Asymetric Zodiac

[plumedsnake]

Coming from a different Astrological tradition than is normally found in contemporary astrology, I get baffled at some 'developments' that happen. I have often wondered what is the rationale behind discarding the bi polar symmetry of the Zodiac, where all the planets involved in the zodiac are represented in dual aspects, masculine and feminine( air and earth, or fire and water). i.e. Saturn's masculine expression is Aquarius (air sign) and it's feminine expression is Capricorn. Jupiters masculine expression is Sagittarius (fire) while it's feminine expression is pisces (water). These signs flank SAturn's signs. Mars, aries and scorpio, flanking jupiters signs. Venus, Libra, masculine, and Taurus, feminine. Mercury is gemini and virgo while the luminaries Sun and moon, are leo masculine and Cancer feminine. The symmetry is obvious and it fits with the hermetic doctrine that the zodiac is a part of. The assigning of zodiac signs to newly discovered planets and even to some as yet undiscovered planets, I find does violence to the elegance of the zodiac. That is not to say that neptune, uranus etc cannot be used in astrological prediction, anything can be used to divine, even the movement of clouds etc. But I do not see how they can be forced into the zodiac, a system that is already complete, and elegantly so. Can anyone present a rationale or a valid argument for ,say, assigning pisces as an expression of neptune.

[proxieme]

I've nothing constructive to say on this (that is, answering your question), but I've never even thought about it that way.
Thank you for voicing this :D

[KEishin]

I have often wondered what is the rationale behind discarding the bi polar symmetry of the Zodiac, where all the planets involved in the zodiac are represented in dual aspects, masculine and feminine( air and earth, or fire and water). i.e. Saturn's masculine expression is Aquarius (air sign) and it's feminine expression is Capricorn.
Much of the wisdom and lore from older forms of astrology got tossed out the window when materialism, psychology and the Enlightenment; the latter scoffed at such a practice. Why did the techniques not get readopted with the renewal of the interest in astrology? My guess is because it was easier than memorizing tables of dignities, planetary hours and other such things. Psychological astrology was an easier way to relate, sure, but I'm begnning to believe the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

Very rarely will I come across references in my modern textbooks about the gender or the day or night ruler of a planet, much less the hyleg or peregrine. Many seem to believe that because the outer planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) hadn't been discovered that makes *all* of their astrology false. Nope. Their stuff still works, but one has to really hunker down and toss out their preconceived notions and read the older books with an open mind.

The assigning of zodiac signs to newly discovered planets and even to some as yet undiscovered planets, I find does violence to the elegance of the zodiac. That is not to say that neptune, uranus etc cannot be used in astrological prediction, anything can be used to divine, even the movement of clouds etc. But I do not see how they can be forced into the zodiac, a system that is already complete, and elegantly so.
I'm with you there.
I love the symmetry of the older zodiac where each of the planets, excluding the luminaries had dual rulerships. If you transcribe the zodiac to the outer ring of a circle and the planets to the inside the patterns are so elegant and symmetrical. I could go on and on. Diagram: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary1b.html

But I also think we can't ignore the existence of the outer planets. (If we ignore them they won't affect us.) That attitude sounds like my cat who thinks that if she can't see me then I can't see her. :hehehehe: (I'm not accusing you of such shortsightedness, just making a point.)

While the outer move too slowly to really affect the outcome they do have some bearing. If I lost my car keys a conjunction from the significator and Neptune would be extremely telling. It helped me to think of those planets as higher manifestations of the inner - Uranus as the higher octave of Mercury, and so forth. There s affinity for the signs and the outer planets . . . but ruling them, hmm, not so sure about that as I used to be.


Can anyone present a rationale or a valid argument for ,say, assigning pisces as an expression of neptune.
Neptune is a planet to me that is compassion, intuition and the collective consciousness as well as confusion, ungrounded psychism and unfocused creativity. It sounds like Pisces energy to me. But it can also be said that Jupiter can show many of the same characteristics of Neptune. An afflicted Jupiter is often unfocused and lacking direction. But does that make either *equal* to Pisces? I have no concrete answer for you. But consider this - do you accept the fact that planets are assigned to particular houses? That's a new development too.

Change is good. If we didn't accept change we'd not still be using anything introduced by the Arabs in the 13th century! (I think it was the 13th - somebody correct me if my dates are off.) If you don't understand why you're making the change, that's where you're asking for trouble. Too many of us, and I include myself, don't always understand the whys of modern astrology and instead accept the teachings as gospel. But recently I've been questioning a lot of those old assumptions and finding some holes.

In short - I dunno.

[Fluffmeister]

I'm happy with the fact that Neptune, say, has an *affinity* with Pisces - but not as a ruler. If a client has Pisces rising, I'll consider Jupiter their chart ruler; but I would also look to the state of Neptune because I'd consider that planet to have more emphasis than usual in their chart.

[business voodoo]

i think the way i look at it is this ...

i think you can glean the same information from any of the symbols, but i don't think everyone can glean the same information from the same symbol systems. i think someone who resonates with the older texts and teachings of astrology has no problem using that system to expound the symbols into the day-to-day life (or even in areas of psychology or transcendence).

the information and the ascription of 'importance' or 'relevance' happens in the unique synthesis of the individual seeking to see and understand their symbol language and relevance at a particular point in time and consciousness.

i, personally, in no way see jupiter as the ruler of pisces and have always used neptune ... not because that's what i read or was taught, its just how it only made sense to me in my understanding of both the sign and the planet. and for everything else i know and understand to work together, that is 'right' for my system of synthesis of the symbols.

i think that certain planets may have been ruler at one time, but like in empires and kingdoms, there is always the changing of the guard, and the changing is only dependent on perception of current time circumstances. for instance, it may still be 'jupiter's kingdom,' and i must remain mindful of and honor that part of the evolution of astrology, neptune may well never be commonly accepted perhaps because neptune has not nor perhaps will never "stamp" his rulership over the realm of pisces, that doesn't mean he wasn't the ruler ... just like some presidencies are more important or impactful on the progression of a nation's fate and future -- was jimmy carter's presidency any more or less impactful than say george bush sr.?

great question to think about!

[MoonDragn]

Perhaps you can convert all this into a complete astrology program. I've seen them and they all use the new system.

[Fluffmeister]

Perhaps you can convert all this into a complete astrology program. I've seen them and they all use the new system.

I use Solar Fire (great program, but it ain't cheap!) and you can specify whether to use ancient or modern rulers. In fact, I you can even specify using "esoteric" rulers - this is a third system of rulerships based on Alice Bailey's esoteric astrology, which uses these rulerships:

Aries - Mercury
Taurus - Vulcan
Gemini - Venus
Cancer - Neptune
Leo - Sun
Virgo - Moon
Libra - Uranus
Scorpio - Mars
Sagittarius - Earth
Capricorn - Saturn
Aquarius - Jupiter
Pisces - Pluto

Vulcan is a hypothetical planet which esoteric astrologers believe is closer to the Sun than Mercury. There's no recognised ephemeris for it, but there are two different proposed ways of calculating its position - Solar Fire allows you to specify which one you want.

I've never used this system, and don't know much about it - but the idea is that it shows the soul's purpose, rather than the individual's life.

[business voodoo]

that is interesting ... i've never dug very far into bailey's teaching ... this rulership list is intriguing and as it relates to the soul's purpose, i agree with it, except perhaps mars/scorpio; i would have put that with taurus ... and i haven't studied much on vulcan, perhaps that would change my mind. i have never agreed with the mars/scorpio (co)rulership relationship ... anyone have a good argument for it?

[plumedsnake]

fact is . . . while learning astrology I swallowed everything that I was told and read lock stock and barrel. I was aware of enough to know that there was something to it, but I couldn't say how much, just enough to keep me learning.
does anyone have any observations they've made that confirms that Neptune is a planet of psychic abilities and fuzzy mindedness, in other words connected with pisces. I've got Jupiter in scorpio as a rising planet and that seems to do enough to make me permanently stoned. Plus it is in mutual reception with Mars in pisces which would help.

[Fluffmeister]

i have never agreed with the mars/scorpio (co)rulership relationship ... anyone have a good argument for it?

Traditionally, the argument is one of symmetry - the Sun and Moon rule one sign each, leaving five planets for the remaining ten signs - two signs per planet. So starting with the signs ruled by the "lights" - we have Cancer and Leo. Moving through the planets in speed order, the first planet is Mercury. That rules the two signs either side of Cancer and Leo - Gemini and Virgo. Next comes Venus, so she gets the sign before Gemini (Taurus) and the sign after Virgo (Libra). Then Mars comes next, so he gets the sign before Taurus (Aries) and the sign after Libra (Scorpio). And so on - so Jupiter gets Pisces and Sagittarius, Saturn gets Aquarius and Capricorn. It then ties in nicely with the aspects - Mars is malefic, so the signs he rules form hard aspects to the signs ruled by the lights (Aries squares Cancer, Scorpio squares Leo); Jupiter makes trines, Saturn makes oppositions, Venus makes sextiles. Mercury isn't allowed to play in this system, as the semi-sextile wasn't counted traditionally!

The other argument is that Mars is small and fiery - just like the scorpion, who lives in dry environments and has a painful sting!

[plumedsnake]

i have never agreed with the mars/scorpio (co)rulership relationship ... anyone have a good argument for it?

and further to what fluffmeister says . . . I think why it might not work for you may be due to what you consider to be the meaning of Mars. since the system got twisted the meanings of planets get twisted too. All planets (luminaries excluded) have expressive and reticent modes, in mars this is manifested through the elements of fire and water. also cardinal signs when the poles are reversed become fixed signs, so the energy of mars when it is fully expressive is Aries, fire and cardinal, but when it pulls inwards it becomes scorpio, water and fixed. only the mutable planets don't show this duality, and that is why they are exactly the way they are, mercury and Jupiter. chances are that due to the distortions in the zodiac mars' full nature is no longer recognised; IT is perceived as this energy that is always full on and the universal understanding that everything in life is like a breath, in and out, yin and yang, tension and resolution, solve and coagula, is tossed aside like a coin without it's customary 2 sides. Everything is a meeting of polar opposites. Imagine the energy of aries, all that passion and aggression and then imagine holding it in and focussing on inner psychology so that the only way it can get expressed is subtlely. Plus instead of Mars being able to burst off in new directions like he does in aries, he is now focused on a few fixed obsessions. The tension involved in such a case would aptly describe scorpio, I think.

[business voodoo]

maurice fernandez has written a book ... "neptune, the 12 house and pisces" subtitled, "the end of hope, the beginning of truth" ... i have found the book to be very helpful in understanding neptune and the pisces connection although (surprise, surprise!) i don't follow some of his logic through to the same conclusions. i found it begins to dig into neptune and pisces ... but, around the same time, i had also found an old book ... well, more like a pamphlet from the philosophical research center by a dude named manley hall on the age of pisces written back in the 60s and that also gave me some interesting perspective on pisces ... and perhaps the transfer of rulership from jupiter to neptune.

fluff ... re mars ... except ... hmmmmm, i still don't make the connection. i think mars is very misunderstood ... i don't know why necessarily, but i think mars has been maligned as balanced male energy that doesn't need to dominate the feminine. in a patriarchial system, that kind of male energy is a threat if it is allowed to be empowered; it will move for balance and not support the imbalance.

i like pluto/minerva best for scorpio ... and boy, i do wish i was around when that debate was happening in the 50/60's!

mars ... it still doesn't work for me and i like it better as a co-ruler of taurus, actually. and, no, i don't think i have a reason yet.

[business voodoo]

Imagine the energy of aries, all that passion and aggression and then imagine holding it in and focussing on inner psychology so that the only way it can get expressed is subtlely. Plus instead of Mars being able to burst off in new directions like he does in aries, he is now focused on a few fixed obsessions. The tension involved in such a case would aptly describe scorpio, I think.

hmmm ... i didn't see this before i wrote what i wrote ... interesting, something to think about ... i just don't find mars to be 'bursting' or necessarily even 'fiery'. i find it fixed, definitely, but not watery in the least bit.

and i do feel the cardinal fire, yes, i see that ... leader ... fixed fire can get whipped up in the wind, but cardinal fire feels the wind and surrounds itself so that the fire maintains consistency, leadership and direction. and in isolation and development of cardinal energy, you cast off that which does not 'fit' in the cardinal plan .. and what better way to disempower it than submerge it in the water. not that a good dose of suppression doesn't have its way of forcing evolution ... and then from the arian epoch to the age of pisces ... ruled intially by jupiter expansing the energy coming into the new age, and you have ... all masculine, all the time ... until being, mutable water, comes a totally new and different kind of ruler, neptune ... to begin to and then transition to the new epoch of aquarius ...

i feel mars' attachment to earth more than water ... unless you are a trying to malign it with 'her' ... the feminine of the water element (sending it to the depth of hell, so to speak). rather than in balance with her co-ruling the fixed earth element ... through thick and thin, kind of idea ... i think that is where my feelings/thoughts are coming from. (and not that its man and woman, but balanced masculine/feminine.) that would herald back to the tauran epoch before the arian one where the patriarch began its emergence ... echos of a epoch of balance on earth.

i don't know if this makes sense, but you pulled the thoughts out of me anyway ... thanks for the triggers and the process ... curious to know if any of this makes sense to anyone ... because right now, i have confused myself a little! ... not the first time! :veryweird

[plumedsnake]

i don't know if this makes sense, but you pulled the thoughts out of me anyway ... thanks for the triggers and the process ... curious to know if any of this makes sense to anyone ... because right now, i have confused myself a little! ... not the first time! :veryweird

Honestly? No, it doesn't make much sense. I think that we have very different understanding and experience of not only the planets but the effects of each of the signs. Not to worry though. It makes for a very diverse and contrasting world we live in.