Display posts from previous
Sort by

Re: Aquarius

31 by epurdue
Julie K wrote:
Kirk wrote:The point regarding the complexity of the modern world could possibly be used in an argument demonstrating the [alleged] folly of excluding Uranus from astrology, but the post as a whole is completely ineffective in arguing that Uranus should have the domicile rulership of Aquarius and not another sign. Why Aquarius should be the recipient isn?t even considered. Changing rulerships isn?t simply a question of the validity of a planet?s use in astrology, but whether a sign is well served by the ruler it has had for so many centuries.

Kirk,

Uranus was 'discovered' at the time of the American Civil war and French rebellion in 1781 by Willian Herschel. If you look at the time of year when the Sun is travelling through Aquarius - the weather is cool and crisp, snowy and icey. Saturn was considered the Ruler of Aquarius by the Ancients. Upon the discovery of Uranus this new planet was given Rulership over Aquarius - sign of the reformer, the one who fights for a cause, be it Greenpeace or the IRA. Aquarians can be cool and crisp, cold and icey - detached. Just who and how this Rulership of Aquarius was assigned is something I need to read up on again.The weather in the Southern Hemisphere at this time of year is hot and humid!
Julie K
According to Bonatti, the reason why Saturn rules Aquarius and Capricorn is because Saturn is cold and dry and is the darkest of planets. Capricorn and Aquarius are opposite Leo and Cancer, and thus seems to be the logical places for Saturn to rule. In addition winter is generally cold and dry as well, so it seems that Saturn would be most comfortable.

Also keep in mind, while signs and planets each had significations, one of the roles of a sign was to give a planet dignity. Modern astrology tends to think a sign means the same thing as its ruling planet.

The bottom line is that Uranus was given its significations due to a combination of myths attached to a random name from an astronomer and whatever accidents happened to be going on when it was discovered. Not a very good system in my opinion. Why Aquarius is the sign for Uranus I have no idea.

32 by robin
where did the rulerships come from?
Here?s a start: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html


thanks kirk

yes, i've encountered the system idea of rulerships before. But i suppose it's relevant here to say if we agree this has a clear and defendable basis then it makes sense if the outers are included to replace saturn with uranus in capricorn and mercury with chiron in gemini.

which of course wouldn't make any sense in terms of what's understood about uranus and chiron.

so in the same way systems in other disciplies are replaced is it time to say goodbye to Ptolomy and shift this paradigm.
________
Gm foods
Last edited by robin on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Aquarius

33 by Julie K
Robin,

I dont think we as individuals can make up our own rules to suit ourselves. The American Civil War wasnt an 'accident'- it was a time of breaking away and breaking out of repression from the old and replacing it with the new - fighting for a cause - a whole new order. How many years did this war take to win?It would be Astrologers who sought to give Uranus Rulership over Aquarius not Astronomers as they in general have no respect whatsoever for Astrologers. A few do.

I would look at Aquarius in a Natal Chart with respect as to the strength of Saturn and Uranus to give clues to the true nature of the individual. Angularity would be important, especially rising.

As for Chiron he came into our Solar system in 1977 and at this time Chiropractors began to spring up. Alternative ways of healing the sick were introduced and taken on board by many.

Chiron is an Asteroid - not a planet. One of my teachers of long standing suggests Chiron is 'associated' with the Mutable Cross - Gemini/Sagittarius - the student and teacher, Virgo and Pisces, Healer and victim. Rulership cannot be given to an Asteroid.

Julie K

Gender in a chart

34 by Julie K
I noted this at the beginning of J. Lee Lehmans book Classical Astrology chapter on Essential Dignities.

I particularly want to warn all astrological students against accepting the pernicious ideas which are being put forward in a certain quarter regarding the rulership of signs, and of the various parts of the human body, and inventing new and imaginary planets to assume rulership over the signs etc.

While admitting that there maybe some grounds for giving Uranus the rule over Aquarius, and Neptune over Pisces, the acceptance of such rank heresies as Jupiter ruling over Aquarius, Jason over Sagittarius, Neptune over Libra, the Asteroids over Pisces, and other possible and improbable theories, is to deny one of the fundamental cannons of Astrology. E. H Bailey.

Julie K

35 by Tom
Uranus was 'discovered' at the time of the American Civil war and French rebellion in 1781 by William Herschel.
Uranus was discovered in 1781. The American Civil War began in 1861. I think you mean The American Revolution (1775 - 1781 - last battle. Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783).

To look at the rulership scheme the way it was intended see Lee Lehman's book Essential Dignities. In order to understand how that system related to world view, I suggest C.S. Lewis last book The Discarded Image.

Tom

36 by Slayer of Cliffracers
Uranus is a sign that rules individual freedom. Uranus ruling the dreamy, detatched Aquarius makes a great deal of sense. However planetery 'rulerships' I do not accept as valid unless you are talking about the actual location of the planets in the various signs at the time.

One must understand that accepted social norms are dominated by particular signs, possibly due to the influence of perhaps Eris or some other 'new' planet. Ancient Greeks hated Aquarians because they didn't like the way they acted, thus they got the most negative press possible.

It just wasn't compatable with the society at the time, probably dominated by an opposing sign say Leo, thus their judgements of signs are biased by the societal influence of that sign at the time the judgement was made.

37 by Levente Laszlo
Ancient Greeks hated Aquarians because they didn't like the way they acted, thus they got the most negative press possible.
Would you be so kind as to provide a definitive citation proving this statement? Thank you.

38 by Slayer of Cliffracers
Would you be so kind as to provide a definitive citation proving this statement? Thank you.
Well I wasn't trying to prove anything. All I was on about was the question of why some signs got such a negative press in the past, I suggested that perhaps people's societies determine what Star Signs they like or dislike as it were. This again has an influence on what Astrologers write about them. Someone mentioned an Ancient Greek Astrologer dissing Aquarius. (I am Tauros not Aquarius, in case you think I'm defending my own Sign)

It seems reasonable enough as an explanation as to why the negativity or positivity of a signs portrayal changes over time. Afterall it's not what they are merely how they are percieved to be by Astrologers at the time. So depending upon how a sign relates to the society in which they live, it will get a primerily positive or negative reputation.

That was the original point and I am putting up an answer to it. No 'Evidence' to it, the original point mentioned the signs family difficulties, which suggests something about Ancient Greek society.

39 by Levente Laszlo
Someone mentioned an Ancient Greek Astrologer dissing Aquarius.
Yes, that would be the question who this 'someone' or the mentioned ancient Greek astrologer is. A certain name could be really helpful. Thanks again.
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Nativities & General Astrology”