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 ... 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 872
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Possibly at some point in the future, modern astrology research on Ceres (reclassified in 2006 as a dwarf planet,) Eris, Chiron (a "minor planet",) and others of the "planetoid" category will show *affiliations* with more of the signs.

Eris is probably larger than Pluto, and the mythology of Eris is a better match with Aries than is the mythology of Pluto. http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Eris.html The "eccentric" orbit of Eris sometimes brings it closer to the sun than the orbit of Pluto, which sort-of fits in with the progression of Uranus:Aquarius, Neptune:Pisces, Eris:Aries.

I don't want to make too much of this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4919
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its been a very long thread so forgive me if this point has already been made earlier by someone else!

I just wanted to throw into the pot that it is interesting to compare Uranus in terms of its inclination to the ecliptic. Uranus is the closest of the other planets in the solar system to this at only 0.77° out. On the other hand, the dwarf planets Pluto and Eris have inclinations to the ecliptic of 17 degrees and 44 degrees respectively. This point seems to be an interesting astronomical point which links Uranus to the Sun in a quite different way. I am not linking this into traditional astrological philosophy here. Just a point I thought was interesting.

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
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2635
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mark,

nice pic!

i think that is a good observation on how uranus sits fairly close to the path of the ecliptic and i think may have more relevance as a consequence.

i was mentioning how uranus is the only planet to roll on it's belly earlier in the thread.. here is a link that mentions this in the words below.. it also gives some astronomical stats on the planets out to neptune.
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/uranus.html

"Uranus is the only planet rotates on its side. This produces the strangest seasons of any planet in the solar system. For 21 years, Uranus's moons are seen as one would view a dart board, with one pole facing the sun. The next 21 years Uranus has its side to the sun, and the moons move up and down across the equator. then the cycle repeats itself starting with the other pole. Scientists aren't sure why this is, but they think that a large body smashed into it with such force that it pushed the planet over."

ps - nice to see that scientists also speculate!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 445
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:24 pm    Post subject: Is Uranus the co-ruler of Capricorn? Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Quote:
Now you have added to the pot the idea of Uranus co-ruling Capricorn so I am very intrigued to see your argument to support this. It does seem quite counter-intutive to me.


Hi Mark,

As you probably noticed, with my post of Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:59 pm I did quite a lot of homework on your behalf... Wink So I would be very interested in hearing your comment!

Best regards
Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4919
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:59 pm

Quote:
Hi Mark,

you really got me thinking!

Let me briefly summarize the content of our conversation so far in this regard:

Once we accept the traditional as well as the modern rulership schemes (the way a number of astrologers do), we are faced with a logical problem: Why should (by extrapolation to include still to be found transsaturnians) only five signs have double rulers? Wouldn't it be natural to assume that if, for example, Aquarius has Uranus as its ruler and Saturn as its co-ruler, vice versa Capricorn should be ruled by Saturn and co-ruled by Uranus? But are there any arguments to be found in of this theory?

In considering Uranus as Capricorn's co-ruler, we have to deal with the problem that in modern astrology we are so used to equating Uranus with Aquarius that it is not so easy to distinguish Uranus' inherent traits from the particular way these are being expressed in that sign. Mercury as the ruler of Gemini is certainly quite a different story from him ruling Virgo, the same applies to Venus in Libra verses Taurus. If my concept holds, Capricorn is the night-house of Uranus, so we can expect him to express himself in a more concealed fashion. Moreover, he is assumed to be co-ruling Capricorn and would therefore not be the dominating influence (which remains with Saturn).

This being said, let's consider which of Capricorn's traits an be seen as expressing the Uranian archetype (I will print bold what I perceive as belonging to Uranus rather than Saturn):

Contrary to popular belief, people with the Sun in Capricorn are not always readily submitting to Saturn's dictate. While they do tend to take their obligations very seriously, I have often times observed them to live in deep conflict with them, longing for freedom, and occasionally they indeed suddenly turn their back on their long-standing Saturnian duties. In fact, it seems in many cases that their very life theme is the tension between high expectations from life verses practical limitations.

Interestingly, Aquarius folks have to deal with exactly the opposite issue: They insist on their independence and idiosyncrasy but usually can't truly break away from responsibility, social expectations and the need for recognition (Saturn as co-ruler).

In light of the aforesaid, it comes as no surprise that Capricorn personalities are indeed capable of committing social sins. They frequently have a fun-seeking side to themselves that they may express in eccentric amusements (think of the “horny goat”, God Pan).

Capricorns often have a pronounced sense of humour; some of them can be really witty.

The advanced Capricorn personality is capable of acting independently and against convention (if their integrity demands it).

Metaphysically speaking, Capricorn is aiming for the highest attainable state of human existence, arguably this being the true (albeit often unconscious) motivation for the perfectionism and the ambition they exhibit - not least in relation to themselves! What they are really pursuing is the autonomous individuality.

Many Capricorns I got to personally know have a noticeable interest in things esoteric.

The spiritually advanced Capricorn personality may indeed become the hermit seeking enlightenment. A good symbol for this would be an ibex standing in lofty heights on a mountain top.

Contrary to Saturn symbolizing darkness, the Sun entering Capricorn equals the winter solstice, followed by a steady increase of light. In conjunction with this, in the time of the Capricorn Sun we cheerfully the end of the old and the beginning of the new year.

Alright Mark, now I am really curious what you think about this! Also, I would like to invite others (Capricorn personalities in particular) to share their thoughts on this interesting topic.

Best regards
Michael


Hello Michael,

Frankly, its difficult for me to respond on the case you present for Uranus being the co-ruler of Capricorn.

As you know I am one of those astrologers who works with the traditional rulership scheme and dont really perceive any real need to overhaul the existing system. As I see it you are posing a solution to a problem I dont recognise in the first place. As far as I am concerned the traditional rulership scheme works extremely well. So in fairness I am not the ideal customer to sell your ideas to. Smile

You should probably be targeting modern astrologers. I would think that some modern astrologers might be open to your argument that the current modern rulership scheme is in a sense 'unfinished business' and therefore requires some reform. Arguably, it has logical inconsistencies that need some kind of resolution.

However, when I asked you if you had more evidence to support your theory I was really thinking of historical examples of Uranus in Capricorn to support this idea of a strong association between this sign and Uranus.

Based on some interim mundane research I would say that Uranus tends to be exceptionally socially disruptive (or progressive depending on your view) when in The Saturn ruled signs. This is also very noticeable when in it is in the Mars ruled signs too and especially Aries.

It seems that the Saturnian structures are undermined when Uranus is in Capricorn. If they don’t collapse then they do when Uranus moves into the more diurnal manifestation of Saturn in the sign of Aquarius.

During 1910-11 both the Mexican and Chinese revolutions occurred with Uranus in Capricorn. Although it is often ignored by westerners the latter was one of the most significant revolutions in world history. The Chinese revolution of 1911 brought to an end a monarchic tradition that stretched back further than the founding of the Roman Empire. Uranus was also in Capricorn in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s which witnessed the fall of the Berlin wall, the break up of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

To me it seems that the traditional meaning of Capricorn is quite inimical to Uranus. However, as I have no investment in either supporting or opposing your theory its probably more appropriate for other modern astrologers to take this issue up.

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
Contrary to Saturn symbolizing darkness, the Sun entering Capricorn equals the winter solstice, followed by a steady increase of light. In conjunction with this, in the time of the Capricorn Sun we cheerfully the end of the old and the beginning of the new year.


I suppose the only difficulty with this analogy is that it only applies to the northern hemisphere.
_________________
‘’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: 872
Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice picture, Mark!

Hopefully both trads and moderns can agree upon combining core planet and sign meanings if we focus on the nature of signs by element and quality, and recognize that any planet can operate positively or negatively.

I have a lot of interest in and respect for mythology in astrology: not so much the modern Jungian approach, but getting into some more serious classical studies to see how the folks who initially developed horoscopic astrology understood the gods for whom they named their planets. For them, it went far beyond mere naming, as these were gods actively worshipped in their day.

If we can get beyond the icky castration story about Uranus and Saturn for a moment, we can consider whether there could be a connection between the Uranus/Ouranos of ancient times and the modern sense of "disruption" or "sudden change." There is such a connection, if we take the god Uranus in the Greek sense of the undifferentiated sky god. (Check him out at www.theoi.com.) Indeed, the Greeks often used his name interchangeably with the heavens.

Uranus (like most of the Greek deities) was something of an import from Mesopotamia. His Sumerian prototype was the primordial Mesopotamian sky god An (meaning "sky" or "heaven") or Anu. We can see this embedded in the name Uranus. Mesopotamians believed that the stars were his soldiers (cf. the biblical "heavenly hosts.") Subsequently the sky god Enlil overtook some of Anu's functions.

One thing that struck me about reading Greek authors on astronomy prior to the introduction of astrology was how the study of the sky was intimately tied up with the weather. They didn't separate out meteorology and astronomy the way we do today. (Cf. Aratus Phaenomena, Hesiod's Works and Days; as well as the astrologers Valens in book 1 of Anthologies, Ptolemy on astro-meteorology; and Daryn Lehoux's work on perapegmata.) To me it makes sense to consider capricious, changeable weather that could bring plenty in one year and destructive storms the next as an attribute of an undifferentiated sky god.

I realize that it is a big leap from then to now, but as noted above, the early 19th century astronomers who settled on the name Uranus (post-"Herschel" and "George's Star") deliberately chose the classical association. I am not so taken with magical associations, but clearly people in ancient times (and to a much lesser extent today) believe/d that to name something is to define its nature and to control it to some extent.

I looked up Vladimir Putin's chart yesterday on the Astro-DataBank at Astrodienst: Uranus in Cancer square sun in Libra (where he has a stellium.) So no, Uranus does not always connote left-wing ideologies! What we can see is a man determined to forge a new imperial Russia out of the ashes of the old one; and someone surely having a Uranian disruptive impact on the Crimean ethnic Ukranians and Tatars. But to the Crimean Russians, he is a liberator.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 445
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark

Mark wrote: Mar 19, 2014 2:16 pm
Quote:
Frankly, its difficult for me to respond on the case you present for Uranus being the co-ruler of Capricorn.


Frankly, I knew it would be!

Quote:
As you know I am one of those astrologers who works with the traditional rulership scheme and dont really perceive any real need to overhaul the existing system. As I see it you are posing a solution to a problem I dont recognise in the first place. As far as I am concerned the traditional rulership scheme works extremely well. So in fairness I am not the ideal customer to sell your ideas to. Smile


In fact, I didn't expect you to revoke your astrological beliefs and swear obedience to a new doctrine, by threat of getting burned at the stake. Twisted Evil

But the problem is arguably one that I didn't have before carelessly remarking to you that, in the retro-modern scheme, perhaps the transsaturnians in the retro-modern schemeshould should each get assigned to two signs just like the classical planets, for reasons of symmetry. And, shockingly, you wanted to have evidence for this. Smile

Quote:
You should probably be targeting modern astrologers. I would think that some modern astrologers might be open to your argument that the current modern rulership scheme is in a sense 'unfinished business' and therefore requires some reform. Arguably, it has logical inconsistencies that need some kind of resolution.


Thanks, that's very encouraging!

Quote:
Based on some interim mundane research I would say that Uranus tends to be exceptionally socially disruptive (or progressive depending on your view) when in The Saturn ruled signs. This is also very noticeable when in it is in the Mars ruled signs too and especially Aries.

It seems that the Saturnian structures are undermined when Uranus is in Capricorn. If they don’t collapse then they do when Uranus moves into the more diurnal manifestation of Saturn in the sign of Aquarius.


Very interesting... I think this supports my hypothesis that Uranus is co-ruling Capricorn but sometimes in a more "submerged" manner. Just like I have observed that Capricorn personalities have a more or less "submerged" side of revolutionary spirit. But in some cases Uranus must first enter his diurnal sign Aquarius for the effects of his undermining preparatory work to burst out in the open. Do you know historical examples for this?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4919
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A friend of mine attended Robert Hand's webinar a few months ago.

Hand has an interesting approach where all the planets are seen to operate at three potential levels i.e. positive, middle level and lower level. The following is taken from a summary of Hand's webinar note on Uranus:

Quote:
Uranus

Positive level: Sudden breakthroughs in individual and social consciousness that brings about innovation and reform. The recognition of the need to change a reality system.

Middle level: Anything sudden which is discontinuous with ordinary notions of reality, revolutionary change, revolution in general, the unusual and extraordinary, non-conformity the extremes.

Low level: Extremely dysfunctional eccentricity, rebels, negative suggestibility (when teenagers only do the opposite of what you tell them to do.)

Aquarius is about new order. Uranus destroys order, so Uranus is NOT the ruler of Aquarius, there is nothing fixed about Uranus.

_________________
‘’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
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 445
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark,

Great!

I like Robert Hand's classification of a planet potentially expressing itself on multiple levels. It's the foundation for what I would call Transformational Astrology. That such energies can be transformed from one level to another is part of the ancient Hermetic lore as exemplified in Magic and Alchemy. Moreover, it's a clear step away from fatalism.

Talking about Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius... I agree, Uranus doesn't look like such a good match if you highlight that this is a fixed sign. But there is a strong revolutionary spirit to be observed in many an Aquarius personality. I guess that the Air element is setting the fixed quality off, to some degree.

On a more fundamental level, there is the question: How much of a sign's traits are due to its ruling planet? What's the difference between a planet's and a sign's character?

As far as the classical scheme, i.e. Mars ruling the fixed Water sign Scorpio could be considered quite counter-intuitive, as well...

Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4919
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternbach wrote:

Quote:
Hi Mark,

Great!

I like Robert Hand's classification of a planet potentially expressing itself on multiple levels. It's the foundation for what I would call Transformational Astrology. That such energies can be transformed from one level to another is part of the ancient Hermetic lore as exemplified in Magic and Alchemy. Moreover, it's a clear step away from fatalism.


Yes it is clear from his other statements from the webinar that Hand is not suggesting these three levels are mechanistically related to the dignity of planets. They are about how each individual works out the dynamics of their chart. Although, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that some charts and planetary configurations are more difficult to work through than others. So its potentially harder to realise the higher expression of a planet in some charts than others. I think Hand’s outlook is a useful corrective to an over rigid approach to delineating natal promise in the horoscope.

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
Talking about Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius... I agree, Uranus doesn't look like such a good match if you highlight that this is a fixed sign. But there is a strong revolutionary spirit to be observed in many an Aquarius personality. I guess that the Air element is setting the fixed quality off, to some degree.


I think the Aquarian desire to bring about social change relates more to its role as the diurnal or external expression of Saturn’s two domiciles. In Aquarius the emphasis is more social and collective, whilst in Capricorn there is more concern for individual social progress working within existing systems.

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
On a more fundamental level, there is the question: How much of a sign's traits are due to its ruling planet? What's the difference between a planet's and a sign's character?


Good question! From a traditional outlook the planets are the key to chart delineation. In modern astrology the focus seems to have shifted more to a kind of characterology based on signs which I call ‘signism’. There is much less emphasis on the signs in general in traditional astrology. Clearly there is a commonality between signs of the same mode but this mitigated due to their respective planetary rulers.

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
As far as the classical scheme, i.e. Mars ruling the fixed Water sign Scorpio could be considered quite counter-intuitive, as well...


Good point. I actually agree with you! I think a few people struggle with the combination of elements to some signs if you consider their planetary ruler. Especially Scorpio although certainly not exclusively. For example in ancient astrology Cancer doesn't seem cold but rather quite warm and sociable. Its interesting that astrologers like Ptolemy never assigned elements to the triplicities. He therefore never used the notion of triplicities found in medieval astrology such as water signs =cold and wet.

More fundamentally, he never assigned the elements to the triplicities. Like the Bablylonians he only tied the triplicities into directional astrology. For Ptolemy both Aries and Scorpio were dry signs due to their association with Mars. The difference being that Aries was a diurnal sign representing the heat of the day while Scorpio symbolised the cool and moisture of the night. Because Mars was in sect at night I suspect that is why ancient astrologers called Scorpio the sign where Mars had its sign of joy.

Looking at the symbol for Scorpio it is interesting that Scorpions are not water creatures but rather live on land , often in deserts. Scorpions are generally nocturnal animals meaning that they spend the day under rocks and in crevices and then come out to hunt in the safety of darkness.

Similarly, Saturn was seen to have its joy in Aquarius. As a planet of the diurnal sect Saturn was seen as cold in nature. This malefic nature was mitigated to a certain extent in Aquarius as a diurnal or day sign due to the warmth of the Sun.

I think Ptolemy’s attribution of qualities to the signs derived from the planets is a lot more logical than the system adopted by the Perso-Arabs. The main argument against his approach might be that it ignores things like exaltation rulers in signs.

I have actually been toying with abandoning the elements altogether and replacing them with Ptolemy's approach to the signs but I haven’t yet taken the final step. They are so fundamental to the way most astrologers see charts it’s a bit like going ‘cold Turkey’ especially as most of the astrological community (traditional and modern) use them so extensively.

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 Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2635
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:

Hand has an interesting approach where all the planets are seen to operate at three potential levels i.e. positive, middle level and lower level.


i don't think this is just robert hands approach. i remember this kernel idea being shared a long time ago.. it is all dependent on a number of factors like the level of consciousness of the person whose chart it relates back to and etc. etc. maybe you are not implying hand originated this idea.. i think it is coming from somewhere much further back - maybe even traditional astrology, or some philosophical school, or consciousness more generally..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2635
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
From a traditional outlook the planets are the key to chart delineation. In modern astrology the focus seems to have shifted more to a kind of characterology based on signs which I call ‘signism’. There is much less emphasis on the signs in general in traditional astrology.


not to sound like a broken record, but just remember the approach taken by 'cosmobiology' which would likely be classified as 'modern' LOLOL!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 445
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Quote:
Yes it is clear from his other statements from the webinar that Hand is not suggesting these three levels are mechanistically related to the dignity of planets. They are about how each individual works out the dynamics of their chart. Although, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that some charts and planetary configurations are more difficult to work through than others. So its potentially harder to realise the higher expression of a planet in some charts than others. I think Hand’s outlook is a useful corrective to an over rigid approach to delineating natal promise in the horoscope.


Agreed!

Quote:
I think the Aquarian desire to bring about social change relates more to its role as the diurnal or external expression of Saturn’s two domiciles. In Aquarius the emphasis is more social and collective, whilst in Capricorn there is more concern for individual social progress working within existing systems.


I did some thinking about this, too, meanwhile. I would say, Aquarius as one of Saturn's domiciles is in accordance with it being a fixed sign. My acceptance of both traditional and modern rulerships necessitates to look at the signs as expressions of both. I extend this scheme to include Uranus as the co-ruler of Capricorn, and for the other trans-Saturnians likewise, as I have demonstrated above.

Quote:
Its interesting that astrologers like Ptolemy never assigned elements to the triplicities. He therefore never used the notion of triplicities found in medieval astrology such as water signs =cold and wet.

More fundamentally, he never assigned the elements to the triplicities.


That's certainly true, however, Ptolemy assigned the triplicities to the mediating directions in Book 1 and (more clearly) in Book 2 of the Tetrabiblos. The Fire trigon belonged to NW, the Earh trigon to SE, the Air trigon to NE, the Water trigon to SW. As North was "above", and South "below", this agrees with Valens' attribution of the signs with the elements since, in Aristotelian physics, Fire and Air are the elements that tend to move upwards, Water and Earth the ones that tend to move downwards. My source here is Wolfgang Hübner: Die Eigenschaften der Tierkreiszeichen in der Antike, p. 448.

Whether Valens elaborated on Ptolemy, or rather Ptolemy omitted an older tradition (as he often did) remains to be seen.

Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waybread



Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 872
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
A friend of mine attended Robert Hand's webinar a few months ago.

Hand has an interesting approach where all the planets are seen to operate at three potential levels i.e. positive, middle level and lower level. The following is taken from a summary of Hand's webinar note on Uranus:

Quote:
Uranus

Positive level: Sudden breakthroughs in individual and social consciousness that brings about innovation and reform. The recognition of the need to change a reality system.

Middle level: Anything sudden which is discontinuous with ordinary notions of reality, revolutionary change, revolution in general, the unusual and extraordinary, non-conformity the extremes.

Low level: Extremely dysfunctional eccentricity, rebels, negative suggestibility (when teenagers only do the opposite of what you tell them to do.)

Aquarius is about new order. Uranus destroys order, so Uranus is NOT the ruler of Aquarius, there is nothing fixed about Uranus.


With all due respect to Hand as the greatest living anglophone astrologer (to me,) this passage really needs to be unpacked. First off all we've got 3 (count 'em) categories. Where did these come from? They sound like the old Sears catalogue's labeling of merchandise as "good, better, best." These categories are imaginatively created.

Fixed heirarchical categories are very un-Uranian.

Then who decides what belongs in a rigidly rank-ordered category? In a repressive dictatorship, rebels can play a positive role. Some reforms are regressive, and so on. In a highly conformist repressive society, yes, "eccentricity" can't be tolerated.

Aquarius is about a New Order? (She hums a few bars from the 1960s musical Hair.) Sometimes we have to clear out the old to make way for the new. Moreover, maybe rapid change will become the new normal. It certainly seems that way today, where each new technology report shows new innovations in IT and personal electronic devices.

It is too simplistic to describe Uranus as destroying order. Uranus has multiple functions, any one of which might be uppermost at a given time.

Hand's Saturnian logic needs some good Uranian disruption.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4919
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just spotted this link to a Facebook article by Robert Hand where he challenges the notion that Uranus rules Aquarius. Interestingly, this piece came out just about a week before I started this thread!

https://www.facebook.com/robert.hand.98284/posts/465365386919610

He was promising a follow up piece but I am not clear if he did so.

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
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 18 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