Lords of Astrology

[punxzen]

hehe, like my catchy title? :smash:

so, ive been musing on the planets and houses and aspects and the lunation cycle and all kinds of fun astrology stuff and i think i am on to something and am hoping that someone might want to discuss this stuff.

so one of the things ive been playing with are a couple alterations to the traditional planetary rulers of the signs, namely the rulers of taurus and virgo.

i figure that every sign needs its own planet, so i decided that gemini should be the realm of mercury and libra the realm of venus. so who gets taurus and virgo? hmm, well i think that chiron should rule virgo, and the earth should rule taurus.

now, i know that us geocentric astrologers have a hard time thinking of the earth as representable on the birth chart, but i gave it some thought and noticed two things. one, the part of fortune seems to spring to mind since the symbol is that of the circle divided into four. four being the number of earthly manifestation and representing the four elements. well, that may seem silly, but my intuition is urging me to look into this possibility of the part of fortune being related to taurus so i thought i'd mention it. the other and easier to understand way of correlating the earth to the horoscope is via the ascending point.

hmmm, well ill just start with that since that is pretty controversial right there. if anyone seems interested ill go into more depth later and discuss the 'Lords of Astrology' hehe ... for now ill just say that ive named the 4 planets which rule fixed signs the 'Lords of Astrology'

:fpipesmok

[punxzen]

:hmmmmm:
so on thinking some more about the rulership of taurus, i think that the ascending point makes for a suitable ruler, while the parts make for an interesting way to see the earth's relation to the other planets.

i forgot earlier to mention why i think chiron should rule virgo. and to tell the truth, i dont really know why chiron should rule virgo except that virgo is mutable earth and chiron's healing ways just screams mutable earth to me. perhaps this will become more clear the deeper i go into my 'lords of astrology' musings.

(keep in mind yall, i aint tryin to convince anyone to see things my way, just offering my musings and thoughts for potential refinement and discussion)

:hmmmmm:

[punxzen]

well, i decided that i might as well make an attempt to share some of the good stuff!:ahhhh: here we go!

so, if we suspend our disbelief concerning the rulerships of the planets and just play with the idea that virgo is ruled by chiron and taurus by the earth (ascending point), then we can go ahead and see the planets in a neat new light.

Sol becomes the Lord of Fire
Gaia becomes Lord (lady?) of Earth
Uranus becomes Lord of Air
Pluto becomes Lord of Water (perhaps should change that to Minerva becomes Lady of Water? hmmm)

okay, so what about the other planets?
Cardinal:
Mars then represents the font of energy which Sol draws from and refines
Saturn represents the kind of energy which Gaia draws form and refines
Venus represents the energy which Uranus utilizes and refines
Luna represents the energy which Pluto draws from and refines
Mutable:
Jupiter represents the manner in which Sol shares his energy
Chiron represents the manner in which Gaia shares her energy
Mercury represents the manner in which Uranus shares his energy
Neptune represents the manner in which Pluto shares his energy

if anyone here knows anything about the left hand path/right hand path dichotomy, i consider the cardinal planets to be the left hand paths of the lords (and ladys) while the mutable planets are their right hand paths

okay, now i have to leave this alone and see if anyone cares before going deeper. if you can't tell, i like the 'Lords of Astrology' idea because it has given me a really awesome focal point for my astrological musings/studies.

[Valkie]

The Taurus and Virgo ideas make sense.

I had read before that there are astrologers who set up Chiron as a co-ruler of Virgo, and myself being a Taurus, I know that we're very earth based... I haven't met one other Taurus who wasn't drawn to nature or a tomboy.

Now, the question remains. With Earth only being present in a heliocentric chart, how does the rulership work within modern astrology? I know that you mentioned the asc... but I fail to see the connection.

[punxzen]

The Taurus and Virgo ideas make sense.

I had read before that there are astrologers who set up Chiron as a co-ruler of Virgo, and myself being a Taurus, I know that we're very earth based... I haven't met one other Taurus who wasn't drawn to nature or a tomboy.

Now, the question remains. With Earth only being present in a heliocentric chart, how does the rulership work within modern astrology? I know that you mentioned the asc... but I fail to see the connection.

hi valkie :)

good question

the ascendant is the key to the houses and the houses represent the way the chart reflects life on earth. it is also a measurement of the rotation of the earth on its axis. that is the easiest to explain part of why i feel the ascending point can represent the earth in the horoscope, but part of me is still very confused about this and i must say it is a very enjoyable topic to muse on.

[Fluffmeister]

Hey, Punxzen - I like the title. It would make a great name for a rock band!

I've often thought that we need two new planets. Think about the rulerships for the modern ones - it's too much like coincidence:

First Uranus is discovered. He "steals" a sign (Aquarius) from Saturn - who was the outermost planet up to the ponit.

Then Neptune is discovered. He "steals" a sign (Pisces) from Jupiter - the next planet in from Saturn.

Then Pluto is discovered. He steals Scorpio from Mars - the next planet in.

So we need two new planets to be discovered - the next should steal Taurus from Venus; and the one after that should steal Virgo from Mercury.

Now of course the traditional model of rulerships *does have* a left-hand and right-hand path, which is what makes it so neat. In fact, it's such an elegant system I've gone back to using traditional rulerships. Most astrologers know the old rulerships - but the pattern and logic behind it isn't always obvious.

There are two "lights" - the Sun and Moon - and they rule a sign each (Leo and Cancer). The male light rules a male sign (Leo), and the female light rules a female sign (Cancer). Now, that leaves ten signs left, to be shared between five planets - two each.

So, working out from Leo and Cancer - moving forwards from Leo and backwards from Cancer - the next signs are Virgo and Gemini. These are given to Mercury, the next planet out from the Sun. Then moving forwards from Virgo and backwards from Gemini we get Taurus and Libra - these are given to Venus, the next planet out. Then moving forwards from Libra and backwards from Taurus we have Scorpio and Aries, so these are given to Mars. Then carrying on we have Sagittarius and Pisces - these are given to the next planet out, Jupiter. Finally, moving on from Sag and back from Pisces we end up with Capricorn and Aquarius - given to the last planet out, Saturn.

Now this scheme means each planet (proper planet, not Sun/Moon) rules one male and one female sign - left and right path. Not only that, it also explains why trines are nice and squares are nasty. Starting from Leo and Cancer, the oppositions are Aquarius and Capricorn - ruled by Saturn, the really big bad guy ("greater malefic"). So oppositions are *really* bad (in medieval astrology, they're considered worse than squares). Take a trine from Leo and from Cancer - and you get Sag and Pisces. These are ruled by Saturn, the really good guy ("greater benefic") - so trines are really good. Then square from Leo and square from Cancer gives us Scorpio and Aries - ruled by the "lesser malefic" (Mars), so squares are bad, but not as bad as oppositions. Sextiles from Leo and Cancer go to Libra and Taurus, ruled by the "lesser benefic" (Venus), so sextiles are good, but not as good as trines. Mercury is the odd one out and doesn't make a neat "Ptolemaic" aspect - sometimes he's good, sometimes he's bad (depends who he hangs out with).

I'm still hanging out for the discovery of two more planets - my objection to Chiron is he's just one of dozens of centaurs, so if we use him for rulership, why not Pholus, Asbolus and all those other bodies in simliar orbits? Same with the asteroids - there are over 100,000 of them, and it would seem like cheating to just use a few of them!

Part of Fortune really is earth-related traditionally - hence the cross of matter in the symbol. Basically, if you were born on a New Moon, Full Moon or first/last quarter, your POF will be in an angular house. But it's not a planet - it's derived from Sun, Moon and Ascendant, so I'm not sure it's valid to use it for rulerships.

Mind you, I'm not convinced Pluto is a *real* planet either - but we know he works :)

[rosewoodsea]

hehe, like my catchy title? :smash:

so, ive been musing on the planets and houses and aspects and the lunation cycle and all kinds of fun astrology stuff and i think i am on to something and am hoping that someone might want to discuss this stuff.

so one of the things ive been playing with are a couple alterations to the traditional planetary rulers of the signs, namely the rulers of taurus and virgo.

i figure that every sign needs its own planet, so i decided that gemini should be the realm of mercury and libra the realm of venus. so who gets taurus and virgo? hmm, well i think that chiron should rule virgo, and the earth should rule taurus.

now, i know that us geocentric astrologers have a hard time thinking of the earth as representable on the birth chart, but i gave it some thought and noticed two things. one, the part of fortune seems to spring to mind since the symbol is that of the circle divided into four. four being the number of earthly manifestation and representing the four elements. well, that may seem silly, but my intuition is urging me to look into this possibility of the part of fortune being related to taurus so i thought i'd mention it. the other and easier to understand way of correlating the earth to the horoscope is via the ascending point.

hmmm, well ill just start with that since that is pretty controversial right there. if anyone seems interested ill go into more depth later and discuss the 'Lords of Astrology' hehe ... for now ill just say that ive named the 4 planets which rule fixed signs the 'Lords of Astrology'

:fpipesmok

I LIKE IT........ THANKS ***Chiron for Virgo....which Barbara Hand Clow writes as so... and Earth for Taurus.... Let me be with that a while.. What an interesting premise...

[rosewoodsea]

Hey, Punxzen - I like the title. It would make a great name for a rock band!

I've often thought that we need two new planets. Think about the rulerships for the modern ones - it's too much like coincidence:

First Uranus is discovered. He "steals" a sign (Aquarius) from Saturn - who was the outermost planet up to the ponit.

Then Neptune is discovered. He "steals" a sign (Pisces) from Jupiter - the next planet in from Saturn.

Then Pluto is discovered. He steals Scorpio from Mars - the next planet in.

So we need two new planets to be discovered - the next should steal Taurus from Venus; and the one after that should steal Virgo from Mercury.

Now of course the traditional model of rulerships *does have* a left-hand and right-hand path, which is what makes it so neat. In fact, it's such an elegant system I've gone back to using traditional rulerships. Most astrologers know the old rulerships - but the pattern and logic behind it isn't always obvious.

There are two "lights" - the Sun and Moon - and they rule a sign each (Leo and Cancer). The male light rules a male sign (Leo), and the female light rules a female sign (Cancer). Now, that leaves ten signs left, to be shared between five planets - two each.

So, working out from Leo and Cancer - moving forwards from Leo and backwards from Cancer - the next signs are Virgo and Gemini. These are given to Mercury, the next planet out from the Sun. Then moving forwards from Virgo and backwards from Gemini we get Taurus and Libra - these are given to Venus, the next planet out. Then moving forwards from Libra and backwards from Taurus we have Scorpio and Aries, so these are given to Mars. Then carrying on we have Sagittarius and Pisces - these are given to the next planet out, Jupiter. Finally, moving on from Sag and back from Pisces we end up with Capricorn and Aquarius - given to the last planet out, Saturn.

Now this scheme means each planet (proper planet, not Sun/Moon) rules one male and one female sign - left and right path. Not only that, it also explains why trines are nice and squares are nasty. Starting from Leo and Cancer, the oppositions are Aquarius and Capricorn - ruled by Saturn, the really big bad guy ("greater malefic"). So oppositions are *really* bad (in medieval astrology, they're considered worse than squares). Take a trine from Leo and from Cancer - and you get Sag and Pisces. These are ruled by Saturn, the really good guy ("greater benefic") - so trines are really good. Then square from Leo and square from Cancer gives us Scorpio and Aries - ruled by the "lesser malefic" (Mars), so squares are bad, but not as bad as oppositions. Sextiles from Leo and Cancer go to Libra and Taurus, ruled by the "lesser benefic" (Venus), so sextiles are good, but not as good as trines. Mercury is the odd one out and doesn't make a neat "Ptolemaic" aspect - sometimes he's good, sometimes he's bad (depends who he hangs out with).

I'm still hanging out for the discovery of two more planets - my objection to Chiron is he's just one of dozens of centaurs, so if we use him for rulership, why not Pholus, Asbolus and all those other bodies in simliar orbits? Same with the asteroids - there are over 100,000 of them, and it would seem like cheating to just use a few of them!

Part of Fortune really is earth-related traditionally - hence the cross of matter in the symbol. Basically, if you were born on a New Moon, Full Moon or first/last quarter, your POF will be in an angular house. But it's not a planet - it's derived from Sun, Moon and Ascendant, so I'm not sure it's valid to use it for rulerships.

Mind you, I'm not convinced Pluto is a *real* planet either - but we know he works :)


Don't you just have to believe that Neptune rules Pisces????... Rings so True with me.
_travolta_

[Fluffmeister]

Don't you just have to believe that Neptune rules Pisces????... Rings so True with me.
_travolta_
I think Neptune has a special affinity with Pisces, Pluto with Scorpio and Uranus with Aquarius. They do all ring true. But if someone has a Pisces Ascendant (or a Pisces Sun), I'd look to Jupiter as well. It's amazing how often when you assume two rulers that they are in aspect to each other - I'm always seeing Scorpio charts where Pluto and Mars are in aspect. In my chart, I consider Jupiter and Neptune to be influential because of my Pisces Sun - and they're sextile to each other.

[punxzen]

Now this scheme means each planet (proper planet, not Sun/Moon) rules one male and one female sign - left and right path. Not only that, it also explains why trines are nice and squares are nasty. Starting from Leo and Cancer, the oppositions are Aquarius and Capricorn - ruled by Saturn, the really big bad guy ("greater malefic"). So oppositions are *really* bad (in medieval astrology, they're considered worse than squares). Take a trine from Leo and from Cancer - and you get Sag and Pisces. These are ruled by Saturn, the really good guy ("greater benefic") - so trines are really good. Then square from Leo and square from Cancer gives us Scorpio and Aries - ruled by the "lesser malefic" (Mars), so squares are bad, but not as bad as oppositions. Sextiles from Leo and Cancer go to Libra and Taurus, ruled by the "lesser benefic" (Venus), so sextiles are good, but not as good as trines. Mercury is the odd one out and doesn't make a neat "Ptolemaic" aspect - sometimes he's good, sometimes he's bad (depends who he hangs out with).
awesome! thank you for that fluff, i hadnt noticed that correlation between the aspects and planetary relations with the lights before.

Take a trine from Leo and from Cancer - and you get Sag and Pisces. These are ruled by Saturn, the really good guy ("greater benefic")
i think you meant jupiter is the really good guy

I'm still hanging out for the discovery of two more planets - my objection to Chiron is he's just one of dozens of centaurs, so if we use him for rulership, why not Pholus, Asbolus and all those other bodies in simliar orbits? Same with the asteroids - there are over 100,000 of them, and it would seem like cheating to just use a few of them!

a good point, do you happen to know any good fonts of info regarding the other centaurs, or perhaps why chiron is so often singled out among them.

Part of Fortune really is earth-related traditionally - hence the cross of matter in the symbol. Basically, if you were born on a New Moon, Full Moon or first/last quarter, your POF will be in an angular house. But it's not a planet - it's derived from Sun, Moon and Ascendant, so I'm not sure it's valid to use it for rulerships.

yes, thinking about the parts seems to lead me to believe that the part of fortune may be related to taurus in some way, but not as the ruler. i am finding myself feeling that the ascending point makes most sense to me right now, though it may seem to be a bit of a stretch, its really just my way of interpreting the earth's dance through the zodiac from our geocentric perspective.

Mind you, I'm not convinced Pluto is a *real* planet either - but we know he works :)
well, on that note, i feel obligated to note that the sun and moon arent *real* planets either.
:)

[Fluffmeister]

i think you meant jupiter is the really good guy

Oops!! Yes I did :)



good point, do you happen to know any good fonts of info regarding the other centaurs, or perhaps why chiron is so often singled out among them.


Yeah, Chiron was the first, discovered in 1975. Pholus was the next and wasn't discovered until 1992, so there hasn't been enough time to get consensus on the meanings. There's a Yahoo group dedicated to Centaur research (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/centaurs) and some good basic articles at http://www.bsa.bristolastrology.net/centaurs.html - and check out the links section on that site for lots of Centaur links. There's a freeware program that gives positions of all the centaurs too, called Riyal. The author, Juan Revilla, also has a support group on Yahoo at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RIYAL_compute


yes, thinking about the parts seems to lead me to believe that the part of fortune may be related to taurus in some way, but not as the ruler. i am finding myself feeling that the ascending point makes most sense to me right now, though it may seem to be a bit of a stretch, its really just my way of interpreting the earth's dance through the zodiac from our geocentric perspective.

Yes, Earth needs to play a role I agree. Do you ever use heliocentric charts? The Earth is always opposite the Sun in a helio chart. I think from our point of view here on Earth though, you're right - Ascendant would be a logical starting point. Especially if you look at planetary speeds - the Moon is closest so moves faster than any other planet. However, the Earth is *even closer* than the Moon, and the Ascendant moves *even faster* than the Moon! (The Ascendant changes sign every couple of hours on average, the Moon every couple of days).


well, on that note, i feel obligated to note that the sun and moon arent *real* planets either.
:)
True - the medievalists called the true planets the "starry planets" to distinguish them from the "lights". And of course some systems assign rulership to the nodes (Sag and Gem usually), and the node isn't a planet either :)

[punxzen]

Yeah, Chiron was the first, discovered in 1975. Pholus was the next and wasn't discovered until 1992, so there hasn't been enough time to get consensus on the meanings. There's a Yahoo group dedicated to Centaur research (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/centaurs) and some good basic articles at http://www.bsa.bristolastrology.net/centaurs.html - and check out the links section on that site for lots of Centaur links. There's a freeware program that gives positions of all the centaurs too, called Riyal. The author, Juan Revilla, also has a support group on Yahoo at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RIYAL_compute

muchas gracias for the links man, that looks like a font of info if ive ever seen one. do you happen to have a source for the year chiron was discovered, because barbara hand clow's book cites it during scorpio season of 1977

Yes, Earth needs to play a role I agree. Do you ever use heliocentric charts? The Earth is always opposite the Sun in a helio chart. I think from our point of view here on Earth though, you're right - Ascendant would be a logical starting point. Especially if you look at planetary speeds - the Moon is closest so moves faster than any other planet. However, the Earth is *even closer* than the Moon, and the Ascendant moves *even faster* than the Moon! (The Ascendant changes sign every couple of hours on average, the Moon every couple of days).

my first musings on the subject led me to helio centric ephemerides, but i have since resigned myself to the ascending point simply as a matter of simplicity so that i could move on in my musings. im glad you bring it up though, since i really felt drawn to it and only didnt purchase a heliocentric ephemeris due to the price tag (somethin like $15 at half priced books, which in my current financial state is beyond my means). so, right now the earth is in 22-23 Virgo if we were to check a helio ephemeris? is it really that simple? i guess that makes perfect sense, i just hadnt considered it before. yay more to play with!


And of course some systems assign rulership to the nodes (Sag and Gem usually), and the node isn't a planet either :)
i have heard about that, about north node/dragon's head in gemini being most comfy there but i never considered that there might be other correlations between the other nodes and signs. have you looked into this at all? that sounds like an intriguing path to explore.

[Valkie]

I think Neptune has a special affinity with Pisces, Pluto with Scorpio and Uranus with Aquarius. They do all ring true. But if someone has a Pisces Ascendant (or a Pisces Sun), I'd look to Jupiter as well. It's amazing how often when you assume two rulers that they are in aspect to each other - I'm always seeing Scorpio charts where Pluto and Mars are in aspect. In my chart, I consider Jupiter and Neptune to be influential because of my Pisces Sun - and they're sextile to each other.
Alright Fluff... now you've really confused me on one of my aspects....

By what you're saying... I've got a Pisces Moon, therefore, it has two medival rulers, Jupiter and Neptune. So, both of these planets should have a say in how my Moon works, because they are both rulers. But my 12th house Jupiter opp my 6th house Neptune... and if you use a wide (at least I consider it wide... I know some astrologers use a 10 degree orb for luminaries) orb, they actually make a T-square to my 9th house Moon.

I can't even fathom on how to read that!!

[Fluffmeister]

muchas gracias for the links man, that looks like a font of info if ive ever seen one. do you happen to have a source for the year chiron was discovered, because barbara hand clow's book cites it during scorpio season of 1977

You're right. I knew it was Chiron's "birthday" a few months back - and thought it was the 30th anniversary. However, I re-checked, and it was discovered 1 Nov 1977.


my first musings on the subject led me to helio centric ephemerides, but i have since resigned myself to the ascending point simply as a matter of simplicity so that i could move on in my musings. im glad you bring it up though, since i really felt drawn to it and only didnt purchase a heliocentric ephemeris due to the price tag (somethin like $15 at half priced books, which in my current financial state is beyond my means). so, right now the earth is in 22-23 Virgo if we were to check a helio ephemeris? is it really that simple? i guess that makes perfect sense, i just hadnt considered it before. yay more to play with!

Yup - from our perspective, the Sun appears to be in 22-23 Pisces; from the Sun's point of view we're the exact opposite. It's like if I'm looking north to see you, you must be looking south to see me!


i have heard about that, about north node/dragon's head in gemini being most comfy there but i never considered that there might be other correlations between the other nodes and signs. have you looked into this at all? that sounds like an intriguing path to explore.
I only know about North Node in Gemini (I think) and South Node in Sag (I think it's that way round). There are other planetary nodes, but I've never heard of them ruling signs though :)

[Fluffmeister]

Alright Fluff... now you've really confused me on one of my aspects....

By what you're saying... I've got a Pisces Moon, therefore, it has two medival rulers, Jupiter and Neptune. So, both of these planets should have a say in how my Moon works, because they are both rulers. But my 12th house Jupiter opp my 6th house Neptune... and if you use a wide (at least I consider it wide... I know some astrologers use a 10 degree orb for luminaries) orb, they actually make a T-square to my 9th house Moon.

I can't even fathom on how to read that!!
Yes - the ruler of your Moon is Neptune in modern astrology, Jupiter in older astrology. I'd say they were both significant - so your two lunar rulers are opposite, and making a T-square to your Moon. Jupiter/Neptune oppositions have a confusing flavour to them, or the idea of being deceived. So perhaps emotionally you tend to see things through rose-coloured glasses, and get taken advantage of?

[KEishin]

Well, I've always used the Earth as the ruler of Taurus, plus plot it as a point in all my charts. Obviously that's the easy part (Earth is exactly 180 degrees from the Sun in geocentric astrology!:D )

I find that interpreting the Earth as a point often adds a level of depth (pardon the pun) to the chart. I'm still experimenting with aspecting like another planet - I treat it more like a mathematical point.

Barbara Hand Clow used Virgo for Chiron as well. she made a very convinving point for it. Again, that's if Chiron is actually a planet!

[Kadynas]

Am I the only one who thinks Venus should have Taurus and /Libra/ should go to some other planet? :lol: One of my favorite books is "Persephone is Transpluto" by Valerie Vaughn, who thinks that Persephone should have Libra, and it really makes sense if you read through her whole theory. But I could also see giving it to Juno, if one's comfortable working with asteroids.

At the same time though, an Earth rulership of Taurus /does/ make a lot of sense... :huh: So confusing! As for Virgo, I tend to give it over to Ceres and Vesta more than anyone else. Although if there ever is a planet Vulcan discovered, I might be persuaded to give it to him. There's so many different theories out there, and all of them are fascinating.

But if you notice, the modern rulers have always taken the /second/ sign in astrological order away from their ancient rulers... Pluto took Scorpio from Mars, Neptune took Pisces from Jupiter, and Uranus took Aquarius from Saturn. I guess it plays along with that whole "higher octave" idea, and also of the theory that the signs are kinda like an evolutionary journey, so the later signs are somehow more advanced, complicated and more unfathomable. :lol:

[punxzen]

Well, I've always used the Earth as the ruler of Taurus, plus plot it as a point in all my charts. Obviously that's the easy part (Earth is exactly 180 degrees from the Sun in geocentric astrology!:D )
Hi KEishin
:uhhuhuh: i am now experimenting with this and finding it much to my liking. it makes complete sense in some obscure way that just came to me and i havent made sense of yet... :ahhhh: ... have you ever thought of
checking the earth's position from the point of view of any other planets? would it be equally as simple as just finding the point opposite that planet? i think so. i sense lots of potential here.

I find that interpreting the Earth as a point often adds a level of depth (pardon the pun) to the chart. I'm still experimenting with aspecting like another planet - I treat it more like a mathematical point.
that sounds reasonable to me. i am not sure what kind of energy we have here on earth? it seems like a lot of our awareness is earth-based (if not all of our awareness), so it would make sense that the only reason we can identify energies to associate with other planets is by relating that energy to this earth energy. soooo, there must be some coherent way of isolating/sensing what our earth energy is... im assuming its quite similar to venus..

Barbara Hand Clow used Virgo for Chiron as well. she made a very convinving point for it. Again, that's if Chiron is actually a planet!
im not sure i understand why chiron not being a real planet makes a difference? in a sense, i have been thinkin of chiron as a kind of messenger for the other centaurs. consider the three earth planets, Earth of course, saturn, and chiron (maybe). earth is undoubtably earthy, saturn makes perfect sense as the source(cardinal) of earth energy with all those rings of solid matter... does anyone else sense an incredibly intense potential energy saturn has available in those rings? well, anyway, chiron seems pretty earthy, being a comet, and being the first of the centaurs to reach our awareness feels like a messenger to me, which i correlate with mutability. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[punxzen]

Am I the only one who thinks Venus should have Taurus and /Libra/ should go to some other planet? :lol: One of my favorite books is "Persephone is Transpluto" by Valerie Vaughn, who thinks that Persephone should have Libra, and it really makes sense if you read through her whole theory. But I could also see giving it to Juno, if one's comfortable working with asteroids.
actually, barbara hand clow thinks taurus should have venus and libra should have something else too. she mentioned a certain planet we have not technically discovered yet, but which she seems certain we will discover soon, called Nibiru or something like that.

What is persephone?

you bring up an interesting point, working with asteroids. it would seem that the asteroids have identifyable energies, but my intuition has warned me away from using them in a similar manner as the planets so far. i feel like they have their own huge set of potentials which i am unwilling to open up yet. when i first started theorizing along the lines of giving each sign a single unique ruling planet, i played with the idea of libra being ruled by all of the asteroids... here is an interesting thought, what if we were to do away with planetary rulerships altogether... hmmm, something tells me that reforming tradition would be better than trashing it.

At the same time though, an Earth rulership of Taurus /does/ make a lot of sense... :huh: So confusing! As for Virgo, I tend to give it over to Ceres and Vesta more than anyone else. Although if there ever is a planet Vulcan discovered, I might be persuaded to give it to him. There's so many different theories out there, and all of them are fascinating.

planet vulcan? this sounds familiar but i know nothing about it. can you tell me more? your giving virgo over to ceres and vesta makes me wonder how much of the effectiveness of our readings and interpretations comes from our understanding of external reality, and how much comes from our own inner correlations and understandings. in other words, does our effectiveness stem more from our objective understandings, or more from our inner clarity and coherency and our unique mental constructs developed for the purpose of using these astrological tools... if im making less and less sense, lets blame it on the cold i have and my quickly dissipating energy levels...

But if you notice, the modern rulers have always taken the /second/ sign in astrological order away from their ancient rulers... Pluto took Scorpio from Mars, Neptune took Pisces from Jupiter, and Uranus took Aquarius from Saturn. I guess it plays along with that whole "higher octave" idea, and also of the theory that the signs are kinda like an evolutionary journey, so the later signs are somehow more advanced, complicated and more unfathomable. :lol:
hmmm, i had noticed. if that trend was to continue then indeed libra would be the sign needing a new planetary ruler... hmmmm

[Fluffmeister]

Well, I like Demetra George's attributions for the "big four" asteroids (from her book "Asteroid Goddesses").

Instead of allocating them to planets, she allocates them to the four angles.

Juno's easy - she's about long-term committed relationships, so she gets associated with the Descendant.

Ceres is about nurturing, and the Demeter/Persephone myth of Greek mythology (Ceres is the

Roman name for Demeter), and that was about the mother/daughter relationship - so that gets the IC (I know a lot of astrologers use 10th as mother, but the nurturing thing and the underworld connection makes this one more 4th house).

Pallas Athene, the warrior who burst out of Zeus's head fully armed, is often seen as the "career woman". So she gets the MC.

Vesta is about devoting one's sexuality to the gods - in other words, one's prime relationship in life is an "inner" relationship rather than with other people, so that gets associated with the Ascendant.


By the way, it is possible to use Earth from the point of view of other planets - Astrolog allows you to do things like a "Mars-centred" chart. A year ago, I wrote an article for Transit (the online magazine for the UK's Astrological Association) about the various spacecraft that were sent to Mars to look for life - and it made sense to do a Mars-centric chart for that: :)

http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/pub/transit/jan2004/chris.htm

[KEishin]

Well, I'm picky in that I think only planets should rule a sign. There's no logic behind that; just my inclination to not give something as big as a whole sign to an asteroid. I'm with those who use the asteroids to rule the angles. It makes fit better with what I've experienced and seen in many charts over the years.

I've done the occasional chart form another planet, the last time was when Cassini went near Saturn. I did a brief chart from the perspective of Saturn, but I've never really gotten back onto that. If the mood strikes me, I will again *shrugs* The thing is that so far, all the people I've done charts for have been born on Earth, so I've not felt called to do a heliocentric (or other centric) chart for them. I'm sure I'll get the urge at some point.

But as far as Venus ruling Taurs, I'm going to disagree and give it to Libra. I feel qualified to speak to that, as I'm a Taurus, and familiar with many of the subtleties of my sign. :D My perspective is this - Venus loves harmony, beauty, and all that jazz, but is not always a very nuturing sign. It is an air sign after all. However, Taurus, the earthiest earth sign, is more suitable for Earth than Libra, an air sign. And there is no reason why Venus should stop being linked to Taurus. In many ways, of course, Venus and Earth are alike: it’s just that Venus is closer to the Sun, and hotter. IMHO, of course.

Now does anyone take Sedna into account? Have there been any theories for rulership of that planetoid put forward yet? Astrodienst has a Sedna ephemeris up, but I've not found a chance to use it.

[Kadynas]

What is persephone?
Valerie Vaughn's opinion of what we should call Transpluto. Apparently the orbits of the outer planets are too "odd", and it's theorized that there must be another planet out there big enough to be affecting the gravitational pull, so Transpluto is one of those theoretical planets. According to the ephemeris for it however, the newly discovered Sedna is not in the same place, so Transpluto still could be out there somewhere. According to the theoretical ephemeris most of us would have it in Leo.

you bring up an interesting point, working with asteroids. it would seem that the asteroids have identifyable energies, but my intuition has warned me away from using them in a similar manner as the planets so far. i feel like they have their own huge set of potentials which i am unwilling to open up yet. when i first started theorizing along the lines of giving each sign a single unique ruling planet, i played with the idea of libra being ruled by all of the asteroids... here is an interesting thought, what if we were to do away with planetary rulerships altogether... hmmm, something tells me that reforming tradition would be better than trashing it.
I'm not entirely sure how I'd feel about giving rulership to the asteroids officially, but I can't help but recognize the affinity between them and certain signs. :)

planet vulcan? this sounds familiar but i know nothing about it. can you tell me more? your giving virgo over to ceres and vesta makes me wonder how much of the effectiveness of our readings and interpretations comes from our understanding of external reality, and how much comes from our own inner correlations and understandings. in other words, does our effectiveness stem more from our objective understandings, or more from our inner clarity and coherency and our unique mental constructs developed for the purpose of using these astrological tools... if im making less and less sense, lets blame it on the cold i have and my quickly dissipating energy levels...
You probably recognize it as the planet as Spock's homeworld from Star Trek. :lol: But there are various theories of it being an undiscovered planet, similar to Transpluto. Vulcan would be referring to the God of the forge here, not the pointy eared alien. :)
As for where our interpreatations come from, I find it easiest to relate my interpretations to the myths involved between the planets/asteroids. One of the reasons I'm peeved that Sedna was not named accordingly to "tradition". I mean it's a great myth, but it's a whole other pantheon! At any rate it'll be quite awhile before we have enough data about Sedna's movements to form any real basis in interpretation.

[punxzen]

Well, I like Demetra George's attributions for the "big four" asteroids (from her book "Asteroid Goddesses").

Instead of allocating them to planets, she allocates them to the four angles.

Juno's easy - she's about long-term committed relationships, so she gets associated with the Descendant.

Ceres is about nurturing, and the Demeter/Persephone myth of Greek mythology (Ceres is the

Roman name for Demeter), and that was about the mother/daughter relationship - so that gets the IC (I know a lot of astrologers use 10th as mother, but the nurturing thing and the underworld connection makes this one more 4th house).

Pallas Athene, the warrior who burst out of Zeus's head fully armed, is often seen as the "career woman". So she gets the MC.

Vesta is about devoting one's sexuality to the gods - in other words, one's prime relationship in life is an "inner" relationship rather than with other people, so that gets associated with the Ascendant.

coolness!! i really love the attribution to the ascendant, as well as the associations of the other angles with goddesses, but i am very curious to know why those particular asteroids are focused on in the astrological community? is it another case of first come first served as in chiron? or are they super big or something?



By the way, it is possible to use Earth from the point of view of other planets - Astrolog allows you to do things like a "Mars-centred" chart. A year ago, I wrote an article for Transit (the online magazine for the UK's Astrological Association) about the various spacecraft that were sent to Mars to look for life - and it made sense to do a Mars-centric chart for that: :)

http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/pub/transit/jan2004/chris.htm
hahaha, nice article :) NASA has better astrologers :bigblue:

[punxzen]

Well, I'm picky in that I think only planets should rule a sign. There's no logic behind that; just my inclination to not give something as big as a whole sign to an asteroid. I'm with those who use the asteroids to rule the angles. It makes fit better with what I've experienced and seen in many charts over the years.

that sounds reasonable to me, im still having a difficult time accepting chiron as ruler of virgo and have stopped trying for now.

I've done the occasional chart form another planet, the last time was when Cassini went near Saturn. I did a brief chart from the perspective of Saturn, but I've never really gotten back onto that. If the mood strikes me, I will again *shrugs* The thing is that so far, all the people I've done charts for have been born on Earth, so I've not felt called to do a heliocentric (or other centric) chart for them. I'm sure I'll get the urge at some point.

when you do get the urge, please share your experiences here as i am sure most of us would be very interested to hear about it.

But as far as Venus ruling Taurs, I'm going to disagree and give it to Libra. I feel qualified to speak to that, as I'm a Taurus, and familiar with many of the subtleties of my sign. :D My perspective is this - Venus loves harmony, beauty, and all that jazz, but is not always a very nuturing sign. It is an air sign after all. However, Taurus, the earthiest earth sign, is more suitable for Earth than Libra, an air sign. And there is no reason why Venus should stop being linked to Taurus. In many ways, of course, Venus and Earth are alike: it’s just that Venus is closer to the Sun, and hotter. IMHO, of course.
[/qoute]
aye, i dont think venus should stop being associated with taurus, just as i dont think that jupiter should stop being associated with pisces, or mars with scorpio, or saturn with aquarius. there are many good reasons why those original planetary rulerships are there. im just trying to apply the same kind of system that the signs have (3 modes and 4 elements) to the planets, which is why im trying to break down the rulerships to one planet per sign.
[quote]
Now does anyone take Sedna into account? Have there been any theories for rulership of that planetoid put forward yet? Astrodienst has a Sedna ephemeris up, but I've not found a chance to use it.
mmkay, so what is this sedna that i see you and kadynas talking about?

[Fluffmeister]

coolness!! i really love the attribution to the ascendant, as well as the associations of the other angles with goddesses, but i am very curious to know why those particular asteroids are focused on in the astrological community? is it another case of first come first served as in chiron? or are they super big or something?

Yes - they're the four biggest (I think!).



hahaha, nice article :) NASA has better astrologers :bigblue:
Thx! :)


mmkay, so what is this sedna that i see you (Keishin) and kadynas talking about?

Sedna was discovered a year or two ago - it's waaaay out beyond the orbit of Pluto and is the first "Oort cloud object" to be discovered.

Basically, beyond Neptune lies the "Kuiper Belt", a bunch of rocky objects. Sometimes, Neptune snatches one and hurls it into an eccentric orbit - Chiron was the first Kuiper Belt Object to be discovered (though of course Pluto may be one too). Then in 1992, they discovered another one (Pholus), and dozens of new ones have been found since.

Now, way, way beyond Pluto lies the Oort cloud - probably. We don't know for sure. This is where comets come from, and the Oort cloud is a really long way away - almost a quarter of the distance to the nearest star. However, it seems that there may be an "inner Oort cloud", and this is where Sedna appears to have come from. Check out http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/16mar_sedna.htm for details.