crystal dawn said:
by they i take it you mean astronomers - that is a different subject altogeather from astrology.
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.
crystal dawn said:
we as astrologers should not let the astronomical world dictate to us what we can and cannot class as a planet.
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.
crystal dawn said:
I noticed someone here has said that if you use pluto in an astrology chart there should be a good reason to do so - why???
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 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.
crystal dawn said:
Some astrologers rely more on astronomy than others - which is fine - but you have to wonder whether you are getting an astronomy chart/reading rather than an astrological one.
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.
I
crystal dawn said:
f you choose to use pluto in a chart is up to the individual - i personally have always used it and will continue to do so no matter what is said about it.
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.
crystal dawn said:
Its the energies that these orbs represent that matter when constructing a chart and not whether they have official planet status or not.
I think you mean 'bodies' here, 'orbs' have a different meaning in Astrology. However, you are quite right, it's the energies that matter.
crystal dawn said:
for me it will always be the official ruler of scorpio.
Its such a shame that there are a number of old books that have been reprinted now, that once upon a time had astrological associations of pluto in them and in the reprints these associations are now been blanked out - depriving the reader the choice of whether to use them or not.
Whether you choose to use pluto or not is entirely your choice.
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).
As Pluto was only discovered in 1930 there are not all that many 'old books' that need reprinting. However I agree with your sentiment. reprinting should be because there is a belief that Pluto was a mistake. If you don't believe that and believe that Pluto rules Scorpio then you don't need to reprint or rewrite anything. It's quite possible to believe that Pluto is a 'dwarf planet' and still believe that it rules Scorpio. I've seen some Astrologers claim that Ceres rules Taurus and those Astrologers never believed that Ceres was other than an asteroid (though the astronomers that discovered it at first did believe it was a planet).
Yes, I fully agree that using Pluto is a personal decision and Astrologers should be perfectly free to use or not use it.
I take the view that it's the planets (however defined) that matter and their characteristics - or energies - Sign rulership was always the wrong basis on which to defend Pluto - it's much better to base it on Pluto having characteristics that cannot be represented by any other planet. The case for using Ceres as expressing a feminine principle that is distinct from Venus and the Moon is a valid one, which I respect. There's a good reason for using it and for those who do use it, it gives an additional dimension to their chart reading. To me Pluto falls into the same category. If Pluto has a meaning to you that cannot be expressed by any other body, then use it!