I was trying to be fair, as I don't think the classical approach to rulership can work with Pluto (and for that matter Uranus and Neptune). Allegedly the Greeks did identify Uranus, but thought it was simply a dim star and made no attempt to track it. Suppose that all three were visible but moved at their 'normal' rates - would the Greeks have treated them as planets? Just possible with Uranus but I doubt they would have done that for Neptune and Pluto because of their slow movement. It's more likely they would have formed an interesting (and relevant) class of objects, not fast enough to be wanderers, but too fast to be fixed stars and don't forget that they did use fixed stars in divination.
So, we should rely on people who, lacking the knowledge and tools at the time, judged if it's a planet or not by its speed? I'm not very impressed. I understand what you're saying, I just think that since we already *know* and after all, we are moving ahead and we find out more and more about the world around us, I just don't want to stick to somethng which reflects someone else's knowledge which, to me, was just limited due to objective circumstances.
That's a fair point and one that I can't disprove because it's one that is personal to you. Again though, there's no reason why Uranus et al cannot be used and be reflected in your experience without assigning sign rulership and that is the nub of the issue here - what exactly is meant by sign rulership.
Why wouldn't I assign them sign rulership? As I said, the ancients lacked the knowledge, I can not expect from them to assign anything to something they didn't know about but what would be my excuse? And besides, I don't like the traditional rulerships, I find them limited too. When you did investigate our charts in the Hellenistic thread, there was more than one occasion when I told you something was lacking and I find it in a more modern approach, i.e. including the outers.
The Hellenisitic and Medieval systems were methods of assigning strength to planets according to where they were in the zodiac. That system was not just based on sign rulership but also on other dignities - exaltation, triplicity, terms and face. It enabled astrologers to evaluate the ability of the planet, for good or ill' My point is that this system fails with the outers.
But they didn't know about them! How can you know what would have been the system if they had the knowledge we have now? Can you?
Pluto was in Scorpio between November 1983 and January 1995. On a traditional basis it was a potential source for good between those years and won't be again till 2285. That's not an acceptable situation.
What is not acceptable, that Pluto can bring good too?
Using it as the ruler of Scorpio in a traditional framework means that there's virtually always a planet in charge which works to the detriment of the person or thing considered.
To the detriment? Why?
That is clearly something you would not be willing to accept and strangely enough, neither am I. If Pluto is to be included in the traditional rulership scheme, it would have to have further dignities of exaltation, triplicity, terms and face in order to be a force for good, at least some of the time.
I don't accept it because I don't *see* it in everyday life. To me astrology must be working on an everyday basis, not on a "you are ... but if you do not change... but if you change... may be... someday..." and similar. I see people coming to me to ask me about everyday stuff. They are little interested in my archetypes studies or the phylosophy behind my own reading system.
The alternative seems to be it's treated like a fixed star or the nature of rulership is profoundly changed to accomodate it. The latter is what has happened in Modern Astrology. Also the meaning of 'Scorpio' has been changed to give it Pluto qualities. So in a real sense here we're in danger of pitting different meanings of rulership against each other.
I don't know how the meaning of Scorpio was changed, so may be you could add to my knowledge here. From what I've read, Scorpio is just presented more pleasantly today, I don't see him changed because of Pluto, I see him changed to be more "politically correct". In the past, the sign was just plain disaster. LOL If you insist, for yourself, to use dignities in natal charts, then yes, you'll have to come up with something for yourself to use the outers. But I don't use dignities for natals and I just accept the fact that all outers are in the chart and look at their aspects. I do, however, consider when they are in their IC, DC or MC.
Well' with the outers, in no case did Astrologers choose the names of these planets - Astronomers did.
Yes, the thing is that on many occasions we are not exactly sure who was what just because the Greeks, especially, were so many things together. And most of them were also philosophers, teachers, and in general, being well educated, meant being and doing many things.
Astrologers merely accepted them and then attached mythic meanings to explain their significance (up to that point myth played no role in astrological meanings). So you actually have a double coincidence in which it is Astronomers who correctly divine the true name of the planet and Astrologers meekly follow.
Good. Even better.
All I ask is that you recognise it's source is not Astrology but is Jungian Psychology, or at lease an attempt to see Astrology through Jungian eyes. That's not in itself a bad thing, new approaches can indeed shed new light but we need to be clear what their source is.
I am not denying the fact that modern astrology is psychological. But I see Jungian psychology in a slightly different way, I guess, and although I think Jung is extremely useful in terms of work with archetypes, I do not appreciate the overly phychological approach where the events and everyday life seem lost and people leave the astrologer with a vague feeling of their head being full with discussions about their own selves and little knowledge of what they wanted to know. Same story with Tarot. It's reaching such "psychological heights" that a simple question of will or will not turns into a metaphysical discussion.
Well any sign can be on the eighth cusp, in my case it's Pisces. The only things that Scorpio shares in common with the eighth is order (Scorpio is number 8 in the sign sequence) and medical, as mentioned previously - unless you change the meaning of Scorpio to make it more like Pluto and emphasise the link with death (and for some reason, sex).
Sorry, was this a trick question? We all know that in each chart the cusp of the 8th can be in different signs but the order of the signs does put Scorpio in the 8th. As about the meaning, why don't you just tell what was Scorpio meaning if not what it is today? Because from what I've read it's always being related to death (and more unpleasant things). By the way, Hades ruled death and WEALTH about which I'll write below.
Now again, one can do this as is obviously the case with Modern Astrology - but it leaves itself open not just to constant revision, as the orthodoxy changes, but also to personal revision and we end up with a myriad of different takes and therefore fruitless arguments over the 'real' meaning of Scorpio. This is also the problem with 'affinity' sign rulerships, someone, somewhere will argue that Charon rules Scorpio (being the boatman of the Styx) or even Chiron, preceding the other Centaur sign.
I'm not against revision. I'm afraid I may stop, at one point, revisioning and become stubborn when it comes to knowledge. And no, I can't see the boatman as a sign ruler just like none of the other signs has a driver for a ruler. As with Chiron, he already has a good role but he can not rule over a sign, IMHO. He needs to be here and there but not stuck anywhere.
That's a very eloquent personal statement, you may not like Jung anymore but his archytepes remain with you.
I haven't said I dislike him, I said I had too much of him. His archetypes remain with all of us, that's the point.
The tradition places Ares as the ruler of Scorpio not for any martial reasons, but because it is a nocturnal planet and through Valens, a watery planet.
This doesn't mean anything to me. Again, they didn't know about the existence of other planets and I can't guess what the system would have been if they knew.
Myth is the undoing of the link with Scorpio, even though myth never created that link.
Well, it depends on what you believe in. As I said, to me coincidence does not exist and if the planets were given these precise names and if I strangely find these planets carrying and playing out the characteristics of the gods whose names they got, then I do see a link, a big one. But I do agree Ares can not have a link with Scorpio, yes. In fact, myth does have a link not only with Scorpio but with all signs simply because they are ruled by mythological deities not by Lily and Rose, for example. They could have used other archetypes. They could have used nature powers. But they didn't.
You see Ares simply as a war god and search mythology for a reason why he should rule Scorpio and find none. But his planet became the ruler of Scorpio not for any mythic reason. You have given good reasons why you see things as you do, all I ask is that you recognise those reasons are not 'astrological' but 'psychological' or at least 'mythic'.
But I said this is the way I see it because it works for me. It allows me to see the archetypes or myth in people and starngely, it helps me see charts more clearly, even events sometimes. And again, why didn't they choose "Storm" to rule a sign. Or "Waterfall". Or "Rain"? You know what I mean? There is a reason why the Gods are there.
There's no reason why myths cannot be helpful in understanding the world around us - that's largely why they exist and of course they do mold the culture of each age (oddly we use ancient ones?) but Astrology was not meant to be a branch of mythology.
You think the astrologers you're talking about were not influenced by their own culture? I'd be interested to know how you know that. Because I come from these lands (specifically where Ellada was). I have an idea how much mythology was influencing everyday life and education and all else, may be my idea is wrong or may be I met the wrong people to talk about this but I'd be glad to know how you think astrologers at the time avoided mythology although they accepted to work with planets named after their gods and how did they avoid being influenced by that fact. Why is the planet Venus responsible for love, pleasure, arts and wealth if she has nothing to do with Aphrodite? Why is Mercury responsible for communication, thought, etc. if he has nothing to do with Hermes?
Your Sun is not only in the Sign of Mars, it's in his Terms and Decan too. Yes your Mars in Cancer is in detriment, I think that possibly makes you prone to do impulsive things occasionally or take risks believing that things will work out (which they often do).
Yes, I know my Sun and Mars are in a close hug, that's why I say you see the Martial. But we all have Mars in our charts. But according to the ancients, he's not only in detriment but he'd also be in the 7th! So, he wouldn't rejoyce there.
Your Saturn does inject some requirement to plan, especially as it's in dignity. Saturn, in dignity can analyse well and has patience to plan, with Mars it has a Klingon overtone - revenge is a dish best served cold
Revenge is for the weak. To waste energy on revenge means to inject energy in the other person. This is an unfogivable waste for people who love themselves first and enough. The only thing I believe in is the power of creation which in different beliefs has different names, in Christianity is Love and no, not the hug/kiss everyday love but the love for life as it is, the love for creation.
Saturn is also the traditional planet of death - he carries the hour glass and scythe in medieval representations as old father time and of course ruling the skeleton by affinity, he is the perfect model for Terry Pratchett's 'Death'.
Now, this is another classical astrology failure for me. Saturn, the Roman Saturn, was a replica of Cronus, the titan, and carries a scythe because he castrated Uranus, his father, with it. He had absolutely nothing to do with death, he ruled over harvest (also associated with the scythe and beautifully reflected in the Lenormand Scythe card which carries exactly the same meanings.) In a while, due to the resemblance in sound and probably due to lazienss, the Romans added to Cronus Chronos - the god of time. Yes, he is Father Time and no, he hasn't anything to do with death either. Both though describe Capricorn nicely - the efforts, the discipline, the work, and the reward in time. Not sure how Capricorns think about castration though. LOL But considering each planet has negatives too, all given can be taken away too and here comes the other side of the scythe (castration, taking away, taking off).
So how and why this astrology decided that saturn rules death is a mystery to me. But because I can never see Saturn as ruler of death, it brings me back to the point where the classical chart and its rulers is missing things for me - death, for example. It's also missing the underworld and its treasures - Hades/Pluto. By the way the Greeks called him Pluton which means the rich (it's still called like that in my language) and indeed, Pluto can bring money and quite a lot, especially when combined with the ruler of the 2nd and/or Jupiter, I've noticed. The classical chart will also miss the power of the world waters and everything living in it. And, of course, Uranus as the limitless sky (Aquarius I think fits his ruler nicely considering the Aquarians I know).
P.S. You deny the link with myths but you do rely on the mythical image of Cronus and his illustration with scythe to defend Saturn's imaginative rulership over death...
I'm not asking you to change your views or saying that your views are wrong. You have strong personal reasons for holding them. I actually enjoy discussing things with you because you have usually thought things through well and make me think through things again - a bit like Dave. It's partly through your posts and his, that I'm revisiting the outers and seeing if I can fit them in to a traditional framework but for me that framework has to be myth free. It's a challenge but I'm beginning to feel my way there, slowly
Ah, no, I wouldn't change my views completely but I am open to always change whatever is outdated and seems not working anymore. I do enjoy the discussion too, unfortunately have little time and it's a lenghty discussion.
