Astrological incorporation of all Dwarf Planets?

1
Good afternoon,

How, if at all, should this subject be approached?

The discovery of at least three further Dwarf Planets beyond Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris since 2003 (Eris has about 30 % more mass than Pluto) may not entirely invalidate the perhaps 'Pluto-happy' delineations we have seen in astrology for more than one generation of astrologers. Nevertheless, the new astronomical-astrological paradigm of trans-Plutonian Dwarf Planets will at least entail extensive revisions of many astrology books, natal and mundane, and will in particular place Pluto's importance in a much more relative perspective. Many new books including all of the Dwarf Planets will probably be written and sold, providing professional opportunities for astrologers.

May one ask if the perhaps continual discovery of new Dwarf Planets beyond Neptune, the last 'normal' planet, Sedna, for example, currently being a candidate for Dwarf-Planethood, might lead to an astrological 'reductio ad absurdum'? The outermost of the Dwarf Planets will assume the role of 'Chief Chronokrator' , thus relegating prior Dwarf Planets who held this office to subordination. Astrologers will be busy calculating new rhythmic interfaces amongst the growing group of outer Dwarf Planets and with the outer planets from Mars to Saturn, not excluding the oft forgotten Ceres who has been elevated to Dwarf Planet status. Hundreds of new delineations will delight the mind and perhaps offer 'explanations' for much.

How, if at all, do other forum members think all the of Dwarf Planets should be astrologically integrated? (To avoid possible misunderstandings, please note that this is an entirely sincere, not a rhetorical question.)

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

2
a better question and parallel for you to consider might be, can all the lots or parts be included in a natal chart, or do you only include some of them? see any parallel? LOLOL........

4
Lithin,

As I suggested to you already this topic would fit better on the philosophy forum. Its not just a technical or astronomical issue but one that poses fundamental questions about our personal paradigm of astrology. Juan's link to his thread on the philosophy forum rather demonstrated that point. The topic will almost certainly spiral into a philosophical discussion.

I am quizzical why you are so interested in this topic. After all you have already stated your strong interest in a purely 'visual astrology'. Equally, judging by the charts you display you only use the 7 traditional planets. I assume largely because these are visible to the naked eye? So what difference does it make to you what modern astrologers do? I cannot help thinking you are using this as a Trojan Horse argument to undermine modern astrological practice. You have stated your disapproval of modern astrology several times on Skyscript. Terms like 'Pluto happy delineations' rather gives the game away. I accept there probably is scope for such a discussion in the astrological community but I question if you have the necessary objectivity to field such a discussion

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

Re: Astrological incorporation of all Dwarf Planets?

5
lihin wrote:
How, if at all, do other forum members think all the of Dwarf Planets should be astrologically integrated? (To avoid possible misunderstandings, please note that this is an entirely sincere, not a rhetorical question.)
I think this is quite straightforward, It's a question of semantics as long as the meanings of these planets do not replicate others they can be included . Otherwise you have incoherent chaos and a useless model.

NB- Some folks argue that newer planets 'steal' meanings from older ones. I don't know if this is true, I have my doubts.

As newer celestial objects are discovered they need to be defined precisely which takes time and to receive a certain kudos. Astrologers who are respected giving them the time of day, so to speak. This gravitas leads to their inclusion. Sedna, Ceres, etc don't appear to have met this criteria to date, or if they have I have not seen the literature.

Of relevance here perhaps is that even though I include Pluto in charts I tend not to include Jupiter much, or pay much attetntion to it. I lack confidence in the 'normative' meanings, or supposed 'influence', or it is just a blind spot of mine. In any event, if it does not 'talk to you' coherently then it would be remiss to utilise it with a fellow human being, ethics!

So you can if you wish take out some of the visual's. There are no rules, this is Horoscopy, a belief.

As a Psychological Astrologer only the Sun and Moon are worth paying a lot of attention to, after this you can mix and match as suits. Here you go from, or through, the person to the chart, so many a time after a few hours you notice all you have discussed is, for example, the house position of the Moon. So it can often be in reality a little irrelevant as to what other planets are present in the mandala.

Hope this assists.

Very practical astrological implications

6
Good morning,

To me it seems that the inclusion of all Dwarf Planets instead of only one (Pluto) in astrology has great practical implications for the vast majority of astrologers who work with planets invisible to unaided human sight. Because of its eminently practical effects, i posted the question here.

The question of the thread referenced by Mr Juan, "Is Pluto really a planet?", is in my opinion not really 'on topic' in this thread. Astronomy demoted Pluto but promoted Ceres. Regardless of the classification into 'normal' and 'dwarf' planets, no-one as far as i know disputes than Eris has about 30 % more mass than Pluto and that the Dwarf Planets have common attributes, as illustrated:
Image
According to the Wikipedia article on the subject, there are currently some 73 candidates for Dwarf Planet status.

Like any other scientific (or pseudo-scientific, as sceptics claim) paradigm, astrological ones will occasionally crumble and have to be revised or even replaced. This is a simple fact of transitory life, not primarily a philosophic matter. Some of the posts appear interested in avoiding the question of this thread. Why not face it?

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

7
There was a period back in the '70s and '80s when there was a large amount of astrological interest in asteroids and undoubtedly, had the trans-Pluto planetoids been known about then, they would have been enthusiastically incorporated into the canon of astrological bodies. But then came the revival of 'traditional' astrology and the appetite for asteroids and even the outers dried up.

Now, with the discovery of Eris and the other planetoids, has anybody done the methodical research to establish the nature of these bodies like, for example, Fritz Brunhubner did for Pluto? If they have, it has not surfaced on my concious horizon.

Geoffrey

9
Geoffrey wrote:Now, with the discovery of Eris and the other planetoids, has anybody done the methodical research to establish the nature of these bodies like, for example, Fritz Brunhubner did for Pluto? If they have, it has not surfaced on my concious horizon.Geoffrey
I have done extensive methodical research on some which have not received a name yet: 1996TL66, 1999TD10, 1999CZ118, 1999CY118, and Varuna, and on some of the centaurs like Hylonome, Pholus, Asbolus, Nessus, and 1994TA (aka Pylenor). The results and all the data and methodology are in my site. I have written extensively on the methodology, including once in this forum (linked in my previous post).

The "Centaurs" Yahoo group, formed by Zane Stein in 1998 was for about 10 years the place where those interested conducted reasearch and shared their results, fertilizing each other's minds in a collective effort. Most astrologers are not interested in the research, they just want to be told what they mean, and some or most researchers are very un-methodical and untrustworthy (in my opinion), but there are exceptions.

Juan

10
Juan wrote:The results and all the data and methodology are in my site.
A link to your site would be appreciated. ('Juan' is not much to go by in a Google search :wink:)

Thanks

Geoffrey

11
Geoffrey wrote:A link to your site would be appreciated. ('Juan' is not much to go by in a Google search :wink:)
You can Google "Juan" and the name of any of the objects I mentioned. My main site dates from 1998 and has everything scattered in different posts and essays of different value:

http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/

I evolved and matured over time, and in the last years tried to write more systematic explanations tha are collected in the "Occam's Razor" forum. I would recommend reading any of the following:

qualitative methods in Astrology
http://expreso.co.cr/occamrazor/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7

asteroids and modern Astrology are rubbish
http://expreso.co.cr/occamrazor/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=53

Ceres, "care", and method
http://expreso.co.cr/occamrazor/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=44

The case for CY118 and CZ118
http://expreso.co.cr/occamrazor/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=71

Varuna
http://expreso.co.cr/occamrazor/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=43

solar and lunar aspects: Nessus
http://expreso.co.cr/occamrazor/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=42

and the compilation on methodology:
http://www.expreso.co.cr/centaurs/posts ... ethod.html

Juan

12
okay lihin,

it seems like a fair question, even if you have a clear orientation to an older form of astrology where none of these questions seem to enter the practitioners mind, or if they do, they mostly ignore their presence from what i can tell.. for this reason i thought a fair parallel would be the inclusion of all the 'lots'.. why don't those who like to think of themselves as 'traditional' astrologers bother to include all the lots or parts, and instead tend to only favour a few, like the part of fortune for example? i note an avoidance of a response to my question as well!

i use the 3 outer planets, and i include pluto as one of these 3.. i don't really care what astronomers are concluding for the most part, as they seem so hostile towards astrology as to not warrant much of my attention... for those who are open minded towards astrology, i make an exception..

i also include chiron as i have had enough experience with watching it in charts to feel it has real relevance, but this is a newer development for me stemming from a direct experience connected to the chiron return that happened about 5 years ago for me.

i am aware of where ceres is in my chart and i have tried to get info on eris for the simple reason my sun forms a conjunction to this dwarf planet to within 1 degree.. it moves very slowly and while i am sure there is merit in considering it's placement in a chart, especially if it is conjunct or directly opposite a planet/body in a persons chart, it is very hard to get any kind of data on this, or formulate a clear idea of how it works in charts more generally and even my chart in particular!

i don't close the door on the relevance of any of these bodies, but i do need to simplify my view on astrology in my own subjective manner as well, which for me means not including what seems like a 'zillion' points/dwarf planets/arabic parts/ etc. etc. etc. in a chart. in this sense there is a real appeal to having a chart with only the planets out to saturn for obvious reasons.. and, another bonus is when i read any of the traditional literature on astrology from the past, i can be happy that any nagging questions over whether they didn't see everything that was going on by missing all this other information we are discussing in this thread for example, can be put to rest by knowing that i am now a traditional astrologer who only practices an astrology steeped in the tradition!... any comparisons to ostriches with their heads in the sand is a fair comparison to make when i do this, but i don't like to be reminded of this, so i include a few of the outer bodies just to take the pressure off my overly sensitive consciousness!!

what i'd like to know lihin is how do you do it? LOLOL..

ps - juan, i did read your link on the pluto thread and found it a worthwhile read..