The Outer Planets

I must admit to being a little confused here (quite easily done LOL)

I think Sue's point is that experiential information such as

Dadsnook2000 said:

we do have to recognize the work of many astrologers and the work of Richard Tarnas in particular, in documenting the congruence of outer planet cycle-pairings with recorded history up until the current decade in which the general meanings of the outer planets (as understood and used by most astrologers) fit quite nicely and completely with social, financial, military, political, medical cycles of peak activity.

Click to expand...

Is not evidence for any Astrological properties of Uranus (or the other outer planets) simply because the properties assigned to them by modern Astrologers have already been assigned to either other planets or other Astrological phemomena. That assignation being based on the first principles of Astrology. One of the first fallacies that students of statistics are warned about is the fallacy of causation - correlation does not prove cause. Whether or not the outer planets are associated with particular historical events - and there's no evidence presented that they are - does not prove that they have Astrological properties.

In modern science (as opposed to Astrology) the issue of correlation might be approached through looking at temporal sequence - causes come before effects In Astrology we might argue the issue of 'causal' links anyway and that's really another matter. My point is that Association is not evidence of Astrological properties and my guess is that Richard Tarnas (who you dignify as an Astrologer) and others, did not look for alternative Astrological symbolism, nor have the understanding of traditional Astrological symbolism to recognise it, when they see it.

If you are going to question first principles then you need to address that issue directly: A first principle is a starting proposition which cannot be deduced from any other:

Cogito ergo sum - is a first principle
A thing cannot have a property and not have it at the same time is a first principle
A straight line is the shortest distance between two points is a first principle.

None of those are first principles of Astrology but Astrology too has first principles. To question them is possible but you need to state what they are and what you are substituting in their place.

As Sue says that's a difficult question. The issue is how does an Astrological body gain meaning and is it possible to transfer meaning from one body or phenomenon to another. To take the example Sue gives, on what basis can you transfer the meaning of suddenness from mutual application to the planet Uranus? Mutual application is a clear symbol of suddenness, Uranus isn't, so what's the process - from first principles?

Trying to get started on first principles

Quoted; "One of the first fallacies that students of statistics are warned about is the fallacy of causation - correlation does not prove cause. Whether or not the outer planets are associated with particular historical events - and there's no evidence presented that they are - does not prove that they have Astrological properties."

** I have not put forward any words that claim causation of events or situations by planets. I did however note that there is extensive research and documentation that relates, through a congruence of time, observed trends and changes in all areas of human activity such that the assigned meanings of the planets involved in pair-cycles match the observations of historians and others.

However, we cannot as astrologers discount the matching of commonly used planet meanings or influences with observed events. Events up there are aligned with events down here. We can discuss sources, reasons, or areas of caution, but I think that it is necessary and productive to acknowledge that there appears to be some form of parallelism involved, even if we can't explain it. If we can't start with that, we can't start. Dave

EDITED TO ADD: By the above, I mean, "If we can't see parallel happenings then we arn't astrologers or interested in astrology." Dave

dadsnook2000 said:

Quoted; "One of the first fallacies that students of statistics are warned about is the fallacy of causation - correlation does not prove cause. Whether or not the outer planets are associated with particular historical events - and there's no evidence presented that they are - does not prove that they have Astrological properties."

** I have not put forward any words that claim causation of events or situations by planets.

<snip>

EDITED TO ADD: By the above, I mean, "If we can't see parallel happenings then we arn't astrologers or interested in astrology." Dave

Click to expand...

You've misunderstood: "...causation *=* correlation..."

Perhaps we're not explaining 'first principles' very well. The following is an example of Minderwiz's point and which has vast astrological import:

"In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth".

Here's another way of looking at it: yesterday Uranus was discovered, what do we do with it? There are no books to read (because they haven't been written yet), no lectures to attend and no blogs to make you go cross-eyed.

If it makes it any easier for you, as previously mentioned, let's ignore for now the question of whether or not this brand new planet should be included in the astrological system and move on to how we should treat it.

Hi Dave, I didn't say you did ascribe causation here. If you read on you would see:

Minderwiz said:

In modern science (as opposed to Astrology) the issue of correlation might be approached through looking at temporal sequence - causes come before effects In Astrology we might argue the issue of 'causal' links anyway and that's really another matter.

Click to expand...

Correlation shows statistical association but nothing more. There's a statistical correlation between the 6 o'clock news on TV and me having my dinner but the two events are not linked together in any direct sense or indeed meaningful sense.

Dadsnook2000 said:

However, we cannot as astrologers discount the matching of commonly used planet meanings or influences with observed events.

Click to expand...

Well commonly used 'planet meanings and influences', is not the same as 'planets' and you refer to planet 'meanings and influences' in a way that clearly implies such 'meanings and influences' have been established. In essence you are saying that planet meanings and influences have been established because they are associated with planet meanings and influences (as 'commonly accepted') - there is no possiblity here for the possibility that such 'commonly accepted planet meanings and influences' are actually due to something else. The question here is what is the basis on which those 'commonly accepted planet meanings and influences' have come to be accepted.

You have advanced two possible reasons - firstly that they are 'commonly accepted (by modern Astrologers) because they are based on myths (and archetypes?). The second reason is that:

Dadsnook2000 said:

there is extensive research and documentation that relates, through a congruence of time, observed trends and changes in all areas of human activity such that the assigned meanings of the planets involved in pair-cycles match the observations of historians and others.

Click to expand...

Now I'm not at all sure what you are saying here. Who 'assigns meaning' and on what basis do we accept that 'assigned meaning' as valid. Perhaps more importantly, 'what are the observations of historians and others'?

Take say the storming of the Bastille in 1789. What is an 'observation' here? Is it simply a record of the event taking place on July 14th? Or is it something much stronger - an attempt to explain why the Bastille was stormed?

Now if it's the latter we have a further issue. Not only are we dealing with the outer planet's 'commonly assigned meanings and influences' but we're also into the realm of which of the various interpretations of history do we choose?

If we take a period, such as 1770 to 1870. What are the characteristics of such a period? Now as soon as we begin to look, we will see all sorts of events and characteristics, and ones which vary from country to country. We might pick characteristics which we think are more important but in so doing we are making value judgements, not making statements of objective fact. A historian would also point out that no period can be seen in isolation and that the roots of events in the period 1770 to 1870 may well lie in ideas and philosophies that predate the period by over 100 years or more.

Life may well be a series of value judgements and I'm not here arguing against that process. What I'm arguing is that we should be aware of what we are doing. It's difficult at the best of times trying to 'test' something like the Jupiter/Saturn cycle against historical 'events' and 'trends', and we're dealing with a cycle that has been accepted for over a thousand years as one that is valid based on the 'meanings and influences' of those planets deduced from first principles. To what extent has the 'research and documentation' you referred to looked at the Jupiter/Saturn cycle as an alternative descriptor of the 'observations of historians and others'


We're back to the question that Sue raised - can we point to first principles of Astrology that lead us to deduce the 'meanings and influences' of the outer planets She argues we can't, I'm simply asking if we can

And . . .

And I am saying that I can't even get started on this discussion without first seeing that we all acknowledge that human affairs of all types seem to go through cycles and that those cycles seem to correlate with planet-pair cycles. As an extension of that thought, generally used meaning or deliniations of the planets involved in those cycle pairings seen to correlate with the historical records of events at that time.

We are speaking of generalities here in terms of meanings. We are speaking of specific points in time when conjunctions occur in those planet-pair cycles. And we are speaking that the general sense of those commonly accepted meanings concur with the historical events and happenings.

I say, that as astrologers, we have to recognize this parallel phenomena. Then we can decide on following specifics ---- or not. So, again, are we astrologers? Do we recognize that these parallels between cycles, events and the consistency of core interpretive meanings exist? If we can't agree on this, I don't see how I can proceed. Dave

OK.

So... yesterday Uranus was discovered, what do we do with it? There are no books to read (because they haven't been written yet), no lectures to attend and no blogs to make you go cross-eyed.

If it makes it any easier, as previously mentioned, let's ignore for now the question of whether or not this brand new planet should be included in the astrological system and move on to how we should treat it.

And it would be nice for me anyway to hear the opinions of other members.

We are talking past each other.

I'm asking if we can agree that:
1) Cycles are part of both the universe and the human experience.
2) Astrological or astronomical cycles can be defined as starting with a visual or direct conjunction is space as seen from Earth.
3) Using commonly employed core meanings for planets, astrologers can define planet-pair cycle-beginnings for a variety of human perspectives.
4) Recorded history and the writings of many show that various human enterprises and deeds correlated with those planetary-pair cycle points.
5) There is some form of "parallelism" between what goes on in the sky, in this regard, and what goes on in our lives and history.

Sue is asking how we start out to assign a meaning to a planet, a new planet, or to review its meaning if it has one. That is another subject. Again, I ask, can we acknowledge that we have commonly OBSERVED phenomena in the sky that correlate with phenomena here on earth, by people, that is addressed by astrological interpretive meanings?

I'm not saying those meanings have one true source or many sources, that they are right or partially right or even wrong. I'm just asking, do you know and believe that there is a parallel between up there and down here when viewed through an astrological lens. We can talk about the truth or the reliability or the reasons for what we see, later. Just, do we see it?

If we see it, then we have to recognize that observation of the sky and of the people around us may be one path to understanding. Dave

dadsnook2000 said:

ISue is asking how we start out to assign a meaning to a planet, a new planet, or to review its meaning if it has one. That is another subject.

Click to expand...

Well no it isn't another subject. I started the thread to see if we could determine any meaning for the outer planets:

Minderwiz said:

There's little doubt that most trained Astrologers believe that the outers are correctly delineated - but then as virtually all Astrology courses teach those delineations, that's not surprising. So has the time come to start a proper debate on the value of the outers?

Click to expand...

Now you seem to be saying that their meaning has been established, both Sue and I are saying that that meaning has not adequately been established, which questions their value. Now, at a personal level I'm perfectly willing to accept that the outers MAY have value and have said so several times in this thread. You seem to miss the point that just because something is 'commonly' used does not make it so. I'm looking for more than simply assertion.

The point that Sue is making is also fully valid even in temrs of your own posts

Dadsnook2000 said:

So, what do we do with Eris and Makemake, and with Pluto and Ceres who are both now minor planets? What do we do with the many cosmic points and phenomena that Phillip Sedgwick has identified and positional located---he has given meanings to dark stars, black holes, pulsars, etc.

Click to expand...

Sue Ward said:

So... yesterday Uranus was discovered, what do we do with it? There are no books to read (because they haven't been written yet), no lectures to attend and no blogs to make you go cross-eyed.

If it makes it any easier, as previously mentioned, let's ignore for now the question of whether or not this brand new planet should be included in the astrological system and move on to how we should treat it.

Click to expand...

Those seem very similar questions in terms of how we progress this thread.

Dadsnook2000 said:

I'm asking if we can agree that:
1) Cycles are part of both the universe and the human experience.
2) Astrological or astronomical cycles can be defined as starting with a visual or direct conjunction is space as seen from Earth.
3) Using commonly employed core meanings for planets, astrologers can define planet-pair cycle-beginnings for a variety of human perspectives.
4) Recorded history and the writings of many show that various human enterprises and deeds correlated with those planetary-pair cycle points.
5) There is some form of "parallelism" between what goes on in the sky, in this regard, and what goes on in our lives and history.

Click to expand...

1 Yes
2 Yes (I fully agree with your use of the word 'visual' which clearly implies that light is at the heart of the issue (but is not the only thing at that heart)
3. Yes BUT there is clearly an issue raised about the 'commonly employed core meanings', which I'm not sure you understand. So perhaps it might be better to ask you how you could possibly do this for Makemake?
4 This is obscure - your asking us to assent to a vague entity the 'writings of many' Who are these people? Lots of people on this forum believe in a Sun sign approach, perhaps the large majority. Both you and I do not. Should we accept the 'many' on this point? They can point to all sorts of Astrology texts for this, they may well be able to cite Richard Tarnas on this but should we accept that they are right?
5 Yes

I think we're not going to get far talking about the outers, for you, they are beyond question. So let's rephrase Sue's question.

So... Makemake has been discovered, what do we do with it? There are no books to read (because they haven't been written yet), no lectures to attend and no blogs to make you go cross-eyed.

If it makes it any easier, as previously mentioned, let's ignore for now the question of whether or not this brand new planet should be included in the astrological system and move on to how we should treat it.

And I too would love to hear the views from other members. Makemake, unlike Uranus has no baggage - I don't know what it means, if anything and I think Sue would be in the same boat. What we are looking at is how we go about assigning meaning to this body.

Minderwiz posted while I was writing this.... so apologies if I've repeated or missed things.

I can see what you're saying about cycles Dave, some time ago I came across a very interesting correlation between the cycle of Mercury and the Suns magnetic fields. However, as this thread is about the outer planets, I think Sue has a valid point - how should Uranus (or Neptune) be assessed for inclusion into astrology, minus the 'recent' psychological input of the the last century?

The only thing I could think of was some sort of experiment/test that would give an actual 'phyical' result. But even if we got one (depending on the factors used in the 'testing'), how might it be translated into the astrological framework? Clearly, there is much more to consider than an event-correlation which already has an astrological configuration with the early planets.


Bee


eta: This would be a bit like discovering a 'new' colour, how would we fit it into the known spectrum...... plus, what differences would it introduce?

No need to apologise Bee, Sue and I both posted at the same time earlier on, so what seems a double barrel blast was pure coincidence (or should I say synchronicity)