Thread: Pluto
View Single Post
Minderwiz's Avatar
Minderwiz  Minderwiz is offline
Student of Astrology
Join Date: 20 Apr 2002
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 7,888

Originally Posted by dadsnook2000
So, does distance or size make a difference? If Asteroids have significance, then why wouldn't these far larger bodies have significance. Are their positions in space as separate bodies more important than some of the planet's moons which are larger than than the smaller dwarf planets? It is difficult to say which to use, how to use it, as far as astrology goes. Dave

'A guiding aesthetic for astrology, something necessary, since astrology is an art as well as a science, should be simplicity' Stephen Arroyo (New Insights in Modern Astrology).

Arroyo goes on to quote Dougllas Donleavy, the former editor of Transit (the newsletter of the British Astrological Association' in some depth but one extract is:

'There are some otherwise excellent and perceptive astrologers whose motto seems to be - if it moves interpret it. Whence comes this ever more frantic attempt to ensoul newly discovered or newly imagined planetoidlets?'

The key message seems to be that we should apply 'Occams's razor' - multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity' or, if you prefer, 'Keep It Simple Stupid!'

Now the above quotes come from leading modern psychological Astrologers, but I can find you a similar type of quote from well over a thousand years ago complaining about the multiplicity of Arabian Parts, so it's not a modern phenomenon by any means.

So coming back to Dave's comment - does size matter - To an extent yes, there are thousands of objects out there and if we used them all the chart would be solid black - an astrological black whole. But what really matters is 'do we really need them?'. I can manager perfectly well without Uranus, Neptune and Pluto or Chiron, or trans-neptunian planets, or dark moons, or even all but a couple of Arabian Parts/Greek Lots (in relatively few circumstances). I can quite see that others may need to use the outers or mid points, etc - some approaches to Astrology virtually demand it. However all of us can still take the line that we only use the bare minimum of planets/objects/points that we need in order to carry out our analysis.

And to finish with another quote from Arroyo:

'...use the minimum number of major reliable factors required to enable you to see a client and his or her situation clearly'
Top   #30