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:
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 mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Is Uranus Associated with Aries?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4986
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geoffrey wrote:
Quote:
Funny you should say that. There has been a lot of talk about how Uranus does not fit our traditional view of astrology. But was Aquarius always a fixed air sign? Aquarius is the "water bearer". It's glyph is rippling water. And back in Hellenistic times, it was considered a "watery sign". See Palchus here:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/shippalchus.html

Perhaps the changeable, shifting, unpredictable nature of Uranus is a reflection of this watery nature of Aquarius which we do not acknowledge these days?


Thanks Geoffrey,

That is an interesting point. You may have something there I hadn't really considered.

The Palchus text seems to be corrupted by a much later Byzantine copyist and many would question if this material really dates back to the the 6th century CE. However, your basic point about the watery nature of Aquarius is also found in older hellenistic material such as the Anthology of Valens (2nd century CE).

Valens states:

Quote:
Aquarius is the celestial sign which is masculine, solid, anthropomorphic, somewhat damp, single. It is mute, quite cold, free, upward-trending, feminizing, unchanging, base, with few offspring, the cause of troubles arising from athletic training, carrying burdens, or work in hard materials, an artisan, public. Men born under this sign are malicious, haters of their own families, incorrigible, self-willed, deceitful, tricky, concealing everything, misanthropic, godless, accusers, betrayers of reputations and the truth, envious, petty, occasionally generous (because of the sign’s) flow of water), uncontrollable. As a whole this sign is wet.


Valens appears to be the first source to link the elements to the signs. However, the qualities seems to a much older tradition. Actually, in the Riley translation I cannot see the sign of Aquarius described as airy by Valens. Although he does link Aquarius to the western direction along with Gemini and Libra. Intriguing Valens describes Aquarius as a 'mute' sign. Quite at odds with the tradition as we understand it today which only assigns the water triplicity signs as mute.

The tradition of Aquarius as a watery constellation clearly has a Babylonian origin. Gavin White discusses this topic in his excellent book Babylonian Star Lore. Actually the watery symbolism also applies to Capricorn as the Goatfish.

Quote:
The watery symbolism continues in the figure known as the Great One, the Babylonian name for our Aquarius. As a seasonal symbol, the Great One with his overflowing vases symbolises the increased rains and floods of winter and early spring. Along with the constellation of the Field, which represents a plot of arable land, the Great One can be thought of as the ‘Irrigator’ – as the rising of these constellations mark the season when the ripening barley is irrigated before the springtime harvest.

....All in all, the symbolism of the constellations that rise after the winter solstice concur in depicting a time when the sun re-emerges from the darkness of winter and starts its ascent into the heavens. Similarly, in the unfolding lifecycle of the dying god, Damu (the ‘Child’), escapes from the underworld and starts to make his way back to the upper worlds. The image of the child escaping the underworld, and of the nascent sun dwelling within the waters, can also be interpreted in human terms as the foetus dwelling within the creative waters of the womb. The multitude of images all relate one essential truth – that life, in all its myriad forms, takes shape within the creative waters.

....The Babylonian precursor of Aquarius is known as Gula, the ‘Great One’. The constellation is generally portrayed as a standing male figure, sometimes of gigantic proportions, who holds one or more vases overflowing with streams of water. With his feet firmly set upon the earth, the gigantic figure of Gula towers above the mountaintops (right). The overflowing vases he holds aloft symbolise the fertile rains falling from heaven, and the vases set about his feet represent the watery Abyss below the earth from which freshwater wells up to feed rivers and lakes. As a seasonal star the Great One represents the increase in river levels and rainfall that occurs during the winter months. In an agricultural context he can also be understood as the ‘irrigator’ whose waters irrigate the thriving barley fields in late winter. The barley fields are, of course,represented among the stars by the adjacent constellation of the Field.

To emphasise their watery nature the streams of water flowing from his vases are often embellished with the tiny images of fish. In fact, one of these fish appears on the Babylonian star-map as the constellation known as the Fish – it too has been transmitted to the Greek heavens as the Southern Fish (Pisces Austrinus), where it can be seen swimming along the outflow of Aquarius’ vase. In Babylonian art, waterways such as rivers and streams are conventionally depicted as a pair of wavy lines, which are thought to represent the parallel banks of a river. Recognisably the same image occurs in the cuneiform writing system as the A-sign. This sign by itself simply signifies ‘water’, but it is also used in numerous compounds expressing watery concepts, such as river, flood, sea and lake.

The basic form of this sign has evolved into the familiar zigzag symbol used as the modern glyph for Aquarius. Like many of the constellations that embody aquatic symbolism, the Great One is closely associated with the god of wisdom and water, known as Enki in Sumerian and Ea in Akkadian. One astrology text simply states that ‘the Great One is the Lord of springs, Ea’. In ancient art Enki is commonly depicted with overflowing vases in his hands or set around his throne dais, and sometimes he is seen seated within a square enclosure that is thought to represent the Abyss (see fig 54)

Babylonian Starlore, by Gavin White p121-123


Although Gavin White doesn't mention it I have read that the ever present threat of flooding along the Tigris and Euphrates was seen as a potentially dangerous time when crops, livestock and humans themselves were at some risk. This may have given the sign of Aquarius a more negative association and perhaps partly explains why Valens takes such a strongly negative attitude to the sign. That and the rulership of Aquarius by the great malefic Saturn.

Getting back to Uranus I suppose one could make a case that this more Babylonian view of Aquarius fits better with the modern symbolism of Uranus. Although, I have never heard Uranus explicitly linked to water and flooding. It sounds more like Neptune than Uranus in that respect. While the zigzag glyph of Aquarius is often linked to electricity today its origin is clearly related to flowing water.

Its another tangent but these ancient associations probably help explain why Saturn (irrespective of its phase) is sometimes described as connected to flooding and seafaring in ancient astrology.

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


Last edited by Mark on Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:55 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3317
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread and others

richard tarnas in his excellent little book (that i reviewed last night) basically suggests that uranus would make a better fit with the greek god Prometheus then Ouranos.. of course prometheus does have a direct symbolic connect to fire which is where a connection with aries might also fit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4986
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James_M wrote:
Quote:
waybread and others

richard tarnas in his excellent little book (that i reviewed last night) basically suggests that uranus would make a better fit with the greek god Prometheus then Ouranos.. of course prometheus does have a direct symbolic connect to fire which is where a connection with aries might also fit.

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


In fairness I should point out that amongst the many mythical figures linked to the sign of Aquarius is Deucalion the son of Prometheus. He is rather like a Greek equivalent of Noah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_(constellation)

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

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 943
Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konrad, sorry. As the saying goes, I have a good memory but it's short. I was not being disingenuous, so please do not take my error personally.

I clicked on your website, and I personally see Uranus in your hair, but of course you can attribute this to a predisposed bias on my part, if you like.

You asked for a philosophy to "justify" including the outer planets. This made me think you had studied philosophy. But if someone is dead set against using the outer planets, no way, no how, then someone else's philosophy will hardly help matters.

Utilitarianism has two basic meanings. #1 is virtually synonymous with pragmatism. Does something have utility? If something works for you to good effect, and doesn't harm anybody, go ahead and use it. This is the sense in which I intend it. (Cf. consequentialism, i.e., what are the consequences of an action.) #2 gets principally into ethics, looking at the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is not the sense I mean here, except loosely-- that if your goal in chart reading is to be helpful to people, I find the outer planets to be extremely helpful.

Quote:
Moreover, theories and models are to be judged primarily by their fruits and consequences, not by their origins or their relations to antecedent data or facts. .... the utility of a theory is a matter of its problem-solving power... What is essential is that theories pay their way in the long run—that they can be relied upon time and again to solve pressing problems and to clear up significant difficulties confronting inquirers. To the extent that a theory functions or “works” practically in this way, it makes sense to keep using it—though we must always allow for the possibility that it will eventually have to be replaced by some theory that works even better.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/

If I am not mistaken, you make a pragmatic argument, as well, for keeping to the traditional planets. Could we summarize your view of traditional astrology as, "If it's not broken, don't fix it"? Not a problem.

Mark, I really like Gavin White's book as well! But I don't think we can shoehorn Babylonian constellation origins too deeply into the Greek concept of elements, as it post-dated the Babylonian constellation lore.

I've mislaid the source, but was fascinated to read recently that Babylonians switched from constellations to signs because in their sexagesimal (base 60) arithmetic system, eclipse locations were much easier to predict within 30-degree sectors of the sky, vs. against constellations of widely varying widths along the moon's pathway.

Rain as a climatic phenomenon is arguably an air phenomenon. Heavy rain leads to rivers overflowing their banks, a good thing in a society like Babylon or Egypt. When the air warms up a bit, the mountain snow melts in the headwaters, swelling the rivers.

But more to the point, the Babylonian system was doctrinary yet presented the Greeks with an intellectual problem as to how to make it fit into their science. This was Ptolemy's project, for one. It wasn't a happy fit.

Aquarius doesn't work for me at all as a water sign. At least in modern astrology, water symbolizes emotions and feelings. (Some would say, spirituality.) Aquarius is not a touchy-feely sign.

We have other mixed signs: Capricorn is the sea-goat, half goat, half fish. Yet it is classified as an earth sign. Most scorpions are desert or at least land creatures, yet Scorpio is a water sign. Sagittarius, named for Keiron (Chiron) was a philosopher, physician, and teacher; but it is a fire sign, not an air sign.

Then we have the same planet ruling two very different types of signs. Venus rules both a fixed earth sign and a cardinal air sign.

To get back to your OP, I think Mars and Aries symbolize the individual who can be disruptive, beligerant, and unpredictable. Uranus and Aquarius have a much more social face. This isn't to say that you won't have a disruptive experience during a Uranus transit, but only if a personal planet or angle are involved.

Revolutions on the scale of, say, the French Revolution; or philosophies advocating the end of the class system, are notably Uranian and Aquarian. The basis may be economic or emotional, but the ideology of "liberty, equality, fraternity." or of Marxism is very airy, indeed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3317
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

speaking of the french rev and the american rev for that matter - tarnas makes the connection with jupiter/uranus conjunctions.. unfortunately for astrologers, like cooks trying to figure out what is in a recipe, there are typically overlaps in the ingredients..

speaking of accepting the outers or not, i did find a recent edition of chris brennans - history of astrology paid for podcast where he makes a direct link on important developments in astrology and the association with the neptune/uranus conjunctions particularly interesting.. here is a guy clearly devoted to new developments in astrology and most closely associated with the more traditional viewpoint, embracing the thought that outer planet cycles have some real bearing on important historical cycles in astrology! it boggles the mind, lol.. it is always refreshing to see someone who keeps an open mind to other possibilities outside their comfort zone, no matter who is doing it..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 685

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
You asked for a philosophy to "justify" including the outer planets. This made me think you had studied philosophy. But if someone is dead set against using the outer planets, no way, no how, then someone else's philosophy will hardly help matters.


I know what Utilitarianism is, and I do study Philosophy, right at this time of my life actually. I never stated I was against anything, but since we are on the Philosophy forum, I thought I might get some philosophical reasoning for the use of the outers. Prior to today, all I have heard is pseudo-religious claims about the outer planets.

Quote:
Utilitarianism has two basic meanings. #1 is virtually synonymous with pragmatism. Does something have utility? If something works for you to good effect, and doesn't harm anybody, go ahead and use it. This is the sense in which I intend it.


Right, but this isn't what I meant. This is actually what I mentioned before: "it works for me and that is enough". I meant why would the outers have any signification at all? What principles are we using that distinguishes them from anything else that we can now measure and track? Are we really assigning significations to them due to the names given to them by scientists?

Quote:
Quote:
Moreover, theories and models are to be judged primarily by their fruits and consequences, not by their origins or their relations to antecedent data or facts. .... the utility of a theory is a matter of its problem-solving power... What is essential is that theories pay their way in the long run—that they can be relied upon time and again to solve pressing problems and to clear up significant difficulties confronting inquirers. To the extent that a theory functions or “works” practically in this way, it makes sense to keep using it—though we must always allow for the possibility that it will eventually have to be replaced by some theory that works even better.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/

If I am not mistaken, you make a pragmatic argument, as well, for keeping to the traditional planets. Could we summarize your view of traditional astrology as, "If it's not broken, don't fix it"? Not a problem.


No, it is if I am going to disrupt a harmonious and fluent system, I am going to need some pretty good reasons to do it and I should probably understand the system I am attempting to break up before I do that.
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4986
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konrad wrote:
.
Quote:
..if we are to disrupt the harmony of the other seven, I feel we need a threefold reason: it needs to fit philosophically, theoretically and practically and I am not seeing this with them currently.


Surely, greater scientific understanding has disrupted the 'harmony of the seven' as you put it. Quite bluntly the ancients were not aware of the true organisation of the solar system. Indeed there was no appreciation we lived in a heliocentric cosmos. It was also thought that Saturn was the last planet before the fixed stars.

Now I appreciate astrology is geocentric in focus but much of its traditional symbolism derives from a misunderstanding of planetary relationships based on celestial spheres. Even astrological symbolism has to have some basis in astronomical reality.

The Aristotelian cosmos is dead. So perhaps it is you not I that needs to provide an adequate philosophical justification for clinging to an outmoded symbolic understanding of the cosmos?

Having said that I can understand your caution in incorporating every bit of 'astro-debris' into our astrology. There is security in clinging to the ancient and medieval astrology. You have your set rules with everything in its place. However, even the most die hard traditionalist must acknowledge that astrology was in need of some reform to reflect the changes introduced by the astronomical revolution of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler? Morin attempted it but he was still clinging to an outdated geocentric understanding of the cosmos.

Moreover, when you use the word 'philosophy' supporting traditional astrology which one did you have in mind? Aristotelianism?, Neo-Platonism?, Stoicism? Gnosticism?. Or do we go with Christian or Islamic variants of these?

In reality the traditional astrologers I listed haven't sought to overturn the traditional 'harmony' of the signs and their rulers. They have simply incorporated these bodies in a fairly conservative way as 'invisible points' like nodes, lots or fixed stars that are already used.

Necessarily, though a practical process of selection and prioritisation needs to take place. This is where the disagreements and possible confusion begins. Hence I personally, exclude Chiron and the asteroids from my astrology. Your approach obviously, saves the dilemmas of those going beyond Saturn. In particular what to do with the growing volume of trans-Neptunian bodies (not just Pluto) but also Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Quaoar, Orcus and Sedna. There is a danger with this kind of modern astrology in that the myriad of new bodies can totally confuse accurate delineation. So I see your main objection as basically pragmatic not theoretical.

My current view is to work with Pluto as the effective 'gatekeeper' of the Kuiper belt and beyond but exclude any more distant bodies. However, I do have my doubts about Pluto too!

Fundamentally, I dont think your objection has that strong a philosophical or theoretical basis. Its more about your view of what works and what doesn't. So its seems to me you are just as 'pragmatic' as Waybread. You just have a different perception to her of what works astrologically.

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


Last edited by Mark on Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 685

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Surely, greater scientific understanding has disturbed the 'harmony of the seven' as you put it. Quite bluntly the ancients were not aware of the true organisation of the solar system. Indeed there was no appreciation we lived in a heliocentric cosmos. It was also thought that Saturn was the last planet before the fixed stars.


Hmmm, not really, no. I am working from the basis that symbolically the heavens reflect the earth, and vice versa. Whether there are 3 or 300 other planets in the solar system makes little difference.

Quote:
Moreover, when you use the word 'philosophy' supporting traditional astrology which one did you have in mind? Aristotelianism?, Neo-Platonism?, Stoicism? Gnosticism?. Or do we go with Christian or Islamic variants of these?


I use philosophy in the sense of this definition: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct". My own views are unimportant when asking what others' are in the context of their use of the outers which is what I am attempting to do. I am not supporting anything, Mark, but the way I see it is if we have a rationale that gives rise to a system that "works" and is coherent, what is our thinking in altering that?

Quote:
Necessarily, though a practical process of selection and prioritisation needs to take place. This is where the disagreements and possible confusion begins. Hence I personally, exclude Chiron and the asteroids from my astrology. Your approach obviously, saves the dilemmas of those going beyond Saturn. In particular what to do with the growing volume of trans-Neptunian bodies (not just Pluto) but also Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Quaoar, Orcus and Sedna. There is a danger with this kind of modern astrology in that the myriad of new bodies can totally confuse accurate delineation. So I see your main objection as basically pragmatic not theoretical.


Well it is both. When I responded negatively to Waybread's attempt to summarise my view, I was responding to the "it ain't broke..." claim, not the claim of me being a pragmatist. The way I see it though, this has to be progressive in this order: metaphysical/philosophical -> theoretical -> practical.

Quote:
Fundamentally, I dont think your objection has that strong a philosophical or theoretical basis.


That's fine, but I still don't see any theoretical or philosophical reasons given for using the outers, or subsequently, assigning those significations which are given to them. My questions on this issue are extensive as ultimately I want accurate delineations - I have no allegiance to any form of astrology. The fact is, whether you think the rationale for using the traditional seven is based upon outdated concepts or not, at least there is something there. That is a little better for me, personally, than "it works for me".
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 943
Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konrad, hopefully you can relax a little around my posts. You asked for an elaboration of my philosophy about the outers. I gave it, noting that it sounds a lot like your philosophy. I also suggested that philosophy wasn't really what you are after. So if we are on to the utility or pragmatics of a given system, then we may be moving beyond philosophy altogether, and looking for evidence.

You do not wish to find evidence for the utility of the Outers; so trust me. You won't find it. If you come to this discussion firmly believing there is no "system" behind the use of the Outers in astrology, you will not accept any propositions about them, either.

However:

The discovery of major outer planets and modern astrologers' claim that they have utility in chart reading is the bell that cannot be un-rung. If you do not wish to use them, that is perfectly OK with me. So far as I know, they are not used in traditional Vedic/jyotish astrology either, and I am not trying to convert those astrologers. I gave the analogy, above, of a harpsichord player who shouldn't feel pressured into playing an electronic keyboard simply because the latter is modern and the former is traditional-- and vice versa.

I will say that Uranus, by its very nature, is messy, unpredictable, and sometimes confronting. If we could totally categorize it, it wouldn't be Uranus, because Uranus by nature disrupts conventions. This type of energy is not to everyone's liking. Possibly not to yours, if you feel comfortable with your traditional "harmonious and fluid system."

From my perspective, I see all kinds of messy variation and inconsistences in traditional astrology as it evolved over the centuries, but I am not trying to pick an argument here.

I would be curious to learn what is your philosophy of astrology, if you think it is something other than pragmatism, for sticking with a close reading of traditional astrology. Traditional astrology itself has different philosophical strands, ranging from Platonism to Aristotelian "science" to stoicism to the teachings of Islam and the Catholic church.

Are you actually asking for an introductory primer on mainstream interpretations of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto in the horoscope? Is that what you mean by "signification"? What precisely are you after?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 943
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

James, unfortunately I don't have a copy of Tarnas's book, but a fair bit of it is actually on line at amazon.com. I scanned what I could find about Tarnas's views of Prometheus. Tarnas seems to use a Jungian/Joseph Campbell approach to archetypes and myths, and to have focused on one dimension of this multi-faceted god (or titan.)

My own particular miff with astrologers and mythology (sorry-- lecture mode is on!) is that many astrologers associate myths with silly fables and don't particularly like them. We can't incorporate into our astrology what we are unwilling to investigate.

The astrologers (that I am aware of) who do embrace mythology often do so at an extremely shallow level. With respect to Greek and Roman mythology, of the sort that shows how the planetary gods were understood back when people actually worshipped these gods, there is a huge literature from classics scholars that astrologers scarcely touch. I think most of the myths and their variants have been translated into English, as well as the antecedant myths from Mesopotamia, yet astrologers seem more or less OK with superficial research into the meanings that the gods had back when planetary meanings were being formed.

A great on-line site for Greek mythology is www.theoi.com .

So Prometheus for the planet Uranus works and it doesn't. Stealing fire sounds pretty good for Uranus. But Tarnas, so far as I can tell, doesn't mention some of the key stories about Prometheus, namely the ones involving Pandora and Heracles. One ancient reading of the Pandora narrative is pretty misogynistic, although it can be read more metaphorically.

Tarnas claims an awful lot for Prometheus/Uranus that is a huge leap of imagination from how the Greeks understood Prometheus. This doesn't mean we cannot rework myths for our time (as Campbell recommended.) But we should at least be clear when our modern narrative gets unhinged from historical evidence.

And then the Greeks (i. e. Hesiod and Homer) didn't invent these myths. They borrowed and reshaped a lot of their mythology from the Babylonians. The Prometheus myth that Tarnas describes comes straight out of Babylonian antecedents. (See, for example, Charles Penglase, 1994, Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Influences in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod, Routledge.)

This lineage should have some meaning for Hellenistic astrologers, at least, because the Greeks borrowed a lot of their understandings of the planets' effects from Mesopotamia, as well.

Regardless, planetary names are set by the International Astronomical Union, and it is unlikely that they will change the names of Uranus to suit a few astrologers. (Greek astronomers still use their own names, apparently.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Konrad



Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 685

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:
Konrad, hopefully you can relax a little around my posts. You asked for an elaboration of my philosophy about the outers. I gave it, noting that it sounds a lot like your philosophy. I also suggested that philosophy wasn't really what you are after. So if we are on to the utility or pragmatics of a given system, then we may be moving beyond philosophy altogether, and looking for evidence.


Can we leave views of our personalities out of this, Waybread? Rest assured if I am tense or angry about a post on here, I won't repsond to it.

Yes, I noted what you said. I have also said countless times that I am looking for a broad rationale/philosophy/theory of why we should use the outers in the first place, something more than "it works for me". That sort of thinking is fine for personal reasoning but it is doesn't really work if we are to establish a system that others can understand.

Quote:
You do not wish to find evidence for the utility of the Outers; so trust me. You won't find it. If you come to this discussion firmly believing there is no "system" behind the use of the Outers in astrology, you will not accept any propositions about them, either.


You seem to be projecting some idea onto me here. Let me be clear one more time:

    I know of no system, I wouldn't bother asking if I thought there wasn't one.
    I have no interest in provng or disproving anything to anyone, believe it or not it doesn't bother me that someone might think differently than me. If I am asking why something is, know that is all I am asking. There is no hidden motive to demean anything.
    I have asked how others justify their use, on a level preceding any significations, simply why we should think about using them in the first place.
    I have been told "it works for me" but, if that is all there is, that is using them before thinking about why we should use them.
    I have said I would like to see something else, is there anything else?
    If my style of post irritates anyone, please ignore me. I am not here to cause grief. If there is no problem, I would appreciate it if we leave views of personality or character out of the discussion. That is the last I will say on that.



Quote:
The discovery of major outer planets and modern astrologers' claim that they have utility in chart reading is the bell that cannot be un-rung. If you do not wish to use them, that is perfectly OK with me. So far as I know, they are not used in traditional Vedic/jyotish astrology either, and I am not trying to convert those astrologers. I gave the analogy, above, of a harpsichord player who shouldn't feel pressured into playing an electronic keyboard simply because the latter is modern and the former is traditional-- and vice versa.


Yes, I underdstand, but is the discovery of something reason enough to apply it?

Quote:
I will say that Uranus, by its very nature, is messy, unpredictable, and sometimes confronting. If we could totally categorize it, it wouldn't be Uranus, because Uranus by nature disrupts conventions.


Honestly, it sounds a bit like Mars. How can I disinguish between the two? If I see a dissolving of convention or structure how can I tell which one is doing it?

Quote:
From my perspective, I see all kinds of messy variation and inconsistences in traditional astrology as it evolved over the centuries, but I am not trying to pick an argument here.


Yes, I know. However, the archetypal expressions of the planets and the signs of their rulership are consistent until the outers.

Quote:
Are you actually asking for an introductory primer on mainstream interpretations of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto in the horoscope? Is that what you mean by "signification"? What precisely are you after?


No, I am asking why I should even begin to reinvestigate them. I am not interested in signfications at this stage as it seems counter-intuituve to assign significations to something that I am not even sure of the purpose of. The signification thing is a whole new set of problems such as Mercury losing astrology etc. and I don't want to get into that right now. When using "signification", I meant more the process of assigning them rather than what they actually are.
_________________
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 3317
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi waybread,

yes - tarnas is very much influenced by jungian type ideas and the work of those key exponents of depth psychology like james hillman and etc.. this is all as i understand it of course. i don't really like to comment on books that i have read with any voice of authority, as i am not one to do this, but mostly like sharing ideas i have read that might have some bearing on the conversation. i had forgotten about the book until mark mentioned it earlier. i have another book by tarnas that i have yet to read 'cosmos and psyche'.

my own understanding of mythology in connection with astrology is mostly personal/subjective. i do like whoever mentioned it earlier - geoffrey perhaps - of venus being the god/dess of war in chinese culture. i think a lot depends on our background culture and stories we might hear about how the planets connect with different mythological gods from the past. you might be correct in saying most astrologers only take a superficial understanding of these gods and apply them to astrology in a shallow manner. i think it is most important to develop ones own mythology around how these planets relate via our own subjective observations on them. this is a personal journey more then it is an in depth study of a particular topic like mythology in some historical manner. that is how i approach it anyway. sure, i pick up ideas from others like tarnas or liz greene and often if i find the ideas resonate with my own experience which is subjective - then i will adopt it. i think we all do this, but perhaps some people think they are being very objective about what they let in, in terms of the myths they live by, or how it is all based on 'fact' so that their is no myth to any of it.

as i recall it was myth before logos. with only logos, everything seems crystallized in words and deprived the imagination of an active quality that is the basis for a part of our nature that could quickly be defined as our imagination, or some form of myth.. - anyway, i suppose this is all pretty wordy, but i am trying to convey that i believe it is okay for a person to adopt ideas from others and internalize them in their own way based on their own personal experience. if it is only a superficial rendition of the more complex nature of the actual myths as told in the ancient past - so be it.. we pick and choose what we want to believe in anyway - as this thread is testimony to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 943
Location: Canada

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Konrad, I don't mind engaging with you, but I am puzzled as to exactly what it is you are after. It doesn't seem to be philosophy, which I have given but you didn't like. Pragmatism is an established school of thought in philosophy. Are you after methodology? (theory + methods)

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

Are you familiar with this article on Hellenistic astrology from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy? http://www.iep.utm.edu/astr-hel/ Is this the sort of philosophical discussion that you are after?

I suggest that you summarize briefly what it is that your strict traditional astrology offers that you find so appealing, by way of philosophy or methodology, and then I or other Uranians here can work with your template.

Again, I am not trying to convert you into using outer planets, although some appreciation and understanding of them would be helpful for this discussion.

Mars and Uranus share some commonalities, but then so do other planetary pairs from an operational perspective. Moon-Venus, sun-Mars, or Mercury-Jupiter, to cite some examples. This doesn't mean that one can stand in for the other one.

Hi James-- Mythology is a long-standing interest, if not hobby horse of mine! The planet Venus was attached to a fascinating array of gods and goddesses, and some of the goddesses (like Anat) were very warlike, indeed. There is also a strong agricultural association with Venus in the myth of Venus and Adonis.

I think Joseph Campbell would agree with you that internalized myths speak to people in the context of their own lives today. If Uranus speaks to people as an instrument of personal liberation and if Prometheus seems a better name than Uranus, that's fine by me. The planets went by different names in Hellenistic astrology, and it didn't seem to bother anybody!

http://www.theoi.com/Titan/AsterStilbon.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

waybread wrote:


From my perspective, I see all kinds of messy variation and inconsistencies in traditional astrology as it evolved over the centuries....


I once heard Michel Gauqualin comment that the meanings or archetypes of the planets seem to get more accurate the further you go back into history.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4986
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waybread wrote:
Quote:
Mark, I really like Gavin White's book as well! But I don't think we can shoehorn Babylonian constellation origins too deeply into the Greek concept of elements, as it post-dated the Babylonian constellation lore.


I don’t think I ever actually suggested that Waybread. However, the Hellenistic tradition clearly borrowed a significant amount from its Mesopotamian antecedents. The notion of Aquarius as a ‘watery sign’ which we find in Valens is a very clear example of this. Ptolemy doesn’t describe Aquarius as an air sign either since he doesn’t link the four elements to the signs. Ptolemy had his own unique approach to the signs based on an Aristotelian approach based on a combination of planetary rulers and the seasonal associations of the signs.

Waybread wrote:
Quote:
Aquarius doesn't work for me at all as a water sign. At least in modern astrology, water symbolizes emotions and feelings. (Some would say, spirituality.) Aquarius is not a touchy-feely sign.


Fair enough. I was just explaining that was an important part of the sign’s original meaning. Probably no sign has gone through more transformation in its meanings over the centuries than Aquarius.

Waybread wrote:
Quote:
Uranus does have much to do with "concensus and collective action"! You can't have a revolution with just one person! Any effective liberation movement or rebellion isn't the work of a solo guy off on his lonesome.

I think you've set up Uranus as a "straw man." ("Straw planet"?) I think you've described Aries/Mars correctly, but Uranus has no problems working collectively on a mundane or group level.

The collective vision of the national liberation movements of the late 18th/early 19th centuries was precisely the concept of individual rights and freedoms. The US Declaration of Independence, that launched the American Revolutionary War, is a very Uranian, Aquarian document, for example. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...")

To take this example, the whole framing of the US Declaration and the Constitution were very idea-based (i. e., airy.) It wasn't just a bunch of tax revolters tossing tea into the Boston Harbor. Despite their flaws as human beings, the "founding fathers" were very concerned to promote a rational basis for the very revolutionary idea of a country without a king.


Uranus is always socially disruptive. Although you haven't stated it explicitly I get the impression you are adopting the modern idea that Uranus is basically a higher ‘octave’ of Mercury. Of course it can sometimes be productive as a result of the upheaval caused. Mentally it can shake up assumptions and pre-conceptions.

I wondered when you would bring up the American revolution or Constitution! However, that seems a quite idiosyncratic event to base a whole theory on.

As James pointed out earlier we cannot pick out one isolated historical period to describe the nature of a planet like Uranus. I haven’t studied the planetary cycles operating then but I am sure it would be instructive. I seem to recall in the period of the French revolution a Uranus-Pluto opposition was operating. As James has also pointed out its therefore often difficult to differentiate the operation of one planet on its own due to the interweaving planetary cycles.

Many revolutions ie French, Russian or Chinese ( I would argue the Nazis were a kind of revolutionary movement too) have been far more bloody and socially destructive . In terms of mundane astrology I think your view of Uranus is a bit pollyannaish. For example, look at the current civil war in Syria. Arguably, this dates back to the 'Arab Spring' and the Uranus + Jupiter ingresses into Aries. Much hailed as a positive revolution for the Arab people at the time the longer term consequences make that initial judgement questionable.

Moreover, I am surely not the first astrologer to notice that Uranus is often linked to right wing or extreme nationalist movements and politics. This may confirm the radical notion of Uranus but not the progressive idea you ( and I suspect Tarnas) seem to assume is integral to this planet. I am afraid that theory only works if you are highly selective in the charts you analyse.

A few natal examples: Hitler (Uranus conj ASC), Goebbels (Uranus opp ASC) , Hess ( Sun-Uranus opp), Himmler (Uranus conj MC ruler), Slobodan Milosevic (Sun Sq Uranus), Jean Marie Le Pen (Sun/Merc Sq Uranus) , George Wallace (Sun-Uranus opp), Pat Buchanan (Sun-Uranus opp), Ted Kaczynski 'Unibomber' (Sun-Uranus conj), David Duke (Sun-Uranus conj), Oswald Mosley (Sun/Merc conj Uranus), Sadaam Hussein (Sun-Uranus conj)

The chart for the founding of the Nazi party has a Sun-Uranus conjunction. The chart for the founding the Third Reich has Uranus in partile square to Venus ( the ASC ruler)

Iadopt an approach to the outer planets in delineation terms rather like fixed stars in traditional astrology. Like fixed stars they rule no signs. Using the traditional attitude to fixed stars given by Ptolemy I think their nature should be related back to the nature of one of the 7 visible planets. Ptolemy’s approach to fixed stars has a primary planet followed by a secondary one. Here is a working model of what I propose:

Uranus: Mars and Sun (hot and dry). Cardinal in operation
Neptune: Moon and Venus (cold and moist) Mutable in operation
Pluto: Saturn and Mars (cold and burning?) Fixed in operation

On reflection this is perhaps a more practical approach than trying to agree on sign associations as I originally proposed. These bodies have no rulership of any sign. However, even points like nodes and lots have planetary dispositors. Hence the outers are strongly influenced by the dispositor planets of the signs they are in. Hence, we see a Mars disposited Uranus in the sign of Aries at present.

This approach will obviously not appeal to moderns using Uranus as a planetary ruler (or joint ruler). Its not intended to. I think the difference in approach is to wide to attempt a consensus on this. However, I offer it more for traditional astrologers looking for an approach to the outer planets.

If Uranus , as many moderns insist, is really just a ‘higher octave of Mercury' surely it should have 'rulership' of Gemini and/or Virgo? And if Uranus is a higher ‘octave of Mercury why oh why is it linked to Aquarius? Both the mercury ruled signs are mutable while Aquarius is fixed??? I cannot see any logic or philosophical consistency in this approach.

Frankly, I have found the idea of joint rulers only leads to muddle and confusion in terms of accurate delineation. Maybe it can be made to work in a fashion for a generalised psychological reading but for areas like horary, elections or natal prediction I think it is a recipe for total confusion. This is probably the principle reason I took up traditional astrology in the first place.

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


Last edited by Mark on Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:20 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 2 of 20

 
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