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:
Book III of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Notes on Dorotheus III: the haylāj, Kadhkhudāh, and terms of life
by Deborah Houlding
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

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Uranus "exalted" in Scorpio
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 573
Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I might also point out that just because an astrologer makes a claim or publishes a statement does not necessarily make it correct. Astrology texts are full of assertions that do not hold up.

I think the sign rulerships of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are established among modern astrologers because after decades of application, they seem to work.

In order to make a case for an outer planet's exaltation, fall, or what-have-you, one would have to conduct some research; or at least have a substantial client file in which the planet-sign affiliation produced some accurate results according to common usages of exaltation, fall, &c.

Sometimes we find astrologers claiming that a planet is particularly strong in a given placement; and unsurprisingly, that is what they have in their own charts.

Based strictly on their natures and "end-points", the fixed signs of stability-loving Taurus or Leo and Uranus seem like a worse fit than Scorpio and Uranus. Uranus seems more cardinal, and it would seem comfortable in Aries, yet out-of-place in balance-loving Libra. But then, I've not done the research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote
Quote:
Aleister Crowley gave enthusiastic support to these revisionist ideas and helped disseminate such notions to the wider astrological community


So that's why they called him the "Wickedest Man in the World" then. Smile

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3215
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a couple of points here. First off if I were to incorporate the outer planets into a rulership/exaltation system, a possibility about as likely as pigs sprouting wings and flying, I would first define just what exaltation really is. Normally it is defined as an enhancement and/or exaggeration of the effects of the exalted planet. I'm not real clear how Uranus' influence is enhanced or exaggerated in a fixed water sign.

I definitely recall attending a meeting of the Astrological Society of Princeton, NJ, many, many years ago where a speaker gushed over the idea of Uranus being exalted in Gemini, thereby pushing out the poor North Node. There is no definitive exaltation for Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto.

Secondly on the point of Crowley. A list of dignities that includes Pluto is given in the text The General Principles of Astrology by Aleister Crowley and Evangeline Adams, edited by Hymenaeus Beta, published 2002. Story on this book below.

The dignity table is, I am certain Crowley's, and it lists Pluto as being exalted in Scorpio and Uranus being exalted in Leo. Crowley also came up with an interesting idea that made Uranus " Superior Governor" of Scorpio and all fixed signs. He reasoned that the elements have triplicity rulers therefore the qualities (cardinal, fixed, mutable) should have rulers, too and he gave those to the outer planets. Cardinal went to Pluto and mutable to Neptune. To my knowledge no modern astrologer ever took up this system.

It has been learned and even decided in court that Aleister Crowley was the ghost writer for much of Evangeline Adams' popular texts Astrology Your Place in The Sun (1927) and Astrology, Your Place among the Stars (1930). He didn't write either one in its entirety, but a substantial amount of what he did write found its way into those books. Crowley was apparently hired by Adams to ghost write an astrology text, but he never completed it, had a falling out with Adams and was fired from the job. He realized shortly before his death that his writings had been used in her texts without attribution or being paid. By this time Adams was dead and he made an attempt to recover some money from the sale of the books from the publisher. There is no record of which I'm aware of the publisher's response but it was probably something like, "Please provide proof of your claim." He had none. The entire story is given by the editor in the beginning of General Principles, an expensive, but fascinating book ($80.00 US list, but it can be found discounted online). The book gives all of Crowley's writing on astrology or at least when he did when retained by Adams. It also includes Crowley's scathing attack on Adams and her astrological abilities. It's a bit lopsided, but a fun read.

When discussing modern or traditional astrologer's Crowley's name normally does not come up, but he had his ideas on the subject. Kim Farnell thinks of him as something of a traditional astrologer. I can't bring myself to accept that.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4200
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Tom

I recall you writing on this subject a few years back but I couldn't find the thread so thanks for expanding it here.

Incidentally, The General Principles of Astrology seems to have come down in cost considerably:

http://www.amazon.com/General-Principles-Astrology-Aleister-Crowley/dp/0877289085

Quote:
Crowley also came up with an interesting idea that made Uranus " Superior Governor" of Scorpio and all fixed signs. He reasoned that the elements have triplicity rulers therefore the qualities (cardinal, fixed, mutable) should have rulers, too and he gave those to the outer planets. Cardinal went to Pluto and mutable to Neptune. To my knowledge no modern astrologer ever took up this system.


Very interesting. Certainly ingenous. With its love of innovation I am surprised modern astrology never took up this idea.

Quote:
The dignity table is, I am certain Crowley's, and it lists Pluto as being exalted in Scorpio and Uranus being exalted in Leo.


Thats pretty fast work considering Pluto was only discovered in 1930!

As we are discussing pioneers of alternative rulership systems another personalty that deserves a mention is Alice Bailey. She set out her alternative ideas in her book Esoteric Astrology. published in 1951. Bailey's esoteric system of rulerships is radically different from that adopted in modern astrology.

Sign- Soul (Esoteric) Ruler
Aries- Mercury
Taurus-Vulcan
Gemini-Venus
Cancer-Neptune
Leo-Sun
Virgo-Moon
Libra-Uranus
Scorpio- Mars
Sagittarius-Earth
Capricorn-Saturn
Aquarius-Jupiter
Pisces-Pluto

Unlike some of the other alternative modern rulership systems (Wemyss, Crowley etc) Bailey's system still has a following today so you are likely to meet practitioners of this approach if you mingle enough in the wider astrological community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_astrology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3215
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Incidentally, The General Principles of Astrology seems to have come down in cost considerably:


I found my copy on ABE Books listed as "used" in excellent condition for $40.00 a few years ago. What arrived was obviously a brand new copy. I hope others are that fortunate.

Quote:
Thats pretty fast work considering Pluto was only discovered in 1930!


There are writings of Crowley's in this book that have nothing to do with Adams' texts including this table of dignities. For a time line, Adams died in 1932 and Crowley in 1947. Crowley obtained copies of Adams' books which he recognized his own passages in 1936. I thought that happened closer to his death. However he had no proof of his claim and he was broke and couldn't afford the legal fight.

Kim sent me a link to the court decision that finally recognized Crowley's claim as at least part author of two of Adams books. I don't know if I still have that link or not.

I know very little about Crowley. In fact the bulk of my information came from this book. "Astrologer" is not usually the first word that comes to mind when we hear his name. He once wrote in a letter, "I do not think there is any book on astrology of any value whatsoever." The full arrogance of this statement cannot be appreciated until we realize that at the time this letter was written, he had been studying astrology for about 6 years.

Let us not think for a moment that this attitude wasn't influential. Stephen Arroyo made a similar remark in one of his texts, and Dane Rudhyar's attitude wasn't much different. Neither had much, if any, contact with astrology that came before the mid 19th century


Quote:
if you mingle enough in the wider astrological community.


I'm always amused at these sentiments. The vast majority, and by that we are probably near 100%, of traditional astrologers started in this "wider" astrological community before leaving it. While the vast majority of modern astrologers have close to zero background in traditional astrology, and yet they think we need to expand our horizons. I'm afraid that's exactly backwards. The bulk of my experience with the publications of the "wider astrological community" is taking up a great deal of space in my basement - mercifully gathering dust.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whenever I see this book in the shop it has signs of wear on it from lying unsold for ages. The low price is probably due to supply and demand so maybe there is still a good chance of getting a brand new copy for a low price.

Such a shame when Weisers went to so much trouble to publish it.

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4200
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
Quote:
There are writings of Crowley's in this book that have nothing to do with Adams' texts including this table of dignities



Could you set out all the rulerships/exaltations suggested by Crowley for the outer planets please?
_________________
''Man is troubled not by events, but by the meaning he gives them"

Epictetus


Last edited by Mark on Sun Oct 10, 2010 5:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3215
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Could you set out all the rulerships/exaltations suggested by Crowley for the outer planets please?


I will but either later tonight (EDT) or tomorrow. I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3215
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote




This is the best I can do. Get your magnifying glass out.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3215
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like to make a couple of observations about Crowley and astrology as well as the editor of General Principles. Hymaneus Beta goes a bit overboard with his descriptions of Crowley's astrology prowess, and I also noticed by re-reading the introduction that he is a bit contradictory, too. For example he tells us early on that "by 1908" Crowley had learned basic horoscope construction," indicating the beginning of his studies. Then he tells us elsewhere that Crowley was writing in depth about astrology by about 1899.

But that is small potatoes compared to the statement that in 1915, Crowley was the best equipped person to write about astrology since William Lilly. I read that a couple of times to let it sink in, particularly since Alfred Pearce was still alive in 1915 and his grasp of astrology far exceeded Crowley's, in my opinion.

Beta also tells us that Crowley was fundamentally a traditionalist and therefore his non-traditional ideas were only logical extensions of what came before and in this way he was similar to Cardan. I don't know that Cardan was all that inventive with astrology.

Crowley does keep the traditional domicile rulerships of the signs. But if we look at the table, and I am no longer certain that this is Crowley's table or if it is Beta's construction of what he thinks Crowley was doing, we see the Terms and Faces are listed as the same thing. If this is Crowley's work, he should have read Lilly and Ptolemy a bit more closely. If this is Beta's then we need to take his other observations with a good dose of salt.

Crowley's descriptions of the signs and planets are pretty much what we would expect to find in a modern text emphasizing mythology. Crowley seems to see astrology as part of the occult, which traditionalists do not.

My gut is that Crowley was a lot closer to the Theosophists than Pearce, and Pearce was a lot closer to the tradition than Crowley.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although Crowley was not best known for astrology for a long time the only book you could find by him was the Complete Astrological Writings. (where the editors state that he first started to study the subject in 1898 when he joined the Golden Dawn.)

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sandra Walker



Joined: 08 Oct 2010
Posts: 1
Location: Maryland

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been thinking about the Uranus exaltation topic for several days. I do not discount exaltations--witness men who have the Moon in Taurus and how it draws female attention no matter how old, young, ugly, poor, rich, or good looking they are!!!

Scorpio is not such a terrible sign--Uranus is not always a negative planet. After all, it is associated with astrology, friends, groups, and our goals. I think the value of Uranus transiting through Scorpio is that is breaks up some of the "rut bound" Scorpio (fixed sign) tendencies and helps Scorpio put some of its knowledge gained through research and digging beneath the surface to good use.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mattG



Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 345
Location: Greenwich UK

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Re-reading AC on astrology he decries what he calls "Scientific Astrology" then in vogue. They give planet position to the exact degree and minute, he says in order to impress the client with how scientific they are. The importance of this idea is restated often. I came into astrology via horary and when I innocently suggested to a natal teacher that the planet was applying to another she nearly screamed at me. Clearly then planets do not move in modern scientific astrology they like are darts on a board.

Similarly, when someone here mentioned something from Ibn Ezra about a planet in the last degree of a sign being partly in the next sign one respondent argued amongst himself until he explained it away. He simply could not comprehend the idea as it contradicted what he had been taught.

It seems like they hold onto doctrines because of authority in the manner of some unimaginative medieval scholar.

I can think of another eg but I will leave it there as it could be the last sunny day in London for a while so I am off out but I am suspicious of a area of study where people seem to think simple ideas are taboo.

regards (or as AC would say 93!)

Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3215
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Re-reading AC on astrology he decries what he calls "Scientific Astrology" then in vogue.


If we step back from his reputation (does anyone ever mention Crowley's name without the adjective "notorious?") I think we see a man who is very much a Victorian. Like most Victorians he is obsessed with being up-to-date and "scientific" was very up-to-date in the pre WWI era. He also incorporates his own occult knowledge into his astrology. Again this is fairly typical of his era and our own. Stephen Arroyo does much the same thing as does Liz Green.

What I've read of his astrology isn't bad, but I still can't see him as a traditionalist in any meaningful sense. Kim said he was and then asked her daughter who agreed and Kim said that settled the issue. Wink But she also said a lot depends on one's definition of traditional astrology. I agree there are traditional elements to his astrology, but once we get heavily into mythology as the basis of our astrology, we've left Lilly et al far, far behind.

Should anyone wish to discuss Crowley, bring it over to the traditional forum, and we'll pick up over there.


Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
R.A.



Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Posts: 39

Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello all .. this is my first post on this forum by the way.
I ran across this interesting thread incidentally as I was just reading a passage from Raphael's "Manual of Astrology" describing dignity/debilities of the planets. At the time of the publication of this book, Uranus was ascribed the same dignities/debilities as Saturn. This of course being when the planet Uranus was actively referred to as Herschel and "just" discovered. I know time has passed and this may have changed, but I haven't found much publication on the subject otherwise.

I'm sorry if this was already said (I saw one post on the thread alluding to Raphael, but did not see this point made).

regards, r.a. (pronounced ray)
Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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