PDA

View Full Version : Pluto no longer a planet - anybody concerned?


Ross G Caldwell
25-08-2006, 01:37
Well they voted to demote Pluto to a lesser status, a "dwarf" planet or plutonian.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5282440.stm

Thus there are only 8 "classic" planets now, and for the foreseeable future.

Does this change anything for anybody? Not for me. Neptune is secret enough.

RubyRuby
25-08-2006, 02:37
I'm not much into astrology, so I don't know the ramifications, if there are any, on an astrological scale. Whether they call it a planet or dwarf planet or whatever else they want to call it, I wouldn't think it would or should have any affect. It's still the same mass in the solar system, it still has the same orbit, it's still in the same place it has been for millions of years.

A rose by any other name...

stardancer
25-08-2006, 02:42
I will still use Pluto. It works in my charts and the ephemeris (the ones I have anyway) will always have it. Astrology is part art and part science, and to take too seriously, the opinion of a bunch of scientists trying to define away in technological terms, one of our points of interpretation, would just give them a reason to point a finger and laugh at us.

Ross G Caldwell
25-08-2006, 02:52
I'm not much into astrology, so I don't know the ramifications, if there are any, on an astrological scale. Whether they call it a planet or dwarf planet or whatever else they want to call it, I wouldn't think it would or should have any affect. It's still the same mass in the solar system, it still has the same orbit, it's still in the same place it has been for millions of years.

A rose by any other name...

I fully concur.

For astrologers to use it, they have to empirically observe it first. They also have to have a theory of how it might work in the psyche.

Most astrologers, I think, don't think that the physical characteristics of the planets mean anything. Most I know take a mystical approach, or a Jungian, "archetypal" or "synchronistic" approach; the planets just somehow mirror the soul, and can characterize and predict things in the life of an entity (a state, organization, enterprise or individual) by virtue of that synchronistic quality.

For me, the solar system is a web of magnetic and gravitational influence, and everything in it is influenced to a greater or lesser degree by everything else in it. The Sun is of course by far the most important thing; for Earth, the Moon is next (and the Earth itself of course!). But celestial bodies also affect us with their energy. Except for the Sun and Moon, the planets are subtle but persistent forces in nature and our lives. It doesn't matter that Jupiter's energy doesn't knock you over, or overtly "cause" anything - it is persistent and constant and measurable force; astronomy quantifies the force, but what astrology tries to do is *qualify* the effects of that force.

I don't think Pluto - or any of the asteroids like Ceres - can be shown to have much effect electromagnetically or gravitationally on earth, or the Sun (as the other planets do). All together, they make up quite a weight, but except for a few chance encounters, Earth is pretty much unaffected by them.

The other planets are like anchors of the solar system - if any one of them were destroyed, we would notice it to a greater or lesser extent.

TenOfSwords
25-08-2006, 03:03
It's just a word.

Ross G Caldwell
25-08-2006, 03:07
I will still use Pluto. It works in my charts and the ephemeris (the ones I have anyway) will always have it. Astrology is part art and part science, and to take too seriously, the opinion of a bunch of scientists trying to define away in technological terms, one of our points of interpretation, would just give them a reason to point a finger and laugh at us.

I agree that astrologers shouldn't depend on the taxonomies of astronomers to decide how to interpret a chart.

But the fact is that Pluto has been shown to be only one of many similar objects - some larger than Pluto - in a belt around the inner 8 planets. It's like the asteroid belt, but much further out. And further than that, there's the "Oort cloud", where comets come from and go to.

Close to the Sun, the Sun is so heavy as to "flatten" out the orbits of everything around it - this is where the classic 8 planets are. But further out, it starts getting uneven and things orbiting the Sun come in at extreme angles. Pluto is at an extreme angle - like the other bodies in its area, the Kuiper Belt. So Pluto and those far objects don't influence the Sun, and aren't influenced by the Sun, nearly as much as we and the other classic planets are. Similarly, our lives should not be influenced by these planets, which are so much smaller and further away than our big neighbors.

And Pluto's status as a planet had always been controversial. But whatever an astrologer thinks of it, it is not astronomical definitions but astrologic practice that matters. If an astrologer finds Pluto, 2003UB313 ("Xena") and Ceres and other asteroids to be helpful, then it is of no importance how "planet" is defined.

inanna_tarot
25-08-2006, 06:14
But does it not upset the nice little theory that there are supposed to be 12 planets for each sign of the zodiac? If pluto isnt a planet then does it still make it the ruler of Scorpio?
Or are we now going to interpret the word 'planet' to have both astrological and astronomical associations - so for astrologers it is still a planet that is charted and see as a ruler etc. In that case wouldnt asteriods be planets? Chiron become a planet rather than a planetoid or centaur?

lol I have no idea when it comes to these things, just adding fuel to the fire.

Sezo
x

Silver_Skye
25-08-2006, 06:20
But does it not upset the nice little theory that there are supposed to be 12 planets for each sign of the zodiac? If pluto isnt a planet then does it still make it the ruler of Scorpio?
Or are we now going to interpret the word 'planet' to have both astrological and astronomical associations - so for astrologers it is still a planet that is charted and see as a ruler etc. In that case wouldnt asteriods be planets? Chiron become a planet rather than a planetoid or centaur?

lol I have no idea when it comes to these things, just adding fuel to the fire.

Sezo
x

I'm not much of an astrologer, but isn't it possible that there are many more planets out there and one of them is actually the ruler of Scorpio?

I thought pluto wasn't discovered till about 1930 - surely astrology was around before that?

Vetch
25-08-2006, 06:20
Sun and moon aren't planets either.
It's like debatin weather swords 'are' fire or air, east or west.

Until now the astrological system that used Pluto worked fine for me, and I'll go on using it.

Reality is beyond any systems.

Minderwiz
25-08-2006, 06:40
I'm not much of an astrologer, but isn't it possible that there are many more planets out there and one of them is actually the ruler of Scorpio?

I thought pluto wasn't discovered till about 1930 - surely astrology was around before that?

Yes there is a planet out there and it is the ruler of Scorpio. It's called Mars and it has had that honour for 2500 years at least.

No there is no theory in Astrology that says that there must be 12 planets because their are 12 signs. All the signs had rulers before the telescope was invented and their rulerships were dictated according to a clear and sound system. The Sun and Moon (the two luminaries) ruled the two signs where the light was at it's peak (in the Northern Hemisphere that's Leo and Cancer) and the other planets ruled two signs each in their order from the Sun/Moon (Leo/Cancer) starting with Mercury ruling Gemini and Virgo and ending with Saturn ruling Aquarius and Capricorn. Each planet ruled a diurnal sign and a nocturnal sign and the rulerships were also in aspect to the Sun or Moon. Thus Gemini sextiles Leo and Virgo sextiles Cancer, ending with Aquairus in Opposition to Leo and Capricorn in Opposition to Cancer. The rulerships are systematic and rational.

As for Pluto, it's very sad for Psychological Astrologers who have heaped all their fears and complexes on Pluto but Astrology can function perfectly well without either Pluto or the complexes and did do for over 3000 years })

Minderwiz
25-08-2006, 06:52
Sun and moon aren't planets either.
It's like debatin weather swords 'are' fire or air, east or west.

Until now the astrological system that used Pluto worked fine for me, and I'll go on using it.



Astronomically you are correct and if you read early Astrological texts, you are more likely to find Sun and Moon referred to as the 'lights' or 'luminaries' because the Sun provided light by day and the Moon provided light by night.

Whilst in the post above I was rather unkind to Pluto and it's use, I'm sure that the large majority of those who have learned their Astrology in the last 50 years (most of us) will continue to use Pluto - for the connections that have been made between psychology and Astrology. However it is worth remembering that Astrology existed millenia before Freud, Jung, Adler and company.

There are sound arguments that Pluto adds nothing to a chart that cannot be gleaned from the 7 traditional planets, if traditional methods (discarded by psychologists to 'simplify' Astrology) are used.

I don't really expect that there will be a rush to learn what John Frawley called The Real Astrology' but please be aware that there is an Astrology that deals with events in the real world not just (or only) what goes on inside someone's head.

Silver_Skye
25-08-2006, 06:54
Yes there is a planet out there and it is the ruler of Scorpio. It's called Mars and it has had that honour for 2500 years at least.

No there is no theory in Astrology that says that there must be 12 planets because their are 12 signs. All the signs had rulers before the telescope was invented and their rulerships were dictated according to a clear and sound system. The Sun and Moon (the two luminaries) ruled the two signs where the light was at it's peak (in the Northern Hemisphere that's Leo and Cancer) and the other planets ruled two signs each in their order from the Sun/Moon (Leo/Cancer) starting with Mercury ruling Gemini and Virgo and ending with Saturn ruling Aquarius and Capricorn. Each planet ruled a diurnal sign and a nocturnal sign and the rulerships were also in aspect to the Sun or Moon. Thus Gemini sextiles Leo and Virgo sextiles Cancer, ending with Aquairus in Opposition to Leo and Capricorn in Opposition to Cancer. The rulerships are systematic and rational.

As for Pluto, it's very sad for Psychological Astrologers who have heaped all their fears and complexes on Pluto but Astrology can function perfectly well without either Pluto or the complexes and did do for over 3000 years })

Ah, see!? I learn soemthing new every day! ^_^ I was basically going on what I"d seen in previous posts and commenting on what seemed most logical to me. ^_^

Vetch
25-08-2006, 07:04
I'm sure that the large majority of those who have learned their Astrology in the last 50 years (most of us) will continue to use Pluto - for the connections that have been made between psychology and Astrology. However it is worth remembering that Astrology existed millenia before Freud, Jung, Adler and company.

There are sound arguments that Pluto adds nothing to a chart that cannot be gleaned from the 7 traditional planets, if traditional methods (discarded by psychologists to 'simplify' Astrology) are used.

I don't really expect that there will be a rush to learn what John Frawley called The Real Astrology' but please be aware that there is an Astrology that deals with events in the real world not just (or only) what goes on inside someone's head.

I'm perfectly sure that the 7 planets are sufficient and work beautifully - as long as one has learned that kind of astrology and is used to it.


I'm not a crack concerning astrology, but the system I work with includes also Chiron and Lilith, and eg. a conjunction of Chiron with my Mercury happend when i broke my neck - so, way I see it: things happen in the real world, the 'planets' show me 'what time it is', and they echo inside my head, because there was something I had to learn from that accident.

What I'm aiming at: I think there are many different systems of Astrology, and wether you use a more traditional approach or a modern doesn't matter, as long at it works for you, because all these systems are different ways of seting up and reading the clock. The clock (the system) is a tool. The time that flows and that we live is REAL, but it's actually beyond words.

Minderwiz
25-08-2006, 07:19
Vetch,

Yes you are right and I must admit to playing the 'devil's advocate' in a number of posts, simply because it is taken for granted that 'modern' astrology is the only astrology or claims are put forward on extremely superficial or subjective grounds and that Pluto ruling Scorpio is some sort of established fact.

One of the Astrologers I admire most is Stephen Arroyo who does take a psychological approach but ensures that he has significant grounding in Astrology - his books are excellent and a good place to begin.

Yes, there are room for differences in systems and approaches and indeed there always have been differences - one of the Astrologers who I most admire on these boards is Dave (Dadsnook2000) he uses a very different approach to me but he's got a good theoretical basis for his work.

That being said, Astrology is far more a disciplined and systematic science (in the sense of a branch of knowleged) than many other approaches to divination - you can't make it up as you go along or change it to suit your own ideas (unless you've studied it long and hard).

It still remains the case though that traditional astrology is event oriented - it's geared to making verifiable predictions. Modern Astrology is often more concerned with psychological 'events' which are difficult if not impossible to observe.

Vetch
25-08-2006, 07:24
I got some books by Arroyo and am still learning much from him. :)

And I agree with you that astrology "is far more a disciplined and systematic science (in the sense of a branch of knowleged) than many other approaches to divination". That's why I find it much harder to use than tarot, and also more real, kinda. Y'know. :)

Minderwiz
25-08-2006, 08:00
Enjoy those books - Arroyo has a very good style. :)

It's worth the investment of time and effort, Astrology can be very rewarding and there are other branches that you can move on to, such as horary, event and election charts and even medical Astrology.

Skysteel
25-08-2006, 09:28
Does this change anything for anybody?

Now there are nine Heavenly bodies, the magic number!
- :D

rainwolf
25-08-2006, 11:17
Pluto is so slow, I only gave it a minor weight anyway. I think it only does stuff gradually (I didnt say not intensely, however), but over time this builds up and is seen as something big. Now that it is a plutonian, it makes it all the more mysterious, but who cares?

A rose by any other name, would smell just as sweet.

A planet by any other name, I would give it the same blame. :laugh:

rainwolf
25-08-2006, 11:21
One of the Astrologers I admire most is Stephen Arroyo who does take a psychological approach but ensures that he has significant grounding in Astrology - his books are excellent and a good place to begin.

Yes, there are room for differences in systems and approaches and indeed there always have been differences - one of the Astrologers who I most admire on these boards is Dave (Dadsnook2000) he uses a very different approach to me but he's got a good theoretical basis for his work.

I was reading Arroyo's book last night! What a coincidence. He doesnt really go into saturn transits however, in his karma and transformation book. Second the thing about Dave too, it'll take me forever to get through the study threads :D

Sophie
25-08-2006, 18:41
I'm of the old school anyway - Mars rules Scorpio, and Jupiter rules Pisces (and being a Pisces, I'd much rather be ruled by Jupiter ;)).

stardancer
26-08-2006, 01:30
Yeah, I know. Pluto makes a lot of people uncomfortable. ;)

seaweed
26-08-2006, 04:33
O.K. I'm still just starting off in learning Astrology...I know the outer planets don't receive as much weight as the inner planets and luminaries, but do you think it will become standard to defer back to Mars ruling Scorpio? What are the advantages to refering, mostly, to the original 7 (and do you bring Neptune into the mix as a secondary influence for Pisceans?) I know its significance wasn't really firmed up because of its long orbit, but I've been learning that Pluto was a higher octave of Mars (and last of the transcendental planets.) Are we still thinking that "where you find Pluto in a chart you'll find complexity; it is where you'll have to solve problems alone and unaided"--like March/McEvers expouse?

Also, can anyone recommend a good book that works mostly from the original 7 that is still in print?

And how does this affect using Pluto in Tarot? Mary Greer has Pluto corresponding to the Judgement card.

Thanks!

Sophie
26-08-2006, 05:58
Being an upbeat kind of Pisces, I can feel mainly the Jupiterian influences, but with Neptune as a shadow in the background - it gives me my intuition, my psychic sense and my nameless fears.

As for Pluto - no, it doesn't make me uncomfortable, but I always thought it a long shot for Scorpio, who seems to be more Martian to me. Perhaps, like Neptune for Pisces, it is also shadow in the background - bringing its transformatory power to Scorpio, which can be activated very usefuly, if rather dramatically, with Mars.

Minderwiz
26-08-2006, 06:00
Seaweed,

As someone who always has used Mars as the ruler of Scorpio, I must admit that 70 years of Pluto may not be turned around for a very long time, if at all. However as you are keen to learn, your best approach is to try it.

There are many texts in print which use the original 7. Many of them though are written several hundred years ago and therefore difficult to plough through, especially as they assume you know what they are talking about at many places, yet the original reasoning has been lost.

Howeverer there are one or two books by modern writers that you can try, and not necessarily very expensive. There are several that you could try:

Joseph Crane - A Practical Guide To Traditional Astrology - is a good one to try as a starter, as it's written for someone familiar with modern astrology.

There are one or two short books written by Rob Hand, which look at particular features of Greek Astrology, such as Day/Night Charts and Equal House charts which are good but Crane's book does cover these.

You can buy at: http://www.johnhayes.biz/store/index.php

which also sells books by modern authors (including our own LeePhd) on traditional approaches.

HOLMES
26-08-2006, 06:23
before I take pluto out of the system,,
i want to see the following.

1. group of worlds astrologers get together and agree with these astronomers ruling..
therefore they all agree to change the books as much as they can.

2. tell me what will replace pluto..
you can't just take something away after adding it..
oh i am for reductionism sometimes.. but for example in tarot, i won't take away picture pips for the sake of it since it works so well.

Phoenix Rising
26-08-2006, 07:42
Whether or not Pluto is a dwarf planet or other...it's still there..it will still influence(or not) Just because a bunch of astronomers..changed it's status...What is there to be concerned about?? Astrologers may just include it like they do "Chiron in charts.

Minderwiz
26-08-2006, 08:16
Yep, that's very true - those who believe that Pluto is very important will take no notice and those who don't will say 'I told you so'. There may be some undecideds though, who might now just try their Astrology without Pluto, so there may be some marginal impact.

stardancer
26-08-2006, 08:33
Everyone reads his or her own way. I don't have a problem with those who chose to leave out Pluto. The way I handle reading a chart, is I look first for angularities, certain aspects (giving weight on a scale depending on the aspect, it's closeness, a configurtation, etc.). If Pluto were not involved so much, then I simple deduce it isn't as important in the personality. I usually reserve the sign interpretation as last, so in a way I am more a siderealist because I think the aspects are the most important.

As for prediction, I had transiting Pluto square natal Mars a few years ago, and I was compelled to be involved in several intense battles of wills with others. I have noted that Scorpions, and I've known a lot of them, enjoy and are often involved in battles of will (even though a few of the best and canniest would deny it up and down they don't like to control a situation, lol).

Mars is also a fighter, so the rulerships is kind of six of one, half a dozen. I think the difference comes in Mars would more readily give up and be a good loser, whereas Pluto will never give up and tends to be a bad loser.

One could leave out the outer three, but I just couldn't do it. I've found a lot more depth in people when I read with them.

And speaking of Uranus :D he is definitely a transiting influence. I had car accidents happen when Uranus transited by a conjunction and square to my Mars. It could be my Mars is just hyper-sensitive.

Phoenix Rising
26-08-2006, 08:43
Is there any reason why it still shouldn't be used? It's been used for 70 years or so. What difference will it make?
An old Maori proverb:
"Ahakoa, he iti, he pounamu"
Although it is small, it's still precious

ArcanoMáximo
26-08-2006, 09:14
I already know were two uruguayan astronomers, Horacio Tancredi & Julio Fernández (www.space.com/adastra/adastra_planet_def_060822.html)
who pushed for this change, but i agree with most of post here,
to me it is still there...
If not, what it means?
a not so "dark"scorpio?
but in another way...
perhaps this change means something more?
related with the Acuarian Age?
Just thinK: What was relevant in the world when Pluto was "discovered"?
What first i remember are nuclear bombs...
hmmm...
you know, nothing is coincidence at all...
perhaps the world is endly starting to think seriously in a World with no atomic wars?...
Máximo.-

Phoenix Rising
26-08-2006, 09:34
I knew I read somewhere the significance of Pluto..Chatelain scholar and mathematicians talking about the "constant of Nineveh"

If you knock off a mere seven days from the commonly thought value for Pluto’s orbit around the Sun of 90,727 days, you get 90,720 days. Chatelain explains that since we haven’t observed an entire orbit of Pluto yet with modern instruments, this is a perfectly excusable margin of error. When you divide this round number into the Nineveh Constant of 19.5 x 1010 or 2,268 million days, you get - are you ready? - 25,000.

Yes, it is true! The Great Solar Cycle is very close to being 25,000 of Earth’s years in length, and the Nineveh Cycle is exactly 25,000 of Pluto’s years! This is spectacular! The cycles appear identical, counted in the same harmonic number of 25, for two different planets.

Constant of Nineveh (http://www.dprins.demon.nl/convergence/9905.html)

There must be something goin on..why all of a sudden they want to down play "Pluto" I have a bit of a suspicious nature!!!

heatherjade
27-08-2006, 18:59
The way I see it Heavenly bodies are Heavenly bodies, no matter what you call them. Be it Planet, asteroid, dwarf planet, or Chocolate Chip Cookie. A name is just that, a name. Changing a title isn't going to affect the objects inherent energies or influences.

But still, it is kinda weird to imagine that from now on children are going to be raised in school to believe that there are only 8 planets in our solar system. And so many books are going to have to be rewritten for "accuracy"... this whole thing is blowing my mind.

Phoenix Rising
27-08-2006, 20:40
Yeah to all you astrologers...you carry on with using "Pluto" in your charts.

I reckon they up to something those Big Wigs!!!:laugh:

Sophie
27-08-2006, 20:47
I think Pluto will continue to be used in charts - and why not? Chiron, Lilith, Ceres, Pallas et al. are all used, and sometimes very effectively. Using Pluto in a chart is a different question from what ruler to attribute to Scorpio IMO.

Pluto plays quite an important role in my own chart, because it is in aspect with my sun (opposition) and with my moon (square). It lends a great deal of intensity and transformatory power (sometimes pretty uncomfortable) to whatever my sun and moon are doing.

ravenest
29-08-2006, 15:43
Since my astrology is primarily psycological Pluto will always be included.

jmd
29-08-2006, 20:58
For now well over twenty years, I have not considered Pluto a planet, but, rather, a planetoïd.

What surprises me is the decision! But one with which I am generally satisfied. What strikes me as incorrect is to term the group of planets 'classic': the term, as adjective, has precise meaning in the historical studies, and unfortunately blurrs what the 'classical' planets and the now newly defined 'classic' planets are.

Vetch
30-08-2006, 01:58
What I find more interesting than the question if one uses Pluto or not is, what s/o has brought up already in this thread:

What is the significance of Pluto not being considered as planet anymore? I agree, I feel those events do have a meaning. When the transsaturnian planets were discovered certain things were happening on earth.
Now we are told that powerful Planet that dragged whole generations is just a planetoid (?) among others. :)
Makes me thing about political events.

I'm busy thinking and reading about this, and as soon as I have more time online I'm really eager to share my thoughts with you!

MCsea
02-09-2006, 09:53
In today's space news from SpaceRef:

-- Planetary Scientists and Astronomers Oppose New Planet Definition
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=20725
-- CSEPR examines movement to set aside IAU planet definition ruling
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=20724

"I believe more planetary experts signed the petition than were involved in the vote on the IAU's
petition," adds co-sponsor Dr. Alan Stern, executive director of the Space Science and
Engineering Division at Southwest Research Institute. "From the number of signatories that the
petition received in a few days, it's clear that there is significant unhappiness among scientists
with the IAU's planet definition, and that it will not be universally adopted by scientists and
textbook writers."

VERY interesting - from a scientific point of view too

:)

I WILL continue using PLUTO but I may take more notice of CERES in the future too ;)

MARINA

ArcanoMáximo
03-09-2006, 10:05
What is the significance of Pluto not being considered as planet anymore? I agree, I feel those events do have a meaning. When the transsaturnian planets were discovered certain things were happening on earth.
Now we are told that powerful Planet that dragged whole generations is just a planetoid (?) among others. :)
Makes me thing about political events.

Yes! that's exactly what i think too Vetch, and now i'm very curious about your thoughts!
Please, don't delay it many more :) !