question about the decans

Saturn is the farthest (visible) planet in the old system, and that's why saturn is the point of departure. And why is saturn the first decan of Leo? Probably because the first decan of Aries is mars. And mars is the first decan of Aries in order to overcome the dead phase of winter.

But what about Neptune and Pluto? They don't actually make an appearance in the Tarot, but they are on the Tree. While Saturn may have been the most distant planet according the old system, wouldn't the GD modify its attributions to reflect their existence? I imagine the Aces, lacking a formal attribution, as "feeling" Plutonian. Or maybe I'm completely off the mark and mixing unrelated things?

A long time ago I quitted western astrology altogether. The old astrologers with their 7 planets were much more accurate in their predictions than nowadays. The idea is that the other three heavenly bodies were discovered with the invention of the telescope in a time that also the depth psychology emerged. It reminds me of the alternate states of consciousness that were explored with drugs like lsd, also by what's his name.

So some think that the 3 external planets are good for psychological astrology. If applied in the occult system, they would replace the three mother letters, which have no place in the decan orbit.

closrapexa said:

But what about Neptune and Pluto? They don't actually make an appearance in the Tarot, but they are on the Tree.

Click to expand...

They are NOW. I still prefer the 'old tree'. Saturn , in that system, is the 'furthest out ' and can be considered A point of departure ... then the Sephiroth relate to the Zodiac and then the celestial Sphere.

But I cant ignore Neptune , Uranus and Pluto ... they are important spheres (in the hermetic sense of planetary sphere ) in psychological astrology. That is why I use a variant 'Tree' for psychological astrology.

closrapexa said:

of While Saturn may have been the most distant planet according the old system, wouldn't the GD modify its attributions to reflect their existence?

Click to expand...

I don't see why they would, considering they liked the 'validity' of 'old' systems e.g. changing the 'start' of their zodiac to Leo because of the 'old Chaldean system' (yet don't explain why other than that, or what significance that has or why the rest of the 'Chaldean system' wasn't used. 'Chaldean modifications' and including newly discovered planets seems a bit of a strange mix.

closrapexa said:

I imagine the Aces, lacking a formal attribution, as "feeling" Plutonian.

Click to expand...

Aces don't lack a 'formal attribution ' IMO they 'sit on the thrones of the thrones of the Princesses (or the other way around ? ) on the 4 quadrants of the north pole ( or, as I prefer 'sit on them' through the Earths axis around the 4 elemental quadrants of the South Pole. Now ... is that the terrestrial Pole or the Celestial Pole ... or Wang's 'Magnetic Pole' ?

closrapexa said:

Or maybe I'm completely off the mark and mixing unrelated things?

Click to expand...

I don't think that matters ... unless you end up with a fish pancake.

yogiman said:

It reminds me of the alternate states of consciousness that were explored with drugs like lsd, also by what's his name.

Click to expand...

Ravenest ?

yogiman said:

So some think that the 3 external planets are good for psychological astrology. If applied in the occult system, they would replace the three mother letters, which have no place in the decan orbit.

Click to expand...

I don't see how they could have a place there considering the 'decan orbit' is 'beyond' the Zodiacal trumps orbit and that is beyond the Planetary trumps 'orbit'.

So where are you going to place the Trumps that relate to the Mother letters?

ravenest said:

They are NOW. I still prefer the 'old tree'. Saturn , in that system, is the 'furthest out ' and can be considered A point of departure ... then the Sephiroth relate to the Zodiac and then the celestial Sphere.

Click to expand...

Yes I see what you mean. Time-wise, the GD would not have incorporated these into their calculations. Neptune was only speculated about due to its physics in the 1840, putting it in the realm of cutting-edge science for the times. Pluto was theorized about, but wasn't actually discovered until 1930.

But if the GD didn't put those planets on their own Tree, who did?

Who was the first to do that ?

Now there is a question !

I have no idea . Maybe Crowley played with it . I will take a stab at it ....

Kenneth Grant ... but its just a guess .

There are some mentions in The Book of Thoth about placing Neptune and possibly Uranus on the tree. From recollection this was before Pluto was discovered, and the others were very new and topical in astrology also.

Fortunately Pluto is no longer considered a planet, but rather is defined as a "dwarf planet", whose main difference from full planets is that it has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit (Pluto's orbit actually takes it within Neptune's), and is described in the International Astronomical Union's XXVIth General Assembly resolution on this question as "the prototype of a new category of Trans-Neptunian Objects".

http://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf

Crowley introduced Pluto into his table of the "Essential Dignities of the Planets" (pp. 277, 284).

Yep, that's been out there for some time now

Thing is, what is going to replace it as a symbol for all the other things Pluto came to represent? Regardless of any scientific classification of planet or not, a set of psychological principles, feelings, states, etc. can be handily attributed to the MYTHOLOGY of Pluto ... so I am going to keep it in my psychological tree - there it doesn't matter if it is a 'planet' of not.

As far as Kabbalah goes, I have no need to consider it as I use the old system in the Kabbalistic Tree of Life ; 3. Shabbathai (Saturn) , 2. Mazloth (Zodiac ) and 1. 1 Rashith ha-Gilgalim (Primum Mobile or Celestial Sphere). I equate the lower 7 sephiroth - in their planetary associations - as similar to the Hemetic Spheres ( a passing ‘through’ them or ‘down’ to earth for incarnation, and a ‘realisation’ or progression back up through them as an incarnation's progression) when one has an understanding of how the ‘planetary spheres’ relate to the ‘psyche’ then one can (at ‘sphere’ 2) incorporate the understanding of the ‘journey of the Sun’ through the 12 signs – much the same way as astrology sees the variant influences of planets and signs. Beyond is the whole celestial sphere and the knowledge of its function and dynamic with the psyche (in a geocentric … or perhaps egocentric analogy)

I cant get this with the outer planets in those positions. In my psychological tree they represent collective and transpersonal energies that relate to many different things than the other planets do, mostly in their process of forming an energy field ( in a sort of looped feedback) from the other dynamics and relate to time and location (of culture and society; mores taboo, regulation of the Id by the Superego , etc ) and not a ‘self-contained’ sphere (I know … bad analogy) like the other planets … hence my variant psychological tree. That is, one system , the ToL (with planets zodiac and heavens) seems to relate more to progressions through ( 'down to or up' ) spheres of formation and realisation and the psychological system (which includes the outer planets) seems to be 'interacting' and 'happening all at once' - (I realise both do that to an extent - hard to explain here without going off on to a tangent .... and I wouldn't want to disrupt Yogiman's topic )

IMO , outer planets on the Tree is a bit like seeing 22 majors and 22 letters … AHA! I will just fit them together this way … and … hmmmm … maybe THAT way and …. No …. <smashes round peg into square hole with a hammer> … there ya go … good enough ! But IMO it is not ‘good enough’ for a psychological map.

You can turn a fish pancake into a seafood dosa but it won’t make a good desert