Aeclectic Tarot
Tarot Cards & Reviews          Tarot Forum               Free Tarot Readings           Tarot Card Meanings

Pluto

  > Aeclectic Tarot Forum > Beyond Tarot > Astrology





 
dadsnook2000's Avatar
dadsnook2000  dadsnook2000 is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 3,474
dadsnook2000 
For Fudugazi


Yes, we all know that stuff, or we can find it and read it. But, as far as a planet and a sign goes, it all boils down to "affinity" ---- what we see in the planet's symbolism that expresses its symbolism more pointedly in one sign's "meanings" over another sign.

And, that is the question; what essentially consists of a "sign's" meaning? A sign is not a planet, so it isn't a tendency to act in a certain way, it is not an attitude, it is not a form of feelings or emotions or instinctual response, it is not a an inclination to have or to express certain values, it is not associated with driving or personality or character traits.

Once we move beyond the Joytish practice of limiting "signs" to having only the most basic Triplicity or Quadriplicity qualities --- Mars in Taurus acts with certainty and practicality --- we get onto opinionated, shaky, cultural or historically different ground. It is a difficult point to make, sign meanings. There are Internet threads where capable astrologers spend years looking for a consensus or proof or better ideas.

Again, all you say, all I say means little except that I believe we are really talking about a planet's consensus expression having an "affinity" to a sign as we individually understand a sign's meaning, but we still have to point to what causes a sign to have a meaning. What makes it work. Dave
Top   #61
Minderwiz's Avatar
Minderwiz  Minderwiz is offline
Student of Astrology
 
Join Date: 20 Apr 2002
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 7,888
Minderwiz 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadsnook2000
Yes, we all know that stuff, or we can find it and read it. But, as far as a planet and a sign goes, it all boils down to "affinity" ---- what we see in the planet's symbolism that expresses its symbolism more pointedly in one sign's "meanings" over another sign.
Well no it doesn't!! sign rulership has little or nothing to do with affinity, or at least affinity was a not a particular concern for the Astrologers who established it. Indeed a moment's reflection will tell us that affinity and rulership of anything are not necessary connections. William the Conqueror had no affinity with England but clearly ruled it and down the Plantagenets, the rulers of England felt more affinity for their lands in France. James I was Scottish, George I was German and spoke no English and I'm sure a lot of Irish readers would say that the English rulers of Ireland had no affinity for the country. If that's too much a British or European example then think how many landlords have little or no affinity with the properties they own and rent out.

The basis of rulership as established in the Hellenistic period and used down to the present day is relational. The Sun and Moon, King and Queen of Heaven rule the Summer signs - Cancer and Leo (Culturally Western Astrology is a northern hemisphere system). In opposition to them is Saturn, the then furthest known body from Earth. Saturn rules Winter - and the signs Capricorn and Aquarius - it's opposition to Sun and Moon is one of the building blocks of Astrology. - it symbolises why oppositions are stressful or 'malefic'. The other planets take their turn in Chaldean order - working inwards. Jupiter rules Pisces and Sagittarius, trining the Moon and Sun respectively - it's the origin of why Trines are beneficial, they carry the characteristic of Jupiter.

Next comes Mars, ruling Aries and Scorpio, squaring the Moon and Sun respectively - it's why squares are also stressful, they have carry the characteristics of Mars.

Venus rules Taurus and Libra - a sextile to Moon and Sun - sextiles carry the characteristics of Venus

Lastly Mercury rules the remaining signs of Gemini and Virgo.

Now traditional Astrology is full of affinity rulerships but not for signs. One might argue that affinity should have something to do with sign rulerships but then if you break it for one, you can break it for all - It could be argued that Uranus has a claim oto rule Aquarius on this basis, because at least the Astrologers of the time could argue that as the furthest known planet and therefore it should oppose Sun or Moon). Once you get to Neptune there's a breakdown in the system and once you break the system for one then you break it for all - Why should Mars rule Aries, when it doesn't rule Scorpio? Why should Venus rule both Taurus and Libra? If Pluto rules Scorpio it only squares the Sun and so is a weaker influence than either Saturn or Uranus which oppose it. The modern system has no real theoretical basis, other than we think rulers should have some affinity to their property.

As you save Dave, we move into shaky ground based on opinion and hopes and wishes and feelings. They are not invalid, as long as we recognise the consequences - If someone asserts that Pluto in their view has Scorpio affinities, I can't really challenge them very far - I can ask them for reasons but if it boils down to 'it works for me' then we end the discussion there. In modern symbolism it's Neptune that rules 'contemporary' astrology!

Once you take away the system and reduce it to opinion and a 'touchy-feely' basis you will never get agreement on anything - modern Astrology is hopelessly divided (or some might say gloriously diverse). So some will revise their view of Pluto, some will continue to use it, some will believe it rules Scorpio in an unquestioning fashion, others will have reasons for their belief but the reasons may not coincide and others may use it but not see it as a sign ruler at all.

I accept that, I might not like it but it's the way things are. What is more the tradition itself changed - Astrology before the Hellenistic period was very different and indeed whilst it was hellenised to an extent, Vedic practices remained diverse after the Hellenistic period. I am not claiming to be objectively right, I'm simply asking people to recognise their history.
Top   #62
Minderwiz's Avatar
Minderwiz  Minderwiz is offline
Student of Astrology
 
Join Date: 20 Apr 2002
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 7,888
Minderwiz 

I'm off out for the day but later on I'll take up Dave's invitation to post Alan Leo's views of Scorpio.
Top   #63
dadsnook2000's Avatar
dadsnook2000  dadsnook2000 is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 3,474
dadsnook2000 
More on this


As Minderwiz pointed out, there is a process or method for assigning rulerships of signs to planets. But, ASSIGNING a rulership IS NOT A BASIS or CAUSE of the signs meaning.

What makes a segment of local space, 30 degrees in arc-length, provide a specific set of "influences" such that Aries makes Mars more expressive and Venus more vain? We know there is not a group of stars (a few million, at least) in that sector of space that combine to "influence" a planet. So, what causes an Aries influence?

Cause is something different from a method of assignment. I, and many others, would really, seriously be interested in what "causes" or drives sign influences. Dave
Top   #64
Sophie's Avatar
Sophie  Sophie is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 10 Oct 2004
Location: moving again
Posts: 20,323
Sophie 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadsnook2000
as far as a planet and a sign goes, it all boils down to "affinity" ---- what we see in the planet's symbolism that expresses its symbolism more pointedly in one sign's "meanings" over another sign...

I believe we are really talking about a planet's consensus expression having an "affinity" to a sign as we individually understand a sign's meaning, but we still have to point to what causes a sign to have a meaning. What makes it work.
Yes, I agree. You've made an excellent case for Pluto ruling Scorpio, and I've made a good one (I think ) for Mars ruling Scorpio - but at the end of the day, as you say, it comes down to how we understand the energies of Mars or Pluto and their relationship with Scorpio.

I have noticed, however, a tendency (hardly limited to astrology of course) of some authors simply to repeat what others have said about this or that planet or sign, without actually thinking it through. That's why I get annoyed when I read in some book about Neptune being nebulous or Pluto causing death (as opposed to ruling over those already dead) - makes no sense to me.

That's what makes rulership by affinity subjective, as opposed to the simple objective rulership outlined by Minderwiz, which has the advantage of being straightforward and not dependent on one's individual understanding of the Plutonian, Neptunian, Martian or other planetary energies.

Your own method of dropping the signs almost entirely and concentrating on angles and aspects I've always found very helpful - like a form of architecture. I do use signs, but more as a background - as Minderwiz explained above, as a place - whether home, gracious host or uncomfortable inn - for astral bodies and angles to express themselves.


Coming back to Pluto, I do find it an interesting astral body when looked at on a world stage (like Uranus and Neptune) especially to see where our individual lives interact with the greater energies at play - you made the point about Uranus becoming more personal earlier in the thread, through its present position. I really subscribe to that view, not least because I've had Uranus going back and forth over my Sun, Mercury and Saturn for some years now and I've really felt it! 11 years ago, it was Pluto's influence in my life that was uppermost. In fact, at the time its influence in my chart was strongest, I found myself in Rwanda a few years after the genocide, dealing with the aftermath of that mass killing (I was working for the Red Cross). It was no longer Martian (the war and genocide were over) - the energies were definitely dominated by death, mourning, coming to terms - and rebirth. At that time too, I had laid my old life to rest. So I'm certainly not going to argue that Pluto is irrelevant, whatever its size in the sky.
Top   #65
BlueFox's Avatar
BlueFox  BlueFox is offline
Resident
 
Join Date: 13 Feb 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 89
BlueFox 

Whoa, you guys just clicced the gears of my mind, and, I understand more, I can't share, I wish I could, but it'd sound like chinese, or rolling thunder.

DS: you're arguing semantics now, if we want to discuss 'chiccen egg' theory we'll go there, but this thread is on pluto, and what defines effect.
Thus, we must analyze the data available, in doing so, I have reached this conclusion.

Fox original, revised, rough deleted:
All we know about the signs is what we see, what is here, is a billion years old, it traveled untold distances before arriving, and is said to influence our lives, the planets of our system have no light of their own, instead reflecting the light of our sun and the stars around them, their color, texture, indeed their very appearance, changing as the light hues change, thus the planet's influence might be invoked primarily by our sun's current sign, and the one the planet resides in at this time, the actual effects of the body itself can be studied by watching it's movement and noting the effects on the people's antics here, thus, to learn about Pluto, we must look to our selves, and our ancestor's reactions as the body moves through the signs, while we are all unique in our birth charts, the consistant area are the planets, they move in definete motion, mobile where the stars are not, the earliest astrologers understood this phenomenon and quietly observed, sharing only their readings, not the act of reading.

An interesting quote, from Colbert, "I can't see any reason after 12 you should be riding a bike, except to deliver a steamy box of rice or packages, maybe we could set a sport about it, where the deliveryboys are running letters that read 'shoot the messenger' the audience knows whats in them, but the bikers don't"..
I read this as I gave bibliomancy a try, and it told me simply, we aren't ever going to fully understand whats written in those notes, not for lacc of trying, but simply because like the unmarked rune, it is hidden from us.
Top   #66
Minderwiz's Avatar
Minderwiz  Minderwiz is offline
Student of Astrology
 
Join Date: 20 Apr 2002
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 7,888
Minderwiz 
Alan Leo on Scorpio


From Astrology for All

Scorpio is a fixed sign and centre of the negative watery signs. It is the sign of reserved force and power and may be termed a formative sign. Moulded by feeling , the character is of the strongest type, the worst as well as the best characters being formed under this sign. In the undeveloped we find pride, jealousy and secretiveness, the power for evil working in the direction of hatred and vindictiveness but in the developed we find the power of the magician concealed, Scorpio being the sign of regeneration and putrification.

On character from the same book

I've not really got time to type out the full delineation but you can find it on Google Books at:


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s...page&q&f=false

The character delineation is several pages long. You will also have to start at the beginning of the chapter and advance through it to reach the required description for Scorpio
Top   #67
Minderwiz's Avatar
Minderwiz  Minderwiz is offline
Student of Astrology
 
Join Date: 20 Apr 2002
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 7,888
Minderwiz 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadsnook2000
As Minderwiz pointed out, there is a process or method for assigning rulerships of signs to planets. But, ASSIGNING a rulership IS NOT A BASIS or CAUSE of the signs meaning.

What makes a segment of local space, 30 degrees in arc-length, provide a specific set of "influences" such that Aries makes Mars more expressive and Venus more vain? We know there is not a group of stars (a few million, at least) in that sector of space that combine to "influence" a planet. So, what causes an Aries influence?

Cause is something different from a method of assignment. I, and many others, would really, seriously be interested in what "causes" or drives sign influences. Dave
I think BlueFox has already hit the nail on the head but I'd just add that you're almost asking why Astrology works. I'm not sure there's ever been a single agreed explanation of why signs work - not sure because our knowledge is fragmentary - rather annoyingly we have Astrologers who write as though it wasn't an issue - possibly because in their time it wasn't, or possibly because they were simply regurgitating previous authors without any bother to assess.

Morin says that Cancer gets it's characteristics because it is ruled by the Moon, and so on for all the other signs - note this is an argument of affinity BECAUSE of rulership, NOT rulership because of affinity. It might be a chicken and egg argument and it doesn't provide an explanation that would satisfy you.

Al Biruni bases his argument for the nature of signs on the hot/cold moist/dry distinction but clearly has other factors in mind, though infuratingly he doesn't go into depth. Factors such as whether signs are humane, bestial, fertile/baarren, diurnal/nocturnal will influence a particular signs qualities. Again I'm sure you would want to know exactly how this works, but as he's pushing up the daisies, it's not possible to ask him.

The lack of a modern academic and 'scientific' (in the original meaning of the word) is one of the infurating things of trying to get to grips with the tradition. It's most remiss of them not to have thought about their readers in a few hundred years time, rather than their students at the time.

When it comes down to it, much of Astrology is based on the faith of the Astrologer in his or her method - Asking questions, reading, learning and challenging the method helps the Astrologer refine their techniques
Top   #68
BlueFox's Avatar
BlueFox  BlueFox is offline
Resident
 
Join Date: 13 Feb 2010
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 89
BlueFox 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minderwiz
The lack of a modern academic and 'scientific' (in the original meaning of the word) is one of the infurating things of trying to get to grips with the tradition. It's most remiss of them not to have thought about their readers in a few hundred years time, rather than their students at the time.

When it comes down to it, much of Astrology is based on the faith of the Astrologer in his or her method - Asking questions, reading, learning and challenging the method helps the Astrologer refine their techniques
And bacc to my question, anyone know if any of our historical astronomers have an interpretation of pluto?
For instance, Nostradamus predicted a LOT that actually did come true, his foretelling was not without flaw, some things weren't acurate to perfection, but my ultimate question is this, is there any educational material on astrology written by him? or just predictions?
does any of our ancestral astrologers have any interpretations of Pluto that might be relevant to answering the question at hand?

I read somewhere that some of the bodies we call 'moons' orbiting our other planets might have been planets at one point before they were pulled into the orbits around the planets they're with now, if this is true, is it not possible we had a planet for each dominion before this change in movement?
Top   #69
Sophie's Avatar
Sophie  Sophie is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 10 Oct 2004
Location: moving again
Posts: 20,323
Sophie 

I thought nobody knew about Pluto until the 1930s? At least, nobody who wrote astrology books that were circulated in the Western world.

It's entirely possible that some astronomers in other civilisations knew about Pluto - just as the Dogon astronomers knew about Sirius B, even though it wasn't "discovered" by a Western astronomer until the 1980s; the Dogon have spoken of a Sirius C for centuries, but since it's not been "discovered" by Westerners, it officially doesn't exist

So - why not Pluto?

But I don't think you'll find anything in Nostradamus.
Top   #70

 





 


More in the Aeclectic Tarot Forum
· Tarot
· Tarot Special Interest
· Beyond Tarot
· Forum Library

Elsewhere on Aeclectic Tarot
· Tarot Cards & Reviews
· Free Tarot Readings
· What's New
· Tarot Card Meanings

Aeclectic Tarot Categories
· Angel Decks
· Dark & Gothic Decks
· Goddess Decks
· Fairy Decks
· Doreen Virtue Decks
· Beginner Decks
· Cat Decks
· Pagan & Wiccan Decks
· Ancient Egyptian Decks
· Celtic Decks
· Lenormand Decks
· Rider-Waite Decks
· Marseilles Decks
· Thoth Decks
· Oracle Decks
· List All Decks
· Popular Tarot Decks
· Available Decks
· Tarot Books
· What's New

Copyright © 1996 - 2020 Aeclectic Tarot. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Contact us.