dadsnook2000 said:
This issue of Pluto is tiresome in that it has been addressed in these terms so many times over the last few decades.
Totally agree it's becoming tiresome, but the debate on the efficacy of Pluto is only 20 years old - it was accepted unquestioningly from the 1930s to the 1990s. However it seems to me that the arguments put forward against Pluto do not really crack the wall of faith of its adherents. The most that can be done is to point out the flaws in arguments and that Astrology can be practiced without it.
Dadsnook2000 said:
One approach is for astrologers to start by identifying those charts where the planet or body in question is either conjunct the Ascendant or the Sun. Then those charts are studied for common meanings.
Well those common meanings would have to be independent of Pluto, or the process is tautological - the charts have common meanings because we have assigned these meanings to Pluto -and if the meanings are independent of Pluto, how can any meaning be inferred to it?
Dadsnook2000 said:
A second approach is to assess the general orbital characteristics as well as the place (and chart) where it was discovered, all compared to the overall nature of the world condition at the time of its discovery. All of these assessments together can suggest some aspects of interpretational meaning. Even fixed stars may be thrown into the mix along with black holes, etc. Phillip Sedgwick has done some interesting work in these areas.
This is a variant of the idea - 'cometh the hour, cometh the planet' - usually held by people who have preconceptions as to meaning - which was very much in evidence in the case of Pluto. The problem is that the chart is really irrelevant - for the same reasons as above - A chart can only be interpreted using planetary meanings, so if a planet is newly discovered how can it have any meaning within the discovery chart - unless that meaning has already been assigned to it. In the case of Pluto's discovery it was half way through the twelfth house and it's only close aspect was a square to the Part of Fortune - Pluto=bad luck?
A Discovery Chart is an event chart - it tells us something about the event - the expectations of those involved, the background to the discovery, the difficulty or not of the process of discovery,possibly the impact of the discovery, etc - but it tells us nothing of the intrinsic nature of the thing discovered, especially if the 'thing discovered' is claimed to have Astrological properties.
Dadsnook2000 said:
The third approach is to look at history and how it aligns with the planet's actual or approximate positions and interactions with other planets. This approach has value. One has only to read Psyche and Cosmos, by Richard Tarnas, to see how history can be used to start filling in the meanings associated with a planet.
Well this assumes we have accurate knowledge of history (which itself is a dubious claim - at very, very best we have a fair knowledge of the political history of Europe and the USA has anyone to your knowledge used this approach with any other world region? And if our knowledge of political history was accurate, how could we infer to individuals?
However the telling word is 'approximate' in this section - at best the historical evidence is an approximation based on incomplete secondary data
Dadsnook2000 said:
we (the larger astrological community) can put all of this together we can start to test the general and specific meanings in our charts. Is this always dependable, always leading to a correct assessment? No. Look at Chiron as an example and how it started out as "a bridge between Saturn and Uranus to lead us into a new path to social change and direction" and how it is now generally (but not universally) seen in some form of being a "wounded healer" type of entity.
Well I suppose traditional Astrologers don't qualify as part of 'the larger astrological community' but you are quite right - this approach can get things seriously wrong
Dadsnook2000 said:
Other examples of how "naming" and "meaning" can be applied and successfully used over a few decades can be found in the encyclopedic work of Martha Lang-Wescott (a long-time friend of mine) who has provided exquisite and workable interpretations of asteroids located at the angles of charts. When I see work of this nature I find it ridiculous to claim that nothing can be said about a body until it has completed a full orbit.
Just my thoughts. Dave
I know it's ridiculous but how do you infer meaning to a body that you only know exists, simply because it is angular. Firstly you have made a value judgement that it must have meaning by including it in a chart and secondly, you have engineered a situation where it is angular - what about all the charts where it isn't angular, does it still carry the same meaning? I repeat, inferring meaning because of chart position is bad practice - with such an approach, It would be possible to demostrate that all the characteristics attributed to Pluto (or any other planet) actually belong to several minor asteroids - as meaning can only be shuffled about - no new meanings, suddenly come into existence because a planet is discovered. We have the perfect symbol of nuclear power in Astrology and it has been known for all of human history - The Sun is a massive fusion device, it has far more claim to rule atomics than a miniscule rock lost in space (or even Pluto)
Incidentally in the Pluto discovery chart, Vesta is conjunct the Ascendant (within 19 minutes), and in opposition to the Dark Moon (separation of just over 3 degrees) If we followed your line of reasoning, we should attribute all of Pluto's characteristics to either Vesta or to the Vesta/Dark Moon opposition because both of these are angular and Pluto is not
As an antidote to Tarnas try reading the Skyscript interview with Ben Dykes (also a Professor)
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/bdykes.html
OK let's bury Pluto rather than praise it and move on to something more interesting LOL
HUGS