Interpreting Natal Chart: What to give weight to?

Barleywine said:

In his surprisingly lucid astrological treatise, "The General Principles of Astrology," Aleister Crowley weighed in against throwing over the traditional rulerships but wanted a way to integrate the outer planets into the scheme without upsetting the symmetry. He proposed the concept of "superior governors" in the sense that they operate on some kind of a "higher octave" principle. Other than the usual suspects (Uranus for Aquarius, Neptune for Pisces and Pluto for Scorpio) I'm not entirely clear on his basis for "what goes where," but I know each sign had such a "governor." Although he seems to have decried the Theosophists, this certainly smacks of their spiritual imprint. I don't have much patience with "spiritual astrology" (I never could get through Alice Bailey) but if I can run down his basis I'll give it the "giggle test" (i.e. if it doesn't make me giggle I'll perhaps think there's a chance - however remote - that he might be onto something).

Click to expand...

I wasn't thinking of anything to do with signs. Something more along the lines of Neptune ruling scrying glasses or vague ideas, or Pluto ruling huge lottery wins (it needs to be associated with some good things).

As with all such rulerships there's bound to be disagreement but it allows the outers to be 'rulers' in some sense or other. The trouble with the idea is that whilst Uranus and Neptune are bona fide planets, Pluto is a dwarf, and if we allow one dwarf we have to allow the other six (well actually there are only five other dwarfs at the moment but I'm sure another will be added soon). Then there's asteroids and other bodies, so perhaps my idea was a bad one to start with (though that in iteself may justify my Neptune affinity rulership of vague ideas)

Minderwiz said:

Why do you think it's called Venereal disease? It's contracted through doing Venus acts, not martial ones. Venus rules pleasure and pleasurable pursuits. It also rules children which are the product of a particular Venus activity. There's a difference between sexual organs and sexual union.

I realise Modern Astrology sees Sex very much in the same way the medieval church did - an original sin and connected with death. Astrology used to see it as a pleasurable act for the begetting of children and an act of love and companionship.

Click to expand...

I didnt say that Venus has no relation with sex. I said that it's not only Venus.

It's not medieval church approaching the connection of the sexuality and death, but freudian. Sigmud Freud, Scorpio Ascendant...

I am not a theosophist, even if i accept many of their ideas, but i find D.Khuls Esoteric Asrtology one of the most amazing books of all time and i dont care if Dwahl Kuhl and White Brotherhood exist or not. When i studied that book i felt that these words and writings don't emanate from a human brain. I have studied so many astrological books, traditional or modern, but the writer of Esoteric Astrology and all these books, for example Treatise on Cosmic Fire, are products of a high genious mind, not a human mind.

MasterJm said:

I didnt say that Venus has no relation with sex. I said that it's not only Venus.

Click to expand...

And I made a clear distinction between sexual union and sexual organs. I'm trying to get you to realise that affinity rulership is never clear cut or absolute. It depends very much on context and purpose. Rape might well be considered a martial act. It involves the sexual organs but it has not link to a loving sexual union whatsoever. Seeing that difference enables us to mover from a mechanistic view, to one where we can add subtleties and dimension to our readings.

MasterJm said:

It's not medieval church approaching the connection of the sexuality and death, but freudian. Sigmud Freud, Scorpio Ascendant...

Click to expand...

Oh dear. I didn't say that Sigmund Freud didn't make that connection. He wasn't the first one to do it though. Have a read of the Confessions of St Augustine and you'll find a view that fits with a lot of what modern Astrology peddles - sexual desire as a disordered compulsion an almost irrational impulse that needs to be controlled or it ends in corruption. and what we would term 'anti-social behaviour.' Unlike Freud he argued that controlling the Compulsion required God's help. Freud argued that controlling the compulsion required psychoanalysis. You will be pleased to know that St Augustine was born in mid November.

Minderwiz said:

I wasn't thinking of anything to do with signs. Something more along the lines of Neptune ruling scrying glasses or vague ideas, or Pluto ruling huge lottery wins (it needs to be associated with some good things).

Click to expand...

OK, now I get you. Regardless of "The Rulership Book" and its ilk, I never thought of these associations as "rulerships," just as observational or anectdotal correspondences, some with uncertain pedigree. I wouldn't doubt that some of them are entirely anecdotal (if not fanciful). I don't know that we really need to correlate everything in the known universe to one sign and planet or another, unless there is a practical reason for doing so. But I'm not immune to playing the game. Someone with a dreadful Mars transit might die in an accident; if Uranus is adversely involved he could be electrocuted. Or I might not want to buy a television with transiting Mercury retrograde and square Uranus. I've been having a conversation with an elderly astrologer friend about Neptune. My brother jokes with her that her close 2nd House Mercury-Neptune conjunction in Leo makes her wooly-headed and impractical, but I tell her maybe it just makes her an intuitive investor - and proud of it . Modern ideas and inventions will seep into the canon of astrology whether we like it or not, and we can use them or not according to our persuasion. I suppose modern astrologers have Rex Bills to thank (or blame?) for promoting this explosion of minutiae (although astrologers - especially horary and medical astrologers - have been at it forever, with varying dgerees of success). At least he had the good grace to highlight tentative assignments with parentheses. (Full disclosure: I do refer to this book when necessary and find value in it.)

Come on people, almost the whole astrological community in that world uses Pluto as Scorpions ruler. We don't live in Middle Age. I don't know anyone Scorpio who acts like Aries. They are the most introversive, deep and patient people i have met in my life.

MasterJm said:

Come on people, almost the whole astrological community in that world uses Pluto as Scorpions ruler. We don't live in Middle Age. I don't know anyone Scorpio who acts like Aries. They are the most introversive, deep and patient people i have met in my life.

Click to expand...

Well for a start almost the entire Jyotish community uses Mars as the ruler of Scorpio and they by far outnumber those practicing Western Astrology (from which Jyotish gets its rulership system)

Secondly why should Mars ruling Scorpio entail Aries people acting like Scorpio people? Do Gemini people behave exactly like Virgos or Taurus people behave exactly like Libra people?

The system of Astrological rulerships that was set up by the inventors of horoscopic Astrology has nothing to do with affinity.

That's why I posed certain questions to you about rulerships.

Now there's a growing minority of Western Astrologers who are moving back to the original rulers. Many of them still use the outers, they just don't use them as rulers.

MasterJm said:

Come on people, almost the whole astrological community in that world uses Pluto as Scorpions ruler. We don't live in Middle Age. I don't know anyone Scorpio who acts like Aries. They are the most introversive, deep and patient people i have met in my life.

Click to expand...

Entirely true during the last half of the last century. But there was a fork in the road. One of the premier astrologers of that period was Rob Hand, a confirmed modernist and compelling writer on "psychological" astrology. Sometime in the 1990s he had a "traditional epiphany" and walked away from his previous convictions. A number of other highly capable astrologers have since followed his lead (although some may have actually been there before him). Many of the pre-New-Age astrological standard-bearers were also "on the fence" about the role of the outer planets. The gist of it is that anything beyond the original seven planets is unnecessary to have a fully-functional, internally-consistent system. Not to say we can't add the rest to whatever extent we're comfortable with, but they aren't vital to the working, especially for those who aren't into the Jungian approach.

Regarding Mars, perhaps some light is shed on the Scorpio connection by the fact that Scorpio is considered its "night house."

Barleywine said:

Regarding Mars, perhaps some light is shed on the Scorpio connection by the fact that Scorpio is considered its "night house"

Click to expand...

Indeed! Mars was seen as a nocturnal planet, so Scorpio Is actually its preferred domicile

Hand's change to a traditional approach was probably a tipping point, especially when he set up Project Hindsight with Robert Zoller and Robert Schmidt. Although they later split, Hand set up ARHAT (Archive for the Retrieval of Historical Astrological Texts).

Barleywine said:

In his surprisingly lucid astrological treatise, "The General Principles of Astrology," Aleister Crowley weighed in against throwing over the traditional rulerships but wanted a way to integrate the outer planets into the scheme without upsetting the symmetry. He proposed the concept of "superior governors" in the sense that they operate on some kind of a "higher octave" principle. Other than the usual suspects (Uranus for Aquarius, Neptune for Pisces and Pluto for Scorpio) I'm not entirely clear on his basis for "what goes where," but I know each sign had such a "governor." Although he seems to have decried the Theosophists, this certainly smacks of their spiritual imprint. I don't have much patience with "spiritual astrology" (I never could get through Alice Bailey) but if I can run down his basis I'll give it the "giggle test" (i.e. if it doesn't make me giggle I'll perhaps think there's a chance - however remote - that he might be onto something).

Click to expand...

But what happens when the (thought of) the giggle test gives one the giggles?