that for most of my charts Pluto is there, but almost invisible to me, because it so rarely strikes me as significant. On the other hand I am thinking of setting the part of fortune to print in white, because I have it in all of my charts and yet the occasions when it proves to be actually useful are so few and far between. Can anyone honestly say that the Part of Fortune has given them an insight into something that they haven?t seen elsewhere in the chart anyway? I find it strange that there are some traditional astrologers who will consider any hypothetical part or convoluted connection important, but refuse to pay any attention to Uranus.

Can anyone honestly say that the Part of Fortune has given them an insight into something that they haven’t seen elsewhere in the chart anyway?

Solar Eclipse on my POF (birth Chart) was quite revealing.

About the Uranus. Well somebody has to integrate into system/table of essential dignities and debilities. It may require some effort and research over years but it is not entirely difficult.

For one thing, unless and untill we have Wars, human life expectancy may touch Uranus cycle in few years. I have a pet theory. Saturn destroys luminaries and Planets, but Uranus destroys Saturn.

About the Uranus. Well somebody has to integrate into system/table of essential dignities and debilities. It may require some effort and research over years but it is not entirely difficult.

When they try to do that, that's when I'll print Uranus in white too It is the idea that Uranus rules Aquarius that generates those notions like it being humanitarian.

When they try to do that, that's when I'll print Uranus in white too

Open up the settings dialogue box. Finding essential dignities for he outers has been done more than once. What follows is not, by any means, to be taken as advocacy by me. I offer it only as as information. In the USA NCGR came up with an outer planet dignity system sans triplicity rulerships not to mention the terms and faces. They made Mercury exalted in Aquarius, and gave his traditional exaltation spot to Pluto! They put this twaddle (I love that word so I borrowed it) in their certification tests! For the record, Neptune is exalted in Leo - ahh Neptune greater than the King. Uranus is exalted in either Sagittarius or Gemini, I forget.

If a man has lived that can, by comparison, make Hugh Hefner look like a prude it was Aleister Crowley. Biographies abound, so if gentle reader, you are not familiar with the man, you'll find plenty on the Web.

Crowley, like many of his contemporaries, found astrology wanting. He put his own brand on it, but (mercifully) it never caught on. He did not assign traditional rulership of signs to the three outer planets. He noted the triplicity rulerships and observed that it didn't seem fair that fire, earth, air, and water had rulers but cardinal, fixed, and mutable did not. So he rectified this shortcoming by assigning Uranus to the fixed signs, Neptune to the mutable signs, and Pluto to the cardinal signs. He called them "governors." Unlike the NCGR system, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto have no domicile or exaltation and therefore no detriment or fall. For a full explanation see The General Principles of Astrology edited by Hymenaeus Beta.

Droping dignities is nothing new, either. Morin didn't use the terms or faces, and had no use for the lots except fortuna. Morin also revised the triplicity rulers more to his liking by basing them on dignity rather than sect. But he was at the end of the classical era of astrology, and did not have the influence he may have had were he born earlier. So he has a few things in common with NCGR, but unlike that organization, Morin's reforms were based on logic not on the presumed necessity of using a shoehorn to work the outer planets into an otherwise elegant system.

Tom

Interesting stuff.

I have to say that I agree with Deb almost 100% on how she looks at Uranus. Traditionally(or, modernly) I believe Uranus is considered a malefic.
It indicates seperation, change, unconventionality, etc. One of the most amazing things I've ever seen in astrology is that the day a very important relationship came to an end, Uranus was exactly opposite my Moon, at the end of a long series of retrogradations. And I'm talking to the minute. I simply can't ignore that. Of course there were other factors going on, like Saturn in the 5th, but for events to happen you need a combination of transits working together. The outers set the stage, the inners play the parts, but they both have to be on the same page of the play for the show to go on.

So Uranus must have some power, at least when striking important parts of a nativity through transits(In my case the Moon), or when positioned significantly in a natal chart.

As for Hef, having Uranus conj. the DSC has certainly made itself known. You only need to ask yourself if you consider Hef's relationships conventional? I think the answer is obvious, but I understand where Tom is going that its a matter of subjectivity. It always will be subjective, if we look at it from a modern, psychological perspective. But really, how much can we know about Hef's personal life? Its all speculation. If we take the traditional approach that these planets are predictive, Uranus is a malefic and brings radical unexpected change, and, as Deb reminded me, seperation. We can gather the empirical data of hef having two wives, and many close relationships with women, but there is really no way we can assign causation to Uranus. Or is there?

Hef's 7th house is ruled by Picses, and in turn, Jupiter. (Although I use Uranus and the other outers, I don't assign them any essential diginity) Jupiter is in Aquarius, which is fortunate, and in the 5th, which is again a fortunate house. These are good signs for marriage, aren't they?(I'm really asking) The moon, general significator along with Venus for wives and marriage for a man, is in Picses, and not afflicted. This points to Piscean type wife. Same thing with Venus, unafflicted, in Pisces. So traditionally, where is the causation for 2 wives and the seperation from them, and the many women then and now? Perhaps the moon in the 7th?

And really, whats the deal with the whole chart being deposited by Saturn and Mars in mutual reception? I'd like to keep thinking about that.

I agree that I can see the effects of Uranus far more than the effects of Neptune or Pluto. Maybe that adds to their validity. The effects of Uranus are hard to miss, they are disruptive. But Neptune works in a way that is hidden, and deceptive. Pluto works very slowly, over time. Like water washing away the mountain, or watching a child grow up. One day you just look at them and realize they are a totally different person, and it all happened right under your nose.

Uranus destroys Saturn? I'll sign up for that, and it does make sense. Only through change can Saturn loosen his grip. Did Uranus exist before we discovered it?

...what is the sound of one hand clapping?

I believe Uranus is exalted in Scorpio...somehow. And for the record, Chiron does not rule Virgo.

Twaddle.