Thread: Pluto
View Single Post
sapienza's Avatar
sapienza  sapienza is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 27 Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,680
sapienza 

I am finding this thread so interesting. I have much I'd like to say but unfortunately limited time to try and put it into coherent sentences so I'll apologise in advance if my post makes no sense.

I think whether you use the outer planets or not isn't such a big issue. I just find that rulership of signs by the outer planets doesn't make any sense at all. Regardless of whether there is affinity or not. I also think that unless you have an understanding of the traditional approach there is no way you can dismiss it outright. Well, of course you can, but it just seems odd to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minderwiz
The basis of rulership as established in the Hellenistic period and used down to the present day is relational. The Sun and Moon, King and Queen of Heaven rule the Summer signs - Cancer and Leo (Culturally Western Astrology is a northern hemisphere system). In opposition to them is Saturn, the then furthest known body from Earth. Saturn rules Winter - and the signs Capricorn and Aquarius - it's opposition to Sun and Moon is one of the building blocks of Astrology. - it symbolises why oppositions are stressful or 'malefic'. The other planets take their turn in Chaldean order - working inwards. Jupiter rules Pisces and Sagittarius, trining the Moon and Sun respectively - it's the origin of why Trines are beneficial, they carry the characteristic of Jupiter.

Next comes Mars, ruling Aries and Scorpio, squaring the Moon and Sun respectively - it's why squares are also stressful, they have carry the characteristics of Mars.

Venus rules Taurus and Libra - a sextile to Moon and Sun - sextiles carry the characteristics of Venus

Lastly Mercury rules the remaining signs of Gemini and Virgo.
For me this is what it really comes down to. When I first understood this it was like I finally 'got' astrology. The beauty of it for me is the symetry and the system. Actually, I have somewhere a graphic image that shows this very clearly but will need to dig around and se if I can find it.


Also, I can't find the quote now but somewhere in this thread I remember Minderwiz saying that Psychological Astrology needs the outer planets. This is interesting. Is is because this type of astrology was developed with those planets in use, or because the archetypes of those planets are important and not covered by the traditional planets?

Finally, thanks to Fudugazi for the very interesting posts on Mythology. I find mythology fascinating and it always factors in to my understanding. Interestingly though I did read somewhere recently (not sure where) that in Hellenistic times there is no evidence to suggest that the attributes associated with planets had anything to do with the Gods/Goddesses/Myths from which their names were taken. Anyone else read or heard this? I find it a bit surprising actually. I'm finding it reasonably easy to change my thinking to the traditional style and I can let go of the outer planets....but letting go of the myths....that would be tough!
Top   #72