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:
The Life & Work of Vettius Valens
by Deborah Houlding
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Aquarius not so individualistic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

varuna2 wrote:


It seemed interesting to consider the characteristics of Rahu and its co-rulership of Aquarius with the decision of modern so-called Western astrology to place the co-rulership of Aquarius to Uranus, in light of the similar appearing, modern descriptions of Uranus with the attributes of Rahu.



Are they that similar? this is a reasonable if brief synopsis of the Psychological Uranus, (albeit a bit ''American'', ie naive or simplistic, some might propose).

''The planet Uranus is empirically associated with the principle of change, rebellion, freedom, liberation, reform and revolution, and the unexpected breakup of structures; with sudden surprises, revelations and awakenings, lightning-like flashes of insight, the acceleration of thoughts and events; with births and new beginnings of all kinds; and with intellectual brilliance, cultural innovation, technological invention, experiment, creativity, and originality. In addition to the occurrence of sudden breakthroughs and liberating events, Uranus transits are linked to unpredictable and disruptive changes; hence the planet is often referred to as the "cosmic trickster." Another set of themes associated with Uranus is a concern with the celestial and the cosmic, with astronomy and astrology, with science and esoteric knowledge, and with space travel and aviation. With respect to personal character, Uranus is regarded as signifying the rebel and the innovator, the awakener, the individualist, the dissident, the eccentric, the restless and wayward (Cosmos and Psyche, 93). Many essential attributes of the Uranus archetypal principle are conveyed by the mythic figure of Prometheus.

Many of these associations are empirically related to important phenomena surrounding the Discovery of Uranus.''

http://www.archaijournal.org/planets.html#uranus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3875
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi nixx,

that link where you are drawing that from has as senior editoral advisor richard tamas who wrote a book on uranus that is supposed to be quite good and that i haven't read -
Prometheus the Awakener: An Essay on the Archetypal Meaning of the Planet Uranus, 1995; Spring Publications, Woodstock, CT (ISBN 0-882-14221-6)
it is a small pricey book..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk,

Ah References enfin, now we are cooking. So we have Greene's view which Perry gets into more in his review

‘’Many students of astrology, and even many professional astrologers, describe Uranus as the "planet of individuality". This phrase, according to Liz Greene, gives the wrong impression of Uranian impulses, which have nothing to do with personal unfoldment according to an internal blueprint. Uranus is an outer planet, and as such offers a worldview which may be transformative and revolutionary to the collective. Those dominated by Uranus often have little awareness of personal values and personal identity. Greene warns: "Please try to rid yourselves of the association of Uranus with individuality, because if you use this term when you read a chart, you may go badly wrong with it".’’

and now a few ''Modern'', are they American? Bods, and a couple of Neo trads, who appear to fall into her going badly wrong road, here and there, with thinking Aquarius is fundamentally linked to ‘’individuality’’

So we are in a position where the not infrequent way Psychological Astrologers look around them and become very critical of early and mid 20th century astrology and a fair bit, if not most, of what is still with us today, including some of the less intelligent or informed Traditional notions, has been made apparent.

I suppose if you are smitten with the idea of rulerships needing visibility and feel the Thema is unduly threatened then I recognise this is problematic. I’m not sure for PA’s these are primary considerations although they are major ones, a subtle difference! I think the logic is more to do with finding an empirical validity to Uranus’s position which tells them more about the meaning of the house Aquarius rules and noticing, as they see it, a certain innovative, experimental and eccentric quality to the affairs of the psyche under consideration.

For example, Yoko Ono. A 5th house Aquarius Sun and Venus dynamic. Uranus here rules or co rules the 5th, for traditionalists I recall this is the house of pleasure even sex and for PA’s the house of where one is at ones most subjective, authentic and where and how pleasure is sought. More exactly if you had a day off and the world was your oyster what would get your mojo rising. Yoko’s Uranus is in the 7th and we can say her ‘pleasure’ was enhanced or this was her intention ,by linking up with a younger, detached, quirky, cerebral, outspoken, unconventional (albeit not as much as her) already married, etc partner. With the Uranus in the 7th she requires a partner who enables her Sun to flourish in the 5th, i.e. allow her to continue doing her radical art. I strongly suspect (and do prove me wrong if you fancy knocking up a few hundred words on Yoko) a traditional lens on her would result in us revisiting the Dykes / Jackson Horoscopic futility where the aspects of the life which interest today’s mind are not available to the astrologer solely operating with the language and thinking available to them from 500 plus years ago. Although it may pick up one or two relevant components missed by those who ignore the Antiscions. After all this is the point Hand and the erudite crew verbalise that even if you want to keep Uranus away from ruling/co-ruling or in your view on occasions corrupting Aquarius you still have to somehow bring the terrains of Uranus and the other transpersonal into the chart to enable the delineation to stimulate the psyches we find ourselves with now and relate to the cosmology we operate within today. Even if this is for Western Astrologers still by a large an Idealist Platonic one.

Most of the PA schema seems to be rooted in ideas from way back when, pre CE perhaps?, so seeing Aquarians as friendly, detached and cerebral as far as I know is not a radical divergence from the notions of yesteryear. They may not be that bothered about the hot cold, dry .... , from memory this is Ptolemy‘s Naturalism, I could be wrong here?. If so wouldn’t’ this ‘thinking’ be a corruption of the fundamental premise of Western Astrology being a Judicial activity?

Where we may be misconnecting a little Kirk is in relation to your perception of Forrest as being a ‘mainstream’ and influential figure, at least in Europe, Here he would be seen as peripheral, a touch heretical and a bit non mainstream, i.e. it’s not Psychological Astrology which tends to be the dominant model/philosophy in Europe as far as I can see. As to Llewellyn George, Davison, etc I don’t think someone who takes Astrology seriously today would look at these books now, which for me were redundant from about 1975 onwards. Thus my slight bewilderment as to your focus here, But I do recognise you do get quite a few folks on astro online forums who do get their ideas from antiquated 20th century cookbooks. There is a prolific poster at astro.com who still thinks Hickey’s book has some relevance today, which for me is a bit like walking onto centre court dressed as Rod Laver with a wooden racket and asking Rafa which end he wants. So I think you are broadly speaking on the money here in attacking ‘Popular’ astrology. The problem is Popular astrology and ''Modern'' astrology, the type of stuff that comes out of the Sophia centre for example, tend to have little in common with each other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
hi nixx,

that link where you are drawing that from has as senior editoral advisor richard tamas who wrote a book on uranus that is supposed to be quite good and that i haven't read -
Prometheus the Awakener: An Essay on the Archetypal Meaning of the Planet Uranus, 1995; Spring Publications, Woodstock, CT (ISBN 0-882-14221-6)
it is a small pricey book..


I haven't read it either, I would hope Greene took what was useful in it and incorporated it into her book which as far as I know is still seen as the definitive or seminal book on this planet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 316
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 7:12 am; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

. . .

Last edited by ### on Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

. . .

Last edited by ### on Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

. . .

Last edited by ### on Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed F



Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
It does have the sound of the American baby-boomers.


Why did that sound like an uncalled-for insult to us American baby-boomers?

- Ed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

. . .

Last edited by ### on Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed F



Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA

Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
IHey, maybe they were just collective pawns moved into place by the force represented through Uranus.

But we don't really want to go on about the boomers, do we? Confused


Yep, who's to say for sure who's who?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Donna Chang



Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Posts: 94
Location: San Francisco

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed F wrote:

Yep, who's to say for sure who's who?


Nice.

I was about to pipe up with a request for a definition of "individualistic". As far as I can tell it means "independent". I have a hard time following threads that don't define terms. I understand the ambiguity of concepts like "traditional" and "modern" but I wish we could start at the beginning, with language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nixx



Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 295

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are talking about this, or should be:

'Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual".[1] Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance[2] while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.[2]''

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

In some of the more recent astrological literature Aquarians have been associated with a Humanist mentality which is broadly speaking part of this ''Individualist'' stance.

I think Kirk is suggesting that in the last 100 yrs or so Aquarians are seen as more egocentric than folks like Houlding and Greene feel ought to be the case, as the Sun is in detriment there.

However as I understand Individualism this is more consistent with the Houlding/Greene take on this sign than perhaps Kirk and others have picked up on? Although it may be Kirk isn't a fan of Houlding either. I do note in the Aquarius article, I think Mark brought in, a shocking erroneous 60's cookbookism, in an otherwise pretty solid and uncontentious psychological approach to this sign (a lot of Psychological Astrology in our Deb's posts/articles, which is a bit ironic).

Here is the offending item ''Uranus sits comfortably within the theme of Aquarius in issues of detachment and mental separation, but the intrinsically destructive nature of that planet undermines the fact that Aquarius is regarded as a fortunate sign that rarely offers hostile conditions unless the planets within it are afflicted and heavily debilitated''.

I think it may have been seen as destructive by quite a few in 1960 but by 1980 this notion would have been seen as idiotic, so what is going on here then?


Quote:
That's a good point. I had considered the possibility that I was making an incorrect assumption. However, my guess is that he is well known in Britain due to the English language and the close American/British contact in astrology. Perhaps he isn't as well known on the Continent. But Forrest has been a big-name astrologer for about 30 years, speaking at the big American astrology conferences which draw an international crowd. So I feel secure in saying he has been a major influence.


I suppose it comes down to who we are talking about in terms of being influenced. My only written encounter I can recall with Forrest was his delineation in - Under One Sky, which was from memory on the surface 20th century psychological astrology with a bit of ‘’past life’’ stuff thrown in. It was readable, but I wouldn’t have thought it would interest people all that much who are more involved in Astrology. An equivalent may be John Frawley who writes for the lay audience interested in Traditional astrology, i.e. it’s not the kind of output that those involved with the intellectualisation of astrology currently are going to rub their hands towards and imagine they may learn something useful here or anticipate being influenced by the thinking’s. But many will be who like their astrology lighter or less demanding.

I think these are the folks you are concerning yourself with. These types of astrologers no doubt have useful things to say and are worth paying attention to on occasions but I at least probably wouldn’t approach their texts or talks with a notebook open which I would do if Rob Hand or Liz Greene were on the podium. Your mileage may vary of course.............
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1553

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:

Where we may be misconnecting a little Kirk is in relation to your perception of Forrest as being a ‘mainstream’ and influential figure, at least in Europe, Here he would be seen as peripheral, a touch heretical and a bit non mainstream, i.e. it’s not Psychological Astrology which tends to be the dominant model/philosophy in Europe as far as I can see.


I agree with Donna regarding defining one's terms. If you mean by Psychological Astrology the CPA inspired astrology, then I think I'd disagree with you. Whilst I'm not doubting that the CPA approach to psychological astrology isn't a popular model in Europe, I would argue that really this model overlaps with several other philosophies. In other words I don't believe that astrologers or students of astrology necessarily define their astrology books by who published them and whether or not they came from the CPA or not. I would argue that any astrology which deals in some way with the psyche/character/personality of the native is the popular model in Europe, or at least the UK, and then say that within that model the CPA inspired astrology is popular to be true, but that's not to say that THE popular model is CPA. For example Sue Tompkins, Melanie Reinhart etc. are also very popular but not directly linked with the CPA.

In addition we have people like Jan Spiller and so on who are also very popular. You mention Robert Hand but again, as far as I'm aware, he is not of the CPA and so is also not a 'Psychological Astrologer'. Then we have the Huber approach which is another psychological approach.

So whilst a focus on the psyche, in some way, is probably the popular model, that is not to imply that the CPA style is necessarily the most popular.

Of course, as I've said countless time, this is part of the problem of using a term like Psychological Astrology without fully defining it.

As for Steven Forrest, I do think he's had some influence here in the UK as well. I do not know how mainstream he is in the US to properly juxtapose and compare but certainly there are many many astrologers and students of astrology in the UK who have been influenced by Forrest's work, particularly books like The Soul's Journey and his book on Pluto. Again, these works are interspersed within the astrology community's 'mass consciousness' as it were.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
varuna2



Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Posts: 316
Location: Lemuria

Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

delete

Last edited by varuna2 on Sat May 04, 2013 7:13 am; edited 1 time in total
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, 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