By modern standards that's certainly true, as you say later on, historically, it's not the case. Without a grasp of at least some astronomical basics, it's difficult to grasp some of the symbolism of Astrology - many of Saturn's characteristics are related to it being the most distant visible planet.
yes such as the lord of time (no doctor who jokes lol) I agree we do need some astronomical basics, but we do not just dwell there. Astrology takes those basics and moves them a bit further - looking at the relationships between the planets and the signs and how these energies effect each other.
QUOTE - Minderwiz
Well apart from the 'trans Neptunian Planets' in Uranian Astrology (and they can be related to Astronomical knowledge of the time), it appears that we always have done and still do . But if we reject Astronomers' definition of planets then who decides? Do we simply pick something we like or make something up? Even worse, many Astrologers seem to feel that they should adopt all sorts of bodies that Astronomers discover - Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Chiron, Sedna and many more bodies seem to have been adopted because astronomers discovered them, rather than because Astrologer/Astronomers pondered over the night sky.
Trans neptunian objects are a recent discovery and venturing into another subject entirely.
Though personally i have no problem at all with people using neptune,uranus/herchel,chiron,sedna,ceres or whatever else in astrology if they wish to, its up to the individual. Who are we to say whats right and wrong. Everyone has there own individual methods and ways of seeing things that is unique.
pluto has been used in astrology for over 50 years now - are we to say that the astrologers in the past who have used pluto were wrong or mistaken to do so.
Quote - Minderwiz
Well if you haven't got a good reason to use it, why would you? Or are you suggesting that we can do anything we like in Astrology whether we've a reason or not?
I am not suggesting anything about other planetary bodies only that i still use pluto. Why would you not???
Quote - Minderwiz
I don't think you are and I'm sure that you feel that you have a good reason to continue using Pluto - you've clearly reasoned your response to astronomer's downgrading Pluto.
Yes my response is based on the downgrading of pluto - but based on this new wave of astrologers who feel that just because pluto has been downgraded by the au that pluto has no longer a place in astrology. I feel that this is giving the au direct power over astrology - astrology is a subject and art within its own right.
What if the a u said tomorrow " oh we are going to downgrade mercury because its not big enough to be classed as a planet" would we as astrologers sudenly say that mercury has no longer a part to play in astrology?
Quote - Minderwiz
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. An astrological chart is a representation in two dimensions of the planetary positions relative to an observer in a defined location on Earth. In that real sense it is astronomical but I've never really had the impression that you describe, even from Astrologers that I disagree with - I've always felt that they were giving an astrological reading - as Dave has often said, Astrology is a many faceted art.
in astrology there is room to use intuition to expand on the basic meanings.
Quote - Minderwiz
You have every right to use whatever bodies you wish and there''s no way that I would wish to stop you or anyone else. All that I seek to do is to get people to think about why they use bodies and also to realise that jumping on the astronomers' bandwagon and incorporating newly discovered bodies into Astrology is not a particularly wise move. Ironically, given your statement on astromomers and astrologers, Pluto was adopted into Astrology BECAUSE astronomers had discovered it, rather than because it had any obvious Astrological symbolism. It's difficult to ascribe Astrological characteristics when all you've got to go on is astronomical descriptions.
Yes but you could say that you are jumping on the astronomy bandwagon by not using pluto.
Quote - Minderwiz
Who decides what is 'official'? there's no ruling Astrological body that decides on rulerships, or anything else. As I tried to point out earlier in the thread the ancients had a reason why Mars rules Scorpio and the moderns do not, other than they think it is associated with Scorpio or has Scorpio characteristics. Indeed they've even tried to change the nature of Scorpio to make it better fit Pluto. By all means adopt Scorpio as a ruler in your own system but please recognise that it doesn't have an 'official ' status (neither does Mars if it comes to that - though it does have a couple of thousand years plus of history).
For me its the official ruler of scorpio - for you, its maybe mars - thats okay too. But the same people who gave pluto the negative attributes of mars will still associate those attributes to scorpio whether they consider pluto or mars to be be the ruler. Though there is so much more to scorpio and mars/pluto (which ever you choose) than that, there is a calm and beautiful side to consider also.
blessed be
crystal dawn