Bernice
So let's go back to the earlist known ideas about 'astrology'. How did those ancients approach a correlation of the celestial bodies with 'life on earth'? Does anyone know?
I wondered about alchemy..... but think that's too recent......
Bee
The Outer Planets
I wondered about alchemy..... but think that's too recent......
Bee
dadsnook2000
The "square one" stuff
Recorded history makes it very plain that ancient societies, especially those that advised the King and sought secondary influence thru him, watched the rising at sunset of:
1) The primary stars as these marked the days set for holidays, feasts, and memorials of past kings and wars.
2) The first appearance of the new Moon.
They also took great notice of eclipses, both Solar and Lunar.
As time passed and their records increased concerning prior years and centuries someone must have noted parallels between past and present events and the near-timing of certain types of experiences.
A King who was born with Mars rising on that day's evening was always angry and made war often. A more recent King, or the present King, also born when mars was rising, was also war-like. Ergo, a presumption is born.
What else than simple observation of primary occurrences in the sky with the primary events in ones life or in the King's life? That leads you to your answer, about how one might determine from scratch how a planet affects one, if it does. You observe the primary characteristics of people born with a planet on the Ascendant or conjunct the Sun.
And, this is my point that I have been so persistent about. Observation is one of the ways of determining if there is any influence or link between us and the sky. If there is, there is little sense in starting the discussion if one wishes to ignore thousands and hundreds of years of observations that say that there is something.
There is no need to prove anything from scratch for may astrological bodies, one can make a case for refining observations for long-known bodies. For the new stuff, we have to start from scratch. But, we do have to acknowledge that cycles and human events do run in parallel and are defined to a greater or lesser extent by generally accepted observational views that have been passed down to us. Dave
Recorded history makes it very plain that ancient societies, especially those that advised the King and sought secondary influence thru him, watched the rising at sunset of:
1) The primary stars as these marked the days set for holidays, feasts, and memorials of past kings and wars.
2) The first appearance of the new Moon.
They also took great notice of eclipses, both Solar and Lunar.
As time passed and their records increased concerning prior years and centuries someone must have noted parallels between past and present events and the near-timing of certain types of experiences.
A King who was born with Mars rising on that day's evening was always angry and made war often. A more recent King, or the present King, also born when mars was rising, was also war-like. Ergo, a presumption is born.
What else than simple observation of primary occurrences in the sky with the primary events in ones life or in the King's life? That leads you to your answer, about how one might determine from scratch how a planet affects one, if it does. You observe the primary characteristics of people born with a planet on the Ascendant or conjunct the Sun.
And, this is my point that I have been so persistent about. Observation is one of the ways of determining if there is any influence or link between us and the sky. If there is, there is little sense in starting the discussion if one wishes to ignore thousands and hundreds of years of observations that say that there is something.
There is no need to prove anything from scratch for may astrological bodies, one can make a case for refining observations for long-known bodies. For the new stuff, we have to start from scratch. But, we do have to acknowledge that cycles and human events do run in parallel and are defined to a greater or lesser extent by generally accepted observational views that have been passed down to us. Dave
Sue Ward
Bernice said:So let's go back to the earlist known ideas about 'astrology'. How did those ancients approach a correlation of the celestial bodies with 'life on earth'? Does anyone know?
I wondered about alchemy..... but think that's too recent......
Bee
Without going into the meaning of "earliest", I'm not sure that anyone can do much more than speculate. The reason I say this is that we have no way of understanding the world view of the time, not really, and this is a perennial problem. I do understand your question because it's one that I've asked of myself. It was the reason that I looked at Genesis I and it is the reason that I quoted the first line in an earlier post. (I have made available my perspective of it.)
One point that becomes absolutely clear, or it did to me at least, is that astrology speaks of the system of correspondences. This system has to be grasped root and branch for a full appreciation of what it means, because it explains how astrology works. Indeed, it is the philosophy of astrology. It was through these means that they discovered what you refer to as "correlations". "As above, so below".
The first principles of astrology are to be found in Genesis I and the story of Creation which lead inexorably to the system of correspondences.
Alchemy: I don't know enough about its history to say whether it is "recent" or not, but it didn't spring out of nowhere in the Middle Ages. However, your mention of metal salts and colour begs for, shall we say, an alchemical approach. Based on my studies of these matters, such as they are, my opinion is that Mars can be proved in the same way that red can be. This may be a bit of a stretch for some, but it is simply a matter of study - almost.
The points you've brought up are fascinating and huge and can't be dealt with adequately in this way. They are subjects for lengthy study and deep consideration, contemplation even. Sorry, but that's the answer to all of astrology's secrets - hard work!
Sue Ward
I forgot to mention that when my computer is mended, I'll look up what I have on the 17th century's "Stella Nova", unless someone else has it?
Minderwiz
dadsnook2000 said:
Well you're making a lot of very big assumptions there. You are assuming that you have a clear view of the rationale and indeed the weltanschauung of societies who have left very little recorded history (in terms of survival to the present day).
We do know they carried out those observations but we have no clear idea of the full reasons why, though obviously we can speculate. Your explanation is purely calenderical and assumes no religious or divinatory reasons for these observations. Can you be categorically sure that they did not carry out these functions because they were looking for omens - messages from the gods. Indeed holidays and feasts had a religious significance right up to the nineteenth century and still do have for many cultures. Do you not think that it might be possible that meanings already attached to these planets, coming from the dawn of humanity. There's plenty of evidence of familiarity with certain planets way back into cave dwelling times (witnessed by cave paintings). Can you really be so sure that it was not till the arrival of civilised mankind that planets acquired meanings from systematic observation. Might it not be that systematic observation occurred in such societies because the planets already had meanings?
Now I don't know the answer to that and neither does anyone else. We can speculate and build theories but the most likely is that by the time of recorded history the meanings were at least well on the way to being established. How those meanings were established, we have little or no way of knowing.
Incidentally. if observation has now become so important, then you must agree that the assignation of meanings to the outer planets was erroneous, as those meanings were not in anyway based on observation, or at least any published evidence. A much better strategy would be to wait and observe, maybe several cycles of each planet first, but then I seem to remember I made that point much earlier in the discussion.
dadsnook2000
Observation?
"Incidentally. if observation has now become so important, then you must agree that the assignation of meanings to the outer planets was erroneous, as those meanings were not in anyway based on observation, or at least any published evidence."
This is an overly narrow view of what "observation" can be. We don't have to see something, in this day and age, to be able to observe it.
One can view any number of charts, present to old to historical, to observe how one planet conjunct a subject's Sun or Ascendant might produce a similar characteristic in several people having the same combination. Similarities in those subjects would provide a starting point which could be refined with additional examples. This is how one could start from scratch in determining what a planet might mean in terms of correlation of some sort between the "above and below" that we talk about.
Or, one could take the approach of Phillip Sedgwick with his current work on finding possible meanings of correlation between the positions of Eris and Makemake and various charts. He uses positions of discover, relationships to currently aspected planets, and specific orbital characteristics such as nodes and closest point of orbit to the Sun relative to the sign meanings.
There are probably many ways to "observe" and to record possibilities, and to develop likely meanings of correlation.
We need to recognize that much work of this nature has already been done in both current time and in recent times. Out of that has come a "general consensus" --- or several varying consensus' which substantially overlap many of the other sets of views. We can start there, do our work, and then refine the views we want to adopt. Dave
"Incidentally. if observation has now become so important, then you must agree that the assignation of meanings to the outer planets was erroneous, as those meanings were not in anyway based on observation, or at least any published evidence."
This is an overly narrow view of what "observation" can be. We don't have to see something, in this day and age, to be able to observe it.
One can view any number of charts, present to old to historical, to observe how one planet conjunct a subject's Sun or Ascendant might produce a similar characteristic in several people having the same combination. Similarities in those subjects would provide a starting point which could be refined with additional examples. This is how one could start from scratch in determining what a planet might mean in terms of correlation of some sort between the "above and below" that we talk about.
Or, one could take the approach of Phillip Sedgwick with his current work on finding possible meanings of correlation between the positions of Eris and Makemake and various charts. He uses positions of discover, relationships to currently aspected planets, and specific orbital characteristics such as nodes and closest point of orbit to the Sun relative to the sign meanings.
There are probably many ways to "observe" and to record possibilities, and to develop likely meanings of correlation.
We need to recognize that much work of this nature has already been done in both current time and in recent times. Out of that has come a "general consensus" --- or several varying consensus' which substantially overlap many of the other sets of views. We can start there, do our work, and then refine the views we want to adopt. Dave
Minderwiz
An observation on obsrvations
Sorry Dave, I appear to have misunderstood you. When you said:
I thought you meant that meaning was coming from those observations,
I agree that observing charts is not qute the same thing (though near enough) and one might believe that meanings can be deduced in this way.
However I'd like you to point out the work done in the second half of the nineteenth century which duplicates such an approach for Uranus and Neptune to deduce their meaning - done before any meaning was given to them.
Of course. as Leo observed Neptune in the crystal, perhaps it's meaning is indeed based on observation and my definition was much too narrow.
Sorry Dave, I appear to have misunderstood you. When you said:
Dadsnook2000 said:
I thought you meant that meaning was coming from those observations,
Dadsnook2000 said:
I agree that observing charts is not qute the same thing (though near enough) and one might believe that meanings can be deduced in this way.
However I'd like you to point out the work done in the second half of the nineteenth century which duplicates such an approach for Uranus and Neptune to deduce their meaning - done before any meaning was given to them.
Of course. as Leo observed Neptune in the crystal, perhaps it's meaning is indeed based on observation and my definition was much too narrow.
Minderwiz
Planetary meanings and observations - an alternative view
I think it behooves me to offer an alternative view of the original planets and their meanings. I do this because it might shed some light on the difficulty of ascribing meaning to new bodies.
No I don't want to ignore those 'thousands of hundreds of years' though as the records from the start of that period are a littles sparse, It is not easy to do other than speculate. What follows is a method based on observation but different in the direction of meaning. It's speculation but we have little else
What would be the likely first observations made by mankind about the heavens? Most likely the cycle of Day and Night. An object which we now call the Sun, appears to rise, in what we now call morning. It is huge, firy and provides the heat and light necessary for life. It sets at what we now call nightfall.
The second thing we notice is that in the absence of the Sun, many other bodies appear in the sky but one dominates - what we now call the Moon.
The Moon and Sun appear to 'dance' in the heavens. They have cycles (Yes Dave I agree cycles are very important) The Moon passes through different phases and appears in different places in the night sky. The Sun also has a phase relationship with Earth. At the season we now call Summer, it is hotter and in the sky longer. In the season we now call Winter, it is low in the sky, cooler and rises for shorter periods.
It is very likely that over the 'thousands of hundreds' of years meaning was sought for this dance and these objects that gave light and heat during the day and cold and darkness, (which might be illuminated by the sun's reflective rays) during the night. Mankind may well have inferred the existence of gods and divine purpose. Certainly well on in this period, perhaps the last 5% or 6% we have records of creation myths that focus on the Sun and Moon being placed in the sky by a creator, for a purpose. Meaning may have flowed from planets to belief systems, not based solely on events but on the need to make sense of the universe.
Other bodies joined this 'pantheon' well within the early part of this period. A second bright planet is seen and recognised. It certainly appears in cave paintings, so we know it is 'recorded' very early on. It is the third brightest object visible in the pre dawn morning or the evening after the sun has set - what we now call Venus. It too seems to have influenced the development of belief systems.
Other planets can be identified - a second bright one, which we now call Jupiter and two dimmer ones, Mars and Saturn. There is an argument that Bright = good, and Dim = bad, based presumably on the earlier view that light is good and darkness is bad. The two bright planets are benefic, the two dimmer ones are malefic. Again it is possible that they too influenced the creation of belief systems about why mankind existed. A fifth planet is also observed fleetingly in the morning and evening, never far from the Sun it's nature too would have been the cause of wonder and it too would have been incorporated into early belief systems.
How that specifically progressed we don't know but it is at least possible that myths came into existence as a result of that speculation, not, of course in one day or indeed in one century but evolving out of wonderment over millenia. Note that the meaning of myth comes from the planets, and their behaviour not the meaning of planets coming from the myths.
Such an evolution would begin to see the planets as either gods or the messengers of gods, their movements and their believed intrinsic nature carrying meaning for mankind. Observing the planet became important, not to find out what the planet meant, that was already known in general terms (or believed to be known). Observation was necessary to understand the message that was being delivered by a specific observation of the planet (or class of observations).
Now there may well have been a feedback loop here, with observations being recorded and 'correalated' in some cultures towards the end of this period. The process is not all one way but a set of 'commonly accepted meanings and influences' were largely there before the recordings began. Omen Astrology is part of an 'enchanted world' view but I agree that the recording and correlations may well have put us onto the road to 'disenchantment' and a change in the nature and understanding of Astrology.
Are we so far apart Dave? We both accept a process of observation but you appear to believe that original meaning can be derived from these observations alone. I tend to believe that observation, in the sense of seeing, stimulated speculation as to the meaning of the cosmos and led to a belief system in which the planets had a symbolic role. Yes cycles are important, none more so than that of Sun/Earth and Sun/Moon but it is clear by Plato's account in the Timaeus that other cycles of Conjunction and Opposition were by then (late forth century BCE) a common feature of Astrology.
So returning to the topic - how do we attribute meaning to a new body - seeing you've mentioned Phillip Sedgwick allot perhaps you'd like to explain in detail how meaning can be established for Makemake, using his methods.
I think it behooves me to offer an alternative view of the original planets and their meanings. I do this because it might shed some light on the difficulty of ascribing meaning to new bodies.
Dadsnook2000 said:
No I don't want to ignore those 'thousands of hundreds of years' though as the records from the start of that period are a littles sparse, It is not easy to do other than speculate. What follows is a method based on observation but different in the direction of meaning. It's speculation but we have little else
What would be the likely first observations made by mankind about the heavens? Most likely the cycle of Day and Night. An object which we now call the Sun, appears to rise, in what we now call morning. It is huge, firy and provides the heat and light necessary for life. It sets at what we now call nightfall.
The second thing we notice is that in the absence of the Sun, many other bodies appear in the sky but one dominates - what we now call the Moon.
The Moon and Sun appear to 'dance' in the heavens. They have cycles (Yes Dave I agree cycles are very important) The Moon passes through different phases and appears in different places in the night sky. The Sun also has a phase relationship with Earth. At the season we now call Summer, it is hotter and in the sky longer. In the season we now call Winter, it is low in the sky, cooler and rises for shorter periods.
It is very likely that over the 'thousands of hundreds' of years meaning was sought for this dance and these objects that gave light and heat during the day and cold and darkness, (which might be illuminated by the sun's reflective rays) during the night. Mankind may well have inferred the existence of gods and divine purpose. Certainly well on in this period, perhaps the last 5% or 6% we have records of creation myths that focus on the Sun and Moon being placed in the sky by a creator, for a purpose. Meaning may have flowed from planets to belief systems, not based solely on events but on the need to make sense of the universe.
Other bodies joined this 'pantheon' well within the early part of this period. A second bright planet is seen and recognised. It certainly appears in cave paintings, so we know it is 'recorded' very early on. It is the third brightest object visible in the pre dawn morning or the evening after the sun has set - what we now call Venus. It too seems to have influenced the development of belief systems.
Other planets can be identified - a second bright one, which we now call Jupiter and two dimmer ones, Mars and Saturn. There is an argument that Bright = good, and Dim = bad, based presumably on the earlier view that light is good and darkness is bad. The two bright planets are benefic, the two dimmer ones are malefic. Again it is possible that they too influenced the creation of belief systems about why mankind existed. A fifth planet is also observed fleetingly in the morning and evening, never far from the Sun it's nature too would have been the cause of wonder and it too would have been incorporated into early belief systems.
How that specifically progressed we don't know but it is at least possible that myths came into existence as a result of that speculation, not, of course in one day or indeed in one century but evolving out of wonderment over millenia. Note that the meaning of myth comes from the planets, and their behaviour not the meaning of planets coming from the myths.
Such an evolution would begin to see the planets as either gods or the messengers of gods, their movements and their believed intrinsic nature carrying meaning for mankind. Observing the planet became important, not to find out what the planet meant, that was already known in general terms (or believed to be known). Observation was necessary to understand the message that was being delivered by a specific observation of the planet (or class of observations).
Now there may well have been a feedback loop here, with observations being recorded and 'correalated' in some cultures towards the end of this period. The process is not all one way but a set of 'commonly accepted meanings and influences' were largely there before the recordings began. Omen Astrology is part of an 'enchanted world' view but I agree that the recording and correlations may well have put us onto the road to 'disenchantment' and a change in the nature and understanding of Astrology.
Are we so far apart Dave? We both accept a process of observation but you appear to believe that original meaning can be derived from these observations alone. I tend to believe that observation, in the sense of seeing, stimulated speculation as to the meaning of the cosmos and led to a belief system in which the planets had a symbolic role. Yes cycles are important, none more so than that of Sun/Earth and Sun/Moon but it is clear by Plato's account in the Timaeus that other cycles of Conjunction and Opposition were by then (late forth century BCE) a common feature of Astrology.
So returning to the topic - how do we attribute meaning to a new body - seeing you've mentioned Phillip Sedgwick allot perhaps you'd like to explain in detail how meaning can be established for Makemake, using his methods.
Bernice
Myths being derived from the planets!
I hadn't considered this viewpoint, but it makes as much sense (if not more) as vice-versa.
It is quite possible that those early people decided that natural occurances - and disasters - were due to the moods & characteristics of the 'planet-gods'. Now wondering if there were any Earthly gods (earthquake, volcano, flooding, harvest etc.) whose 'character' was not assigned to a planet-god? If so, could these be the 'gods' that the outer planets might be assigned to?
Just thinking out loud......
Bee
I hadn't considered this viewpoint, but it makes as much sense (if not more) as vice-versa.
It is quite possible that those early people decided that natural occurances - and disasters - were due to the moods & characteristics of the 'planet-gods'. Now wondering if there were any Earthly gods (earthquake, volcano, flooding, harvest etc.) whose 'character' was not assigned to a planet-god? If so, could these be the 'gods' that the outer planets might be assigned to?
Just thinking out loud......
Bee
Sue Ward
If I may, I'd like to add to Minderwiz's last post with which I agree.
It isn't correct to advertise on this forum and really I am not, but having done this work already, I don't want to have to report it here in detail. This work can be found on my web site as a video presentation and a transcript and it relies on using Genesis I as a first principle. It then describes how the astrological system parallels the story of Creation. I do not pretend that this is the only way of looking at it, but certainly it explained a great deal to me as to the origins of the system. Neither does it rely on a 'religious' perspective or even a belief in a monotheistic God. It is from this that my following comments are made, but it requires that we take the view that Creation had a Creator because that is indeed how it came to be seen even if it didn't begin that way.
What ancient peoples had which we lack is an awareness of Nature. We don't have the same awe or fear until something dreadful happens, we are sheltered from that.
Nature is Creation of which we all form a part, and it is the Daughter of the Creator thus it is in Its image. Astrology is an image of Creation, thus is also an image of the Creator. Astrology is also part of Nature and so serves a dual purpose in our Universe: it represents what it is a part of. From careful observation we and they can and could *divine* the Will of God, or God's Word.
Taking Nature as our correspondence for a moment, everything within Creation corresponds to Nature - and vice versa. Nature, for it to survive, relies on fertility to grow and expand, this is true in the agricultural sense as it is in the human sense. Fertility = progress and survival. But it is a delicate balance as we are beginning to learn. Too much fertility is as dangerous to survival as is barrenness. It is from this point that benefics and malefics are delineated: from their capacity for fertility or barrenness, both malefics are excessively dry. The balance is between moderation and excess.
It is from this *first principle* that all else is derived and extrapolated and this is clearly dealt with in Genesis I. Creation occurs through division (and to my uneducated mind appears to describe cellular division), each occurring as a result of God's Word. Almost first on the list is the creation of Light which is then divided from the Darkness and was named as Day and Night. This is a *first principle* in astrology.
I'm not going to continue with this line of argument, but hope that it explains why I continue to suggest that any delineation of a new heavenly body (and any chart for that matter) must begin with first principles. This isn't because I'm a Traditional astrologer, it's because it is the essence of Nature. If we can't decide whether, say, Uranus is diurnal or nocturnal, masculine or feminine based upon these principles (the planetary natures), then we aren't going to get further than personal opinion.
I should also say that the symbolism attributed to the new planets is substantially the same as that of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. You might think that this is a good thing, and I suppose that it would be, if it weren't for the fact that originally Leo makes it very clear that it wasn't to be used outside of Theosophy. That it was an astrological view meant only to explain or underpin Theosophical beliefs was soon jettisoned and it was applied throughout. That it didn't work was apparent to them, but the published opinion was that later astrologers would sort it all out. This obviously hasn't happened otherwise they would be using a different language and symbolism.
Please excuse any gaffs but I've had to write this quickly.
It isn't correct to advertise on this forum and really I am not, but having done this work already, I don't want to have to report it here in detail. This work can be found on my web site as a video presentation and a transcript and it relies on using Genesis I as a first principle. It then describes how the astrological system parallels the story of Creation. I do not pretend that this is the only way of looking at it, but certainly it explained a great deal to me as to the origins of the system. Neither does it rely on a 'religious' perspective or even a belief in a monotheistic God. It is from this that my following comments are made, but it requires that we take the view that Creation had a Creator because that is indeed how it came to be seen even if it didn't begin that way.
What ancient peoples had which we lack is an awareness of Nature. We don't have the same awe or fear until something dreadful happens, we are sheltered from that.
Nature is Creation of which we all form a part, and it is the Daughter of the Creator thus it is in Its image. Astrology is an image of Creation, thus is also an image of the Creator. Astrology is also part of Nature and so serves a dual purpose in our Universe: it represents what it is a part of. From careful observation we and they can and could *divine* the Will of God, or God's Word.
Taking Nature as our correspondence for a moment, everything within Creation corresponds to Nature - and vice versa. Nature, for it to survive, relies on fertility to grow and expand, this is true in the agricultural sense as it is in the human sense. Fertility = progress and survival. But it is a delicate balance as we are beginning to learn. Too much fertility is as dangerous to survival as is barrenness. It is from this point that benefics and malefics are delineated: from their capacity for fertility or barrenness, both malefics are excessively dry. The balance is between moderation and excess.
It is from this *first principle* that all else is derived and extrapolated and this is clearly dealt with in Genesis I. Creation occurs through division (and to my uneducated mind appears to describe cellular division), each occurring as a result of God's Word. Almost first on the list is the creation of Light which is then divided from the Darkness and was named as Day and Night. This is a *first principle* in astrology.
I'm not going to continue with this line of argument, but hope that it explains why I continue to suggest that any delineation of a new heavenly body (and any chart for that matter) must begin with first principles. This isn't because I'm a Traditional astrologer, it's because it is the essence of Nature. If we can't decide whether, say, Uranus is diurnal or nocturnal, masculine or feminine based upon these principles (the planetary natures), then we aren't going to get further than personal opinion.
I should also say that the symbolism attributed to the new planets is substantially the same as that of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. You might think that this is a good thing, and I suppose that it would be, if it weren't for the fact that originally Leo makes it very clear that it wasn't to be used outside of Theosophy. That it was an astrological view meant only to explain or underpin Theosophical beliefs was soon jettisoned and it was applied throughout. That it didn't work was apparent to them, but the published opinion was that later astrologers would sort it all out. This obviously hasn't happened otherwise they would be using a different language and symbolism.
Please excuse any gaffs but I've had to write this quickly.
