46
Waybread wrote:
Mark, are you clear that we are actually on the same page so far as the evils of war are concerned? But that we can delineate the difference between an ideology and its implementation? And that reactionary political movements can be Uranian as well? And that soldiers and fighting are ruled by Mars? And that I think Mars and Uranus share some characteristics?
Without quoting you line by line some of your previous comments here seemed to contradict these conclusions so thanks for this clarification. Up to now you seemed highly resistant to accepting any Mars like characteristics in Uranus. You said as much.

Still, perhaps we have both been trying to balance out was what we perceived as an overemphasis? I was trying to emphasize the more negative side of Uranus because I thought you were presenting it in an extremely positive manner. You seem to have been reacting back to what you perceived as excessive negativity in my view of Uranus. I was also reacting in part to the views Tarnas seems to have promoted. However, it seems clear we are actually both in agreement that the planet has a positive and negative dimension. I don?t have a problem acknowledging that. The debate is where we choose to put the emphasis. I put the emphasis more on Uranus as a malefic than you do.

Waybread wrote:
I am seeing a lot of confusion on this thread regarding Mars vs. Uranus. Yes, they share some similarities, but then the moon and Venus share some similarities, and we do not conflate them.
I cannot comment for others. Let me summarise my own position here. As I currently view it the outers have no unique essential planetary nature of their own. They must therefore be understood in reference to the nature of the seven traditional planets. I think they all have a composite nature. In other words like the traditional view of fixed stars they each manifest a combination of traditional planetary influences. I have suggested primarily two planets are at work but that is open to discussion. I am not focusing on any notion of a ?higher octave? here as found in some modern astrology?.

But there is plenty of room for debate, discussion and yes confusion here. Unlike modern astrology which often takes a hard wired view of these planets, traditional astrologers need some space to look at these issues for themselves and to ask themselves fundamental questions without the intellectual baggage of modern astrology. Some will conclude like John Frawley it is not worth the effort as we risk diluting and confusing a system that appears to work perfectly well already.

Others like myself feel the benefits outweigh the risks. I think the discovery of new bodies needs at least some re-evaluation of the traditional astrological universe. I think Robert Hand?s comments (quoted above) are a very helpful way forward for traditionalists trying to get a handle on the outer planets. He has gone back to the Aristotlean basics to look at what appears to be the qualities of these planets.

Based on that he states Uranus seems to have a basically hot+dry nature. In reference to the traditional planets Mars is hot + dry but according to Ptolemy primarily dry. The Sun is hot + dry too but primarily hot. Mercury seems to be moderately dry. Sources differ on whether it is hot or cold. However, as Hand states Mercury is ?common ? in nature and has its quality is altered by the planets aspecting it.

So in terms of traditional planets Uranus appears most like Mars and the Sun. Which has precedence? I would put more focus on Mars myself. However, this perhaps varies on the placement of Uranus. Looking at this traditionally the domicile and exaltation rulers should have an influence along with other dignities such as bound and decan/face rulers.

Another characteristic worth exploring is the planetary phase of Uranus. By this I mean its relationship to the Sun. Ptolemy and other ancient and medieval sources describe the modification of a planet?s nature due to its relationship to the yearly cycle to the Sun. One might expect a hot+ dry planet to be more negative in influence when at its hottest or driest (opposition or waning square to Sun). This goes back to the traditional notion that planets can be most malefic in influence whenever there is an excess of a particular quality. In Ptolemy we see malefics are about excess of a quality while benerfics are about moderation.

Waybread wrote:
Frankly, we can identify many planet-sign affinities apart from the traditional rulerships or exaltations. This is especially true if you work with dwads or decans. This doesn't mean we fly in the face of the past half-century or more of pragmatic modern astrology. (I am not a fan of esoteric astrology or the looser types of psychological astrology, incidentally.)
True. Traditionally, various planets can have a call on a degree of the zodiac. Although the domicile, exaltation and bound rulers were most important in ancient astrology.

Waybread wrote:
In what way would you explain Uranus as hot and dry? Pardon me if you said so earlier and I missed that part.
See the Robert Hand quote above. I note in the link just provided by Geoffrey below that Lee Lehman has independently adopted this view too.

Waybread wrote:
Re: the political nature of Uranus:

I just hate it when the Nazis come up in discussion, because once this happens, rational discourse tends to fly out the window. But if you know your German history of the 1920s and 30s, you recall some very Uranian elements as well. For example, one of their ill-fated projects was to put society on a more "scientific" footing. Eugenics in the 1920s and 30s was not the dirty word that it became after the horrors of genocide became known, but was promoted (including in the US) as a social benefit to society.
I should state I didn?t just mention the Nazis for rhetorical effect to stoke the flames!

I am aware of Godwin?s law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

The strongly Uranian nature of this movement seems an important challenge to the one dimensional focus of Tarnas. If you prefer we can focus on lots of other radical/reactionary figures. I already cited many of these people. However, as you don?t seem to be disputing that Uranus can also be linked in this way too we don?t seem to be disagreeing on this.

Waybread wrote:
Again, any planet can have a positive or negative face. Beneficent Venus can make men lazy and effeminate, according to traditional sources!
Agreed. See my comments above! We dont have essential dignity or sect for the outers but we do have aspects, planetary dispositors and their phase to the Sun. I think all these factors can modify how the outers manifest in a chart.

Waybread wrote:
I cannot imagine why you call my views "positivist." They are anything but.


It was really your rhetorical flourish around the American Revolution, and other freedom and emancipation movements you suggested were all linked to Uranus that I felt was rather one sided. You have also provided no actual astrology ( ie real chart examples) to support your position.

Waybread wrote:
Like Uranus and Aries. I declare myself to be equally talented and gifted.


A bit Like Oscar Wilde?s comment to on entering The USA that 'I have nothing to declare but my genius!'

Waybread wrote:
It would be nice if you could find the Houlding piece,
I'm afraid I cannot at present.

I thought it might be in this old piece from the Traditional Astrologer magazine from the 1990's preserved here on Skyscript electronically. However, I cannot see it there.

http://skyscript.co.uk/aquarius.html

Maybe it was in her much more recent article in the Mountain Astrologer on Aquarius?

When I studied with Deborah Houlding I know she emphasized her experience that the outer planets were largely malefic in influence in horary questions. Since horary is one of the most practical areas of astrology where vague generalities will not do I think that is a very interesting insight based on practical astrology not pure theory.

However, I recall Deborah was keen to emphasize that she really only looked at outers when they were strongly emphasized in a horary chart by being angular or in a close applying aspect to a planet representing the querant or other significators. I have applied that approach in my own attitude to the outers ever since.

Waybread wrote:
I assert that a traditional astrologer who wishes to switch Uranus from Aquarius to Aries should make a better case than I have seen so far. And this case needs to rest on praxis.
No traditional astrologer believes Uranus rules Aquarius in the first place. So we are not suggesting any kind of ?switch?. Like all other traditional astrologers I don?t assign Uranus rulership of anything. I started off the thread quoting Bernadette Brady and her argument that outer planets can have ?associations? to particular signs not formal rulership. I gave various philosophical reasons why I saw Uranus more connected to Aries than Aquarius. If this planet really is hot and dry ( like Mars and the Sun) it would have more natural affinity with a hot+dry sign like Aries which has Mars as its domicile ruler and the Sun as its exaltation ruler. Aquarius is the detriment of the Sun and Mars holds no domicile or exaltation rulership in that sign. I also suggested that when Uranus does exert influence it seems to be exceptionally.

I am happy to get into praxis examples ( which you haven?t at all) but I don?t think the philosophy forum is the place for that. I am willing to acknowledge my ideas are not yet fully formed on this subject. I am still investigating and asking questions. Moreover, this is not an article putting forward a fully fledged thesis. Its simply an exchange of views. I may well pull this all together and propose this as an article at some point. However, its quite clear wherever I go with this you are perfectly content with Uranus as ruler of Aquarius. Fair enough.

Waybread wrote:
I read a lot of charts for people, and I just cannot fathom what switching Uranus over to Aries would accomplish, other than confusion.
Yet again you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. I have never ever proposed this anywhere!

I am not suggesting modern astrologers assign Uranus ?rulership? of Aries. I don?t believe Uranus rules anything. Since much of my argument is based on traditional ideas which you neither use of practice I don?t expect you to adopt my viewpoint. I think this is largely an internal discussion for those that already work with the traditional rulers.
Mark, I truly admire what you are attempting to accomplish, but I don't think the modern outers can put into the Procrustean Bed, and then trimmed or stretched to fit. Since many traditionalists will not use the modern outers anyhow, why not just let them be, in their own category? They don't need to fit into Aristotelian "science".


Waybread many of the leading figures in traditional astrology already work with outer planets! To repeat the list I gave to Konrad earlier: Deborah Houlding; Robert Hand; Bernadette Brady; Lee Lehman; Chris Brennan, Anthony Louis; and Robert Schmidt ( I think??).

Yes there are people like Benjamin Dykes and John Frawley who ignore these bodies. I can respect that view.

However, as I stated to Konrad earlier I think traditional astrologers need to consider the post Copernicus/Galileo/Kepler cosmos. In my opinion Traditional astrology needs some reform but not the kind of obliteration represented in modernist astrology. I think we need to go about this process by applying traditional astrological principles and philosophy and not by going into the wild flights of fancy.

Waybread wrote:
One wonders what you would do with the asteroids and dwarf planets. These, too, are part of many modern astrologers' practice. Then further delights await with the recently discovered trans-Plutonians.
Good point. I raised this issue already in reply to Konrad.

The asteroids, centaurs, and trojans are relatively minor bodies in astronomical terms. I think there is a real danger of our astrology being swamped by minor objects we have no real understanding of how to apply. Simply, jumping on to the bandwagon of interpreting them entirely through the mythology of their astronomical name is insufficient in my view. We simply haven?t observed there effects long enough and it may be impractical due to their minor status.

The modern phenomena of moderns all using Chiron seems bizarre to me. What happened to the other Centaurs or asteroids? If we are going to use such bodies lets at least be consistent! I have heard the asteroids defended on feminist grounds that the traditional planets are too masculine and we need more feminine bodies. So it seems like as astrological quota system for some to even up the books. To me this isn?t
sound astrological logic.

I therefore choose to exclude them at present.

It?s a similar problem with the Trans Neptunian bodies like Eris, Makemake, Haumea, Sedna, etc. What do they really symbolise. Are we not at risk again of being overwhelmed with too many objects to delineate without a clear idea what they actually symbolze?

I do note the ancient Greek view that the planets were ?Gods? because they were spherical in shape. I think only one of the asteroids, centaurs and Trojans fits that descriptionThat is Ceres. Because of that I have toyed with exploring it in my charts. However, that is an extremely tentative view.

As someone who has a few doubts about Pluto in practical astrological terms I certainly don?t intend to ?boldly go? into working with these bodies in a hurry. My current working hypothesis is that Pluto is the gatekeeper of the Kuiper belt and all that lies beyond. In natal terms anyway, it is sufficient to work with as the planet symbolizing these astronomical bodies of ice. Still, for mundane work I might take a look at the TNOs out of curiousity.

Waybread wrote:
As you can imagine (or at least find out, by reviewing my previous posts) I do think the modern outers work just fine as domiciled rulers of their respective signs. Simple telescopes capable of viewing Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto have been around for a very long time. The "naked eye" argument really doesn't hold up well in this day and age.
Yes I had worked out you favoured the status quo of modern astrological rulerships. So be it.

I actually, think the philosophy of light and optics still has some merit. Yes we have telescopes but I think the fact the outers cannot be seen by the unaided eye does change their status. I have looked at this a lot in regards the astrology of comets.

Waybread wrote:
Don't be angry with me, Mark. I thank you for a stimulating discussion.
I am not angry with you Waybread. However, I did feel your reply explaning the motion of the outer planets through the signs to me was a bit patronising. I am not a raw beginner with no knowledge or practical experience in this area. I have done more research in this area than possibly the majority of people here.

I should have realised my reference to outer planets having a similarity to fixed stars in traditional astrology was wide open to misinterpretation. As Paul correctly pointed I was primarily thinking of their lack of rulership or essential dignity. However, I also had in mind the idea of outers as bodies with a composite planetary nature in reference to the seven traditional planets. This is the way Ptolemy describes the fixed stars nature.

Still, they are not synonymous. Fixed stars are beyond our solar system and therefore do not orbit our sun like the traditional planets. The outer planets actually move through signs as they orbit the earth. The stars slow movement through the tropical zoodiac is largely a visual artifact caused through the effects of precession. The outer planets also have dispositors of the signs they travel through. The fixed stars do not.

I agree with you that the outer planets are unique and deserve there own category. In traditional terms they share some similarities with planets and others with fixed stars.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:42 pm, edited 12 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

47
waybread wrote:I happen to like Uranus a lot. I've worked with it extensively, and wonder how deeply you guys really live and appreciate Uranus. I don't mean this disrespectfully, just experientially.
I don't think "like" and "dislike" comes into it. I have one malefic ruling my ascendant, and another in the first house. I like both the tradiitonal malefics in their own way. They sure have offered me a few challenges, but that's not a bad thing. I have both both benefics in whole sign angles - without some malefics I'd never get out of bed!

I also love Uranus, but that doesn't stop it from having a malefic nature.
This wasn't Mars or Aries. Mars can provide some impetus, but it isn't a notably social planet, and Aries is not a notably social sign.
Well that's probably a matter of opinion, because I'm sure your Mars was highly involved as well.
I work extensively with house cusp rulers in natal chart interpretation. As posted above, Uranus works just fine as the modern ruler of Aquarius, retaining Saturn as the traditional ruler. I can't imagine changing years of practice with this placement to suddenly move Uranus over to Aries as its house cusp ruler-- for what possible reason?
Right, I just don't think Uranus works as well as Saturn. I have Aquarius on my fourth house cusp. Saturn seems to better describe it. I certainly don't see a whole lot Uranian about it.
I also think aspects are highly important. I wonder how many astrologers who see Uranus in a mostly negative light as the Big Accident have challenging Uranus aspects to personal planets. It is a truism of modern astrology that if we cannot embody and exemplify a planet's positive traits, it will come back to bite us with its negative traits.
Right, well mine is opposition the Sun (2 degree orb), Mercury (4 degree orb) and sextile Jupiter (1 degree orb). I think all of those aspects are relevant to me.

But then the question here isn't whether we use Uranus or recognise its symbolism was it? It was whether Uranus rules Aquarius. For that matter, I have Moon and Jupiter in Aquarius, I am not sure I would recognise Uranus as dispositor of either them, perhaps the Moon to an extent, but really its aspect to and reception by Saturn, as a dispositor, just happens to make more sense to me.

What I mean by all this is that whilst our own natal charts probably figure into this, I think we can examine the issue without falling on to an argument of suggesting that someone disagrees because they don't have the same strong connection to the planet as someone else.
But modern astrologers have been using Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius for decades now, to good effect.

If it's not broken, why fix it?
Well with logic like that, was anything broken with Saturn as ruler for millennia? ;P
waybread wrote:Paul, I do not associate Uranus with cardinal signs. This isn't the way the traditional rulerships work out. We do get Mercury and Jupiter ruling the mutable signs, but the other two-sign rulers like Mars combine cardinal and fixed rulerships.
I know that, but I do. And I'm a little blown away that Mark has had the same idea. To be honest, skyscript is probably the last place I would have expected to see this idea written so well and so closely to my own ideas. It has really made me sit up and take notice.
Paul, I equally made the point in a previous post (that you didn't catch?) that there are circumstances in traditional astrology when a traditional malefic can operate in a beneficial way.
Yes but I wanted to refocus on it because your arguments regarding malefic and negative seemed to forget it. You said that Uranus can be positive - I just wanted to refocus that so can all malefics.
The trouble with comparing modern outer planets to fixed stars is that the latter do not change sign during a typical lifetime-- they scarcely change degree.
True, apart from our own generation of course :/
However I understood Mark's analogy to be indicating that it has influence and natural symbolism, but not dignity and so on.

Of course we're all entitled to disagree with him. I just happen to either think in similar ways to Mark (if I can pay myself that compliment) or at least have similar ideas about the outer planets as he does.

But hey, there's plenty of room under the astrological umbrella to accommodate both theories right? After all, I do not think Mark is saying that modern astrologers should stop and switch to Aries, but rather offering a new way of thinking about the rulership scheme in modern astrology and rethink some of the associations.
Not everyone will agree with that, but personally I find it really interesting that Mark has posted this.

48
james_m wrote: i was only pointing out that you seemed to have a more nuanced viewpoint that paul suggested.. something about marks association with brilliance and paul just isn't working for me.
Don't worry James, I took it as tongue in cheek too. I wouldn't dream for a minute that I might 'recruit' you to my fanbase either.
paul - your comments on what constitutes a malefic imply no planet has to be a malefic.. is that what you are saying?
Let me be more clear about what I'm saying. All planets can behave malefically and benefically, but Mars and Saturn, unless in specific conditions, naturally incline toward malice. However put them in their sect and make them well dignified and they show their benefic side.
you use the example of fire in a negative and positive sense. the same logic can be applied to any element..
I meant actual flames, using the analogy of Mars ruling fire.

In other words, fire is too hot and too dry. Put it on your living room sofa for a few minutes and you'll see how powerfully destructive it is. As a rule malefics incline toward an excess that is harmful. However, in the right conditions, and constraints, such as on a very cold wintry night, put the fire 'where it belongs' (ie, a fire place) and you can see its benefic qualities too.

Perhaps my analogies are always destined to go over your head but hopefully this helps you understand what I am saying.

49
Mark wrote:But there is plenty of room for debate, discussion and yes confusion here. Unlike modern astrology which often takes a hard wired view of these planets, traditional astrologers need some space to look at these issues for themselves an to ask fundamental questions without the intellectual baggage of modern astrology. Some will conclude like Konrad it is not even worth the effort as we risk ?diluting? a system that appears to work perfectly well already.
Mark,

this was not what I was saying at all, in fact, I even said I have not made any conclusion other than "I need more information". At risk of misrepresenting myself again, I said that if we are to alter a perfectly viable system, we better have good reasons to do so.

To quote myself:
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.
I was merely asking what those reasons are. My very first post outlined, honestly, my current views. That does not mean they can't be changed by someone else's.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up again.
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com

50
James_M wrote:
hi mark, glad you felt motivated to address me directly for the first time on the thread.. are you suggesting i only apply emotion to arrive at my viewpoints on uranus? that is how i read your comment here in response to mine. perhaps you'd like to clarify.
Hi James,

To clarify James the reference to emotion was about a brief comment of yours I removed. Overall, unless we are autistic I think we all invest emotion into our opinions here!

Still, I do think its good to put forth our views as logically and as coherently as we can. Its both a process of rigorous logical thinking and producing the best case we can which is part of what philosophy is about surely?

As you hadn?t participated much in this thread to date I didn?t feel your passing comment provided much justification for your view. I thank you for setting out your view in more detail. Afraid you still haven't convinced me though. I agree with Paul and Amelia that Uranus seems more associated to the cardinal signs.

James_M wrote:
sometimes uranus doesn't seem to do anything at all. it seems to need more then itself to make anything happen.
An interesting point! We certainly need to consider the outers cycles and aspects. So you obviously don?t think by changing signs ( say from Pisces to Aries) Uranus manifested in a different way?

Its true sometimes a first ?hit? of Uranus produces nothing that noticeable. I recall when my Mother died very suddenly and unexpectedly Uranus had gone retrograde and was making a partile square to my natal Moon. I dont recall anything much happening on the first 'hit' by transit.

What I was actually referring to was when it does seem to work it produces very rapid change.

James_M wrote:
also, some astrologers appear to believe it has no relevance whatsoever!
Of course. I have covered that already. It?s a respectable position and I understand why people take that kind of position.

James_M wrote:
i don't know that i would say it is fast acting as a consequence.. maybe in combination with jupiter or an inner planet it is fast acting. tough question for me to answer objectively.
Ok. I don?t want to seem trite and smug as if I have all the answers either.

Mark wrote:
Yes its cycle round the Sun is slow as an outer planet but when a Uranus transit materializes in someone's life how does it manifest?
James_M wrote:
cardinal is more spontaneous energy connected to the beginning of each season.. fixed is more focused energy found in the center of the season which i associate with values and ideals that a person or society works towards living. this is one of the reasons i see uranus as more fixed air then cardinal fire in nature. if you or anyone missed it earlier, i did say i thought uranus energy has something in common with aries, or seems to associate well with aries energy.
Yes but cardinal vs fixed is more than the start or middle of something. In traditional terms it tells us about about the time and stability issues too. t. For example, in horary we are taught when looking for recovery of an item it will occur rapidly in a cardinal sign but much longer (if at all ) in a fixed sign.

Medieval natal astrology teaches a cusp in a cardinal sign indicates an area of life subject to frequent change while a fixed sign indicates stability.
Does Uranus bring a stable influence to bear in our lives?

Uranus transits often feel like a bolt out of the blue while Pluto transits seem slow, intense and often interminable. For example I have seen charts of people suffering from an illness like cancer with Pluto transiting back and forwards over the ascendant or one of the luminaries. Having said all that Pluto throws up a lot of issues and questions. It often seems like a slow painful ordeal of ice and fire.

If I wanted to argue against my own position (yes I do that!) traditionally, I might point out Mars is hot and dry and therefore fast acting yet it has dignity in both a hot and dry cardinal sign ( Aries) and and a wet + cold fixed one (Scorpio). On the other hand one of the signs Mars rules as domicile ruler (Aries) and the sign it has exaltation in (Capricorn) are cardinal signs. Its also worth pointing out that Ptolemy doesn't describe Scorpio as a water sign! Instead he focuses on the dryness of the sign. This gives it an affinity by quality to Mars.

I think its interesting so many astrologers at the turn of the last century tied Uranus in with Scorpio. Yes its a fixed sign but it is also a sign associated with Mars which I think partly describes the nature of how Uranus manifests.


James_M wrote:
i am curious if you'd like to answer the questions you've posed to me. and, as i said at the beginning of the thread - i was happy you started the conversation as i think it's good to engage in these types of questions and thought exercises.
Hopefully, I have said enough here and on this entire thread to satisfy you!

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:51 pm, edited 6 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

51
Konrad wrote:
My very first post outlined, honestly, my current views. That does not mean they can't be changed by someone else's.
Ok. Sorry if I misrepresented your position. I have replaced your name above for that of John Frawley to represent the position of those traditionalists who consciously exclude the outers from their work on philosophical principle.

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

52
Mark and Paul, thanks for your detailed replies. My eyes start to roll back in their sockets if I have to interact with too many "you said-I said" non-essential micro-arguments, however, so forgive me for not responding to all of your comments in kind. I take some but not all of your points, but will not bother to itemize them. I am ready to move on, unless you wish me to respond to any in particular.

I suddenly got the humour in this thread! If Uranus rules sudden change or ideas that discomfort someone based on their very novelty-- then how Uranian to have a traditional-leaning astrologer introduce new ideas about Uranus! :lol:

A side-joke is that with Uranus now in Aries, of course it makes perfect sense for people to focus on their relationship. It is in the drinking water.

Mark, let's just be careful of promoting an argument on the grounds that somebody else agrees with you. (Fallacy ad populum.)

I think the crux of the matter is that the gulf between modern and traditional astrology is simply too wide .

For example, I don't think many modern astrologers work with the qualities of hot, dry, cold, or moist. You could get a lot of traditional astrologers to agree that Uranus is hot and dry, but it wouldn't affect much of anything in modern practice.

Mark, this is the first time you've actually asked me to produce any concrete examples of Uranus-Aquarius or Uranus-revolutions in mundane astrology. Do you still want them, or was this merely by way of dismissing my take on Uranus and Aquarius? Or dismissing American history? This isn't just American triumphalism, as this revolution was a pattern that many other nations followed.

Obviously any horoscope will have multiple influences, not merely a single outer planet, and it is not possible to design a statistically legitimate study. No astrological signature works 100%.

I think the best approach to these charts is to see how Uranus and the other planets function, vs. setting up some `a priori criterion.

But take a look at the followng charts of revolutionaries, writ large or small, available in the Astro-DataBank at www.astro.com . My criterion is whether these people tried to better the lot of their constituents; and in so doing, to liberate society overall.

USA You are probably familiar with the debate over the Sibly chart. Other astrologers have tried to come up with a good chart for the Declaration of Independence, one of which (#3 on the Astro-DataBank) puts Uranus conjunct MC, but I suspect some footwork here involving chart rectification.

Robespierre, nicknamed the father of the French Revolution: Aquarius rising, house ruler of Pisces Uranus in the 1st house square 10th house Pluto-Jupiter, trine Mars-Neptune. (Rodden AA rating.)

Cesar Chavez. Sun conjunct Uranus in Aries. Activist for Hispanic farm-labourers. Uranus rules his 6th house of people who work in servile conditions. (Rodden AA rating)

Mohandas Ghandi. Uranus in Cancer most elevated planet. Conjunct MC from the 9th. (Rodden A)

Che Guevara. Latin American revolutionary. Aries Uranus conjunct Ascendant to the degree, from the 12th house. (Rodden B)

Eugene McCarthy. Ultra-conservative communist-baiter, for whom the expression McCarthyism was named. Capricorn Uranus in the 10th house conjunct MC. (No, they are not all leftists!) (Rodden AA)

Karl Marx. Aquarius rising, Uranus-Neptune in Sagittarius onjunct MC in the 10th. (Rodden AA)

Emmeline Pankhurst British feminist. Aquarius rising. Uranus in Sagittarius conjunct Jupiter, 3rd house. (Rodden A)

Abraham Lincoln Emancipation Proclamation 1st house sun in Aquarius conjunct Aquarius rising, Uranus in Scorpio conjunct NN (Rodden B)

Friedan, Betty. American feminist, wrote The Feminine Mystique. sun, Mercury, in Aquarius, Mercury conjunct Pisces Uranus. (Rodden AA)

Greer, Germaine, Australian-American feminist author, Aquarius rising, sun in Aquarius conjunct AC from the 12th, moon conjunct Uranus in Taurus in the 4th. square ascendant. (Rodden AA)

Rosa Parks, "mother" of the American civil rights movement. Sun conjunct Mercury and Uranus in Aquarius. Probably all in the first house, but this is a Rodden C rating.

Do you need more?

I note that anyone born within roughlyu the same 7 year period will have Uranus in the same sign, but a more dedicated researcher than I am could look for trends across a couple of centuries.

I discarded DD and X Rodden ratings, but across the spectrum of political activists, it was interesting to see a lot of Jupiter and Neptune involvement. A real agent for change is not merely an activist, but a visionary.

53
waybread wrote: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.
The attribution of water to Aquarius has to do with the seasons where the 3 month span starting with the entrance of the Sun into Capricorn, then Aquarius and Pisces is the "phlegmatic" season. Spring is sanguine (air), summer is choleric (fire) and fall is melancholic (earth).
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

54
I didn't have much luck locating the initial source/s of Uranus as the modern ruler of Aquarius, but I did glean these kernels:

1. Nicholas Campion, History of Western Astrology, vol. 2. pp211-12. London astrologer John Varley (1788-1842) used Uranus in his predictive work. He successfully predicted a date and time in 1825 when he thought he would be in imminent danger due to the position of Uranus in his own chart. Right on schedule, his house caught fire.

2. Alan Leo, How to Judge a Nativity, 1903, p. 37. uses Uranus in his cookbook delineations, but says, "No definite or precise rules can be laid down with regard to Uranus...the most elaborate plans and calculations may be upset in an instant of time by the vibrations of his planet." He describes it in more theosophical terms, as the planet of the "coming race" engaged in a higher level of human evolution.

I don't suppose he meant our generation.

Interestingly, Leo uses traditional sign rulers only.

However, Uranus certainly isn't the only planet involved in sudden upsets. A transiting Mercury-Mars square seem to generate kerfuffles in my life. I

Nor is "sudden change" the only meaning of Uranus. If "sudden change" is one's sole view of Uranus, then I think we are missing out on its more social dimension. Possibly someone who has never been engaged in any type of social change, at a large or small level, prefering to focus on oneself as an individual, would miss out on Uranus as a planet involved in social movements.

In terms of ultra-conservative politicians like Eugene McCarthy, cited above, once we understand how they construe threats to liberty (in his case, as a totalitarian communism taking over the freedom-loving USA) then their motives become much more understandable as Uranian. Sarah Palin, the Tea Party darling, would be another conservative example.

Another point that I don't buy is that using two domcile rulers is somehow too confusing. Good heavens. If traditional astrologers can happily juggle all of the micro-bytes of essential and accidental dignities, Arabian parts, Aristotelian "science", and their various predictive methods, they should have zero trouble adding in a second sign ruler.

Just don't ask Uranus to perform in all of the other categories of traditional analysis. Hey, it is Uranus. It resents being neatly slotted into pigeon-holes, and is liable to bust out of them.

55
zoidsoft wrote:
waybread wrote: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.
The attribution of water to Aquarius has to do with the seasons where the 3 month span starting with the entrance of the Sun into Capricorn, then Aquarius and Pisces is the "phlegmatic" season. Spring is sanguine (air), summer is choleric (fire) and fall is melancholic (earth).
Oh, sure. And the sun truly was in Aquarius during part of the winter rainy season of the Mediterranean climatic zone.

But in terms of reading nativities, I don't see Uranus as watery.

56
waybread wrote:
zoidsoft wrote:
waybread wrote: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.
The attribution of water to Aquarius has to do with the seasons where the 3 month span starting with the entrance of the Sun into Capricorn, then Aquarius and Pisces is the "phlegmatic" season. Spring is sanguine (air), summer is choleric (fire) and fall is melancholic (earth).
Oh, sure. And the sun truly was in Aquarius during part of the winter rainy season of the Mediterranean climatic zone.

But in terms of reading nativities, I don't see Uranus as watery.
I think you meant Aquarius as watery... The accidents / events of the earth derive from hule to some degree, but the schema that I was referring to was used in medicine, obviously the weather in the southern hemisphere doesn't match. The elements assigned to signs from Valens with Aquarius = air comes from another schema.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

57
I've written some on this subject:

(Cancer / Capricorn axis about half way down the page):
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... astro.html

The Aquarian Paradox (what I wrote in 1998):
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-file ... radox.html

Small section on Uranus:
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/planets.html

When asking if Uranus "rules" such and such, what exactly do we mean? It seems to me that the modern definition is "affinity" as Lee Lehman suggests. The traditional meaning of the word is actually a conflation of concepts which Robert Schmidt said comes from the term "axiomaticos".

From Robert Schmidt:
Axiomaticos means to deem or find worthy, but also means to seek, petition or to beg. The third construction is to claim or maintain something. Sometimes translated somewhat misleadingly as "self evident" which is the source of the word "axim".

Because this word "axiomaticos" can refer to planets of the domicile, exaltation or confine, it was associated with those 3 in different senses; when it begs or petitions, this is the domicile relation, when it is providing evidence for itself "axiomatic" it is acting of the confines, when it finds worthy, it is of the exaltation. When this word was translated from Arabic to Latin, it was translated as "dignified" which is the selection of one 1 of the 3 potential meanings.
Now as for rulership, the domicile lord in the "oikodektor" role does not rule over those in it's domicile but acts as a host, but the confine lord (called termini in Latin) is fairly close to this distinction because it sets the standards and limits the planet.

As we can see, what was meant by "rulership" has shifted over the centuries. In order to tighten this up we should ask exactly what we mean when we say that Uranus rules Aries or Aquarius. In my own work with clients (I've been doing this off/on for almost 40 years now) I've used Uranus and my use of it has changed over the decades. Originally I was from the Rudhyar / psychological school and thought of it in a typically modern sense. Currently I don't use the term rulership with Uranus at all because that device is more closely aligned with the concrete particular, but I do think that Uranus has a special connection to Aquarius and it's role there represents a special choice in the cycle (thinking of the Myth of Er here) where one can choose to escape the circle of incarnation (Uranus) or re-enter (Saturn) and rejoin in the symmetry.

The invisible seems to have more to do with consciousness as Therese has stated and spiritual matters. Now of all the points, these different properties exist: such as is the planet visible? Does that point move or make what Schmidt would call a "phasis" (appearance which speaks). The fixed stars don't make a phasis in the same way (they don't move, but they can be near an angle or another planet) because they can be visible. The invisible planets that move have a distinction from fixed stars in this sense and the visible that move are most closely associated with the concrete particular.

I think Uranus is a fairly good fit to Aries in the sense Lehman would say (affinity). I note the scientific symbol for Uranus is a sort of composite of the Sun and Mars merged together with an upward pointing arrow. This would be the exaltation (Sun) and domicile (Mars) lord of Aries, but I also think Uranus is hot and dry by nature.

I think there is plenty of room for Uranus in connection to Aquarius to study its position from the point of view as to why someone has some issue to the place where Aquarius is in the chart if there is a saturnian issue that is stifling in that house it can show what is needed to break away. Obviously there is some overlap since we do sometimes have Uranian concrete events (such as #Occupy and the current cardinal crisis Uranus / Pluto square that started with the Arab spring). I think one needs to think in terms of using the right tool for the job. Traditional methods seem more suited to questions about the concrete particular, but the why question has proven very elusive with traditional techniques because what happens to us really is not equivalent to who we are. For instance is the statement "I am a software engineer" really accurate? Software is what I do; it is not who I am!
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC