What defines the functions, themes and influences of a new planet?

[Angelo Viggiani]

Good morning, People (Here in Brazil is 10 AM)

My post is more of a question than an answer (I'm sorry for that).

I've read a lot about what defines a planet as ruler, but it seems to be confusing and obscure for most astrologers.
Some says that in traditional astrology the Sun and Moon, the most visible celestial bodies to the oldies, have got the title of rulers of Leo and Cancer. By then, people had 7 visible bodies and 12 signs, so they determined that both the Sun, ruler of Leo, and the Moon, ruler of Cancer, would rule only one sign each and the other 5 planets would share the other signs, ruling 2 signs each planet. Since Mercury is the closest body to the Sun, it has become the ruler of the closer signs to Cancer and Leo, Gemini and Virgo. So, Mercury became the ruler of Gemini (day/positive) and Virgo (night/negative). Venus, the second closest planet to the Sun became ruler of Libra (positive) and Taurus (negative) and so on.

This has worked for many years (Kinda... Thousand and thousand years), but as everything in the world, Astrology has also changed, evolved (not for everyone, of course) and then Uranus got discovered.
After Uranus, Neptune's showed up and thereby lots of other bodies have come up to our knowledge, including Ceres, Pluto, asteroids, centaurs and stuff...

According to my readings, Modern Astrologers credited Uranus as the ruler of Aquarius because of three reasons:
1. it's the furthest sign to Leo.
2. Saturn fits perfectly to Capricorn and not that much to Aquarius.
3. The current events in the period that Uranus was discovered were so "Aquarius kind".

The same happened to Neptune.

It was similar to Pluto, but the sign that had its ruler changed in this occasion was Aries, instead of Scorpio. We have a break of pattern here, even Mars could fit so much more to Aries than Scorpio and Pluto and the current events were both "so Scorpio kind".

The point for me is:
Before saying that a planet is more related to a sign or another, we have to ask ourselves: What defines the function, characteristics and themes of a planet?

I found some answers:
1. Astrophysical characteristic:
The oldies believed that the planets were their gods and related them by some visible astrophysical characteristics. Thus a planet which moves slowly is associated to themes and things that happens during long periods, a quick planet has quick characteristics, a big planet has expanding and important characteristics and so go on:
One of the reasons for what the planet Mercury was believed to be the God "Hermes/Mercury" was due to its agility. People have noticed that that body moved quicker than the other ones, and so they related Mercury to the God of Messages, Communication and Agility. Coincidentally, Gemini, a sign that have similar characteristics to this God is close to Leo (The Sun), as well as the planet Mercury is close to the Sun.
Similar reasons made the planet Jupiter have been seen as "Jupiter/Zeus" as well as other planets to the other gods.

The problem is:
Not every planet have similar physical characteristics that their themes or even the themes of their rulered signs.
Saturn, for example, is the planet of solidity and structure, and it's made of gas.

But...
If we see by an abstract lens, we could say some planets have peculiar astrophysical characteristics similar to their functions in astrology. Saturn, again, is the planet related to restriction and limitation...and, well... it's limitated by their rings in an aesthetical abstract view.
Uranus, for instance, have its reverse rotation diferent from other planets (except for Venus), fitting the "rebelious, excentric and revolutionary" skills that they are related to.

2. Mythology characteristcs
Some Astrologers associate the functions and themes of the planets to the same characteristics and themes that the Mythology deities that have given them their names.
It's widely writing and easily found in books, forums, sites, blogs, articles and so on.
It's reasonable if we assume that the planets got their names because of the view the oldies had of them and also links the two reasons:
Since the planet Mercury is agile, it's believed to be the Messenger God of Agility and Communication, so...We can give it some functions and characteristics similar of the ones that the God had in its myth.
The oldies did believe that the planets were the Gods, so it does make sense to relate the myth's themes to the planet's function.
Almost every planet has at least one characteristic related to its mythologic name.

The problem is:
Firstly, not every planet have Roman names, for example. Uranus is a Greek one and it breaks the pattern. Other problem is that since Uranus was discovered scientists don't believe the planets are the deities and the names of the bodies are arbitrarily chosen in astronomical congresses not concerned to any astrological knowledge, nor physical or mythological characteristics. Often the name is chosen by the one who discovered the body. Chosing Greek/Roman mythological names for the celestial bodies is a tradition, but it doesn't mean that the chosen name for the body has any logical relation to the function the body plays in astrology. In other words, Uranus, the greek ancient Titan, has nothing to do with the characteristics of Aquarius or even with the planet.

But...
It works fine for traditional planets wich include the more distant and coldest visible planet, Saturn, who symbolized the limit of the Universe and was believed to be the older god who devored his children, related to death, coldness, solidity, limitations and traditions. It works as well for planets like Jupiter, the giant expanding one, who was the most worshiped God, for Mercury and its agility as the messenger of the gods, for Mars, the red planet, which symbolizes the blood, conflictions and war, for the Sun, which is the brighter and hotter one and gives us life and for others. Moreover, some of the choices made for the new bodies' names recently discovered had the participation of the Astrological Community, which integrates the astronomical and the astrological knowledge.

3. Discovery contemporary Events' characteristcs
The second answer calls into question the third which is that the planet/body themes and characteristics are associated to the events that have occurred at the same period of its discovery. When we talk about rulership, the events have also to carry the characteristics of the signs related to these themes.
That's the most spoken reason for why the modern planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto etc) are associated to their functions, themes and, therefore, to their rulered sings.
Uranus was discovered at the same period of the French Revolution, which brought to the light ideals of freedom, fraternity and equality and broke the society structures and paradigms through an extreme, rebelious, intelectual and suddenly brutal approuch. All these words (themes) are linked to Uranus, Aquarius and its function and qualities in Astrology. The same with Neptune (Pisces) and their themes, like psychology, and Pluto (Scorpio) and theirs, like mass destruction weapons.

The problem is:
Most part of the events were located in Europe or, at most, in western world. It totally excludes what was happening in these periods in other parts of the planet. Moreover, the events usually described as important or relevant to these periods seem to be handpicked whithout clear criterions. I mean that too many things were happening at the same time and in so many different places and cultures around the world when Uranus was discovered. Why are only these ones chosen as important? Isn't it a little too much convenient? What were the criterions to define the relevant events?
As for the rest, we'll probably never know what was happening when Mercury and Venus were discovered, since it was more than 5 thousand years ago and there is no register. Not speaking about the Sun and the Moon that were always known for every being that could see.

But...
If we could decide the criterions which would define an event as important or not, and could explain why some locations are ignored and even then the events could still fit the signs the planets... them, we'd have a probably good answer. Uranus functions really do make perfect sense when they are related to Aquarius and to the past events of the period of its discovery. The same with Neptune and Pluto.

4. Others
Probably there are other reasons for what astrologers define what's a planet rule, its functions, influences and themes, but I don't know them.

I really want to know what other students and astrologers think and discovered about what defines the function, characteristics and themes of a planet?

- Are these mentioned reasons good ones?
- Which ones do really make sense for you?
- How to explain the problems that these theories carry?
- What are the other theories and their problems?

I think that the discussion will be more intriguing and interesting if we tell the sources where our opinion where based on. There's no need to deep research to give it... Just tell the source is your intuition, an impression, a practical experience or a site (with the link)... It would be good as well if we read what other people wrote before answering... A answer without listening will never be a sensible one. These are only suggestions, by the way.

Thanks for the participation and for the patience to read all of this hahaha

 

[dr. farr]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

From my perspective (ie, my opinion) planets do not "rule" (ie coerce) signs: I believe a planet can disposit (influence) another planet when that other planet is in the dispositing planet's "sign", but I believe that the dispositorship ("rulership") of a sign by a planet only means that the planet has a special significanct resonant relationship with the qualities and "energies" of that sign-moreso than with any other particular sign-and that this is the "why" of that planet being called the "ruler" of that sign. I prefer to use the terms "significator" or "dispositor", rather than "ruler", for such planets relative to the signs.

PS: your post is intriguing, and well thought out:thanks!

 

[waybread]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

...
I've read a lot about what defines a planet as ruler, but it seems to be confusing and obscure for most astrologers.
Some says that in traditional astrology the Sun and Moon, the most visible celestial bodies to the oldies, have got the title of rulers of Leo and Cancer. By then, people had 7 visible bodies and 12 signs, so they determined that both the Sun, ruler of Leo, and the Moon, ruler of Cancer, would rule only one sign each and the other 5 planets would share the other signs, ruling 2 signs each planet. Since Mercury is the closest body to the Sun, it has become the ruler of the closer signs to Cancer and Leo, Gemini and Virgo. So, Mercury became the ruler of Gemini (day/positive) and Virgo (night/negative). Venus, the second closest planet to the Sun became ruler of Libra (positive) and Taurus (negative) and so on.

Right-- this goes back to around 2000 years ago. I don't know that the day/night or positive/negative is used a whole lot these days, other than in some of the essential dignities of traditional astrology. Hellenistic astrology didn't much exist before then, and the older Babylonian didn't use this scheme.

This has worked for many years (Kinda... Thousand and thousand years), but as everything in the world, Astrology has also changed, evolved (not for everyone, of course) and then Uranus got discovered.
After Uranus, Neptune's showed up and thereby lots of other bodies have come up to our knowledge, including Ceres, Pluto, asteroids, centaurs and stuff...

According to my readings, Modern Astrologers credited Uranus as a rulership of Aquarius because of three reasons:
1. it's the furthest sign to Leo.
2. Saturn fits perfectly to Capricorn and not that much to Aquarius.
3. The current events in the period that Uranus was discovered were so "Aquarius kind".

The same happened to Neptune.

It was similar to Pluto, but the sign that had its ruler changed in this occasion was Aries, instead of Scorpio. We have a break of pattern here, even Mars could fit so much more to Aries than Scorpio and Pluto and the current events were both "so Scorpio kind".

You are probably aware that European astrology nearly did out ca. 1700 CE (AD) The few surviving English astrologers were familiar w/ Saturn as ruling both Capricorn and Aquarius. They assigned Uranus to the "further-out" sign of Aquarius. They saw it as a malefic, like Saturn.

Mythologically Uranus was the father of Saturn, Saturn was the father of the Olympian gods, so there was a semblance of order.

Uranus is the Latin. The Greek is spelled (in Latin letters for anglophones) as Ouranos.

Neptune followed with Pisces, sharing it with Jupiter. After Pluto's discovery in 1930, there was a move to assign it to Aries, but Scorpio just worked a lot better. With the discovery of Eris in 2006, we might have a better candidate for Aries' co-rulership.

The point for me is:
Before saying that a planet is more related to a sign or another, we have to ask ourselves: What defines the function, characteristics and themes of a planet?

I found some answers:
1. Astrophysical characteristic:
The oldies believed that the planets were their gods and related them by some visible astrophysical characteristics. Thus a planet which moves slowly is associated to themes and things that happens during long periods, a quick planet has quick characteristics, a big planet has expanding and important characteristics and so go on:
One of the reasons for what the planet Mercury was believed to be the God "Hermes/Mercury" was due to its agility. People have noticed that that body moved quicker than the other ones, and so they related Mercury to the God of Messages, Communication and Agility. Coincidentally, Gemini, a sign that have similar characteristics to this God is close to Leo (The Sun), as well as the planet Mercury is close to the Sun.
Similar reasons made the planet Jupiter have been seen as "Jupiter/Zeus" as well as other planets to the other gods.

Saturn fits just fine with Aquarius, if you think through the meaning of an air sign; but then so does Uranus.

The problem is:
Not every planet have similar physical characteristics that their themes or even the themes of their rulered signs.
Saturn, for example, is the planet of solidity and structure, and it's made of gas.

But...
If we see by an abstract lens, we could say some planets have peculiar astrophysical characteristics similar to their functions in astrology. Saturn, again, is the planet related to restriction and limitation...and, well... it's limitated by their rings in an aesthetical abstract view.
Uranus, for instance, have its reverse rotation diferent from other planets (except for Venus), fitting the "rebelious, excentric and revolutionary" skills that they are related to.

2. Mythology characteristcs
Some Astrologers associate the functions and themes of the planets to the same characteristics and themes that the Mythology deities that have given them their names.
It's widely writing and easily found in books, forums, sites, blogs, articles and so on.
It's reasonable if we assume that the planets got their names because of the view the oldies had of them and also links the two reasons:
Since the planet Mercury is agile, it's believed to be the Messenger God of Agility and Communication, so...We can give it some functions and characteristics similar of the ones that the God had in its myth.
The oldies did believe that the planets were the Gods, so it does make sense to relate the myth's themes to the planet's function.
Almost every planet has at least one characteristic related to its mythologic name.

The problem is:
Firstly, not every planet have Roman names, for example. Uranus is a Greek one and it breaks the pattern. Other problem is that since Uranus was discovered scientists don't believe the planets are the deities and the names of the bodies are arbitrarily chosen in astronomical congresses not concerned to any astrological knowledge, nor physical or mythological characteristics. Often the name is chosen by the one who discovered the body. Chosing Greek/Roman mythological names for the celestial bodies is a tradition, but it doesn't mean that the chosen name for the body has any logical relation to the function the body plays in astrology. In other words, Uranus, the greek ancient Titan, has nothing to do with the characteristics of Aquarius or even with the planet.

But...
It works fine for traditional planets wich include the more distant and coldest visible planet, Saturn, who symbolized the limit of the Universe and was believed to be the older god who devored his children, related to death, coldness, solidity, limitations and traditions. It works as well for planets like Jupiter, the giant expanding one, who was the most worshiped God, for Mercury and its agility as the messenger of the gods, for Mars, the red planet, which symbolizes the blood, conflictions and war, for the Sun, which is the brighter and hotter one and gives us life and for others. Moreover, some of the choices made for the new bodies' names recently discovered had the participation of the Astrological Community, which integrates the astronomical and the astrological knowledge.

3. Discovery contemporary Events' characteristcs
The second answer calls into question the third which is that the planet/body themes and characteristics are associated to the events that have occurred at the same period of its discovery. When we talk about rulership, the events have also to carry the characteristics of the signs related to these themes.
That's the most spoken reason for why the modern planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto etc) are associated to their functions, themes and, therefore, to their rulered sings.
Uranus was discovered at the same period of the French Revolution, which brought to the light ideals of freedom, fraternity and equality and broke the society structures and paradigms through an extreme, rebelious, intelectual and suddenly brutal approuch. All these words (themes) are linked to Uranus, Aquarius and its function and qualities in Astrology. The same with Neptune (Pisces) and their themes, like psychology, and Pluto (Scorpio) and theirs, like mass destruction weapons.

The problem is:
Most part of the events were located in Europe or, at most, in western world. It totally excludes what was happening in these periods in other parts of the planet. Moreover, the events usually described as important or relevant to these periods seem to be handpicked whithout clear criterions. I mean that too many things were happening at the same time and in so many different places and cultures around the world when Uranus was discovered. Why are only these ones chosen as important? Isn't it a little too much convenient? What were the criterions to define the relevant events?
As for the rest, we'll probably never know what was happening when Mercury and Venus were discovered, since it was more than 5 thousand years ago and there is no register. Not speaking about the Sun and the Moon that were always known for every being that could see.

Astrology originated in Mesopotamia, and diffused from there into Greece, Egypt, Persia, and throughout the Roman empire. From Persia it diffused to India, where it combined with local cultural astronomy. Astrology survived in the Arab world when Hellenistic knowledge was lost to Europe's "Dark Ages."

But...
If we could decide the criterions which would define an event as important or not, and could explain why some locations are ignored and even then the events could still fit the signs the planets... them, we'd have a probably good answer. Uranus functions really do make perfect sense when they are related to Aquarius and to the past events of the period of its discovery. The same with Neptune and Pluto.

4. Others
Probably there are other reasons for what astrologers define what's a planet rule, its functions, influences and themes, but I don't know them.

I really want to know what other students and astrologers think and discovered about what defines the function, characteristics and themes of a planet?

- Are these mentioned reasons good ones?
- Which ones do really make sense for you?
- How to explain the problems that these theories carry?
- What are the other theories and their problems?

I think that the discussion will be more intriguing and interesting if we tell the sources where our opinion where based on. There's no need to deep research to give it... Just tell the source is your intuition, an impression, a practical experience or a site (with the link)... It would be good as well if we read what other people wrote before answering... A answer without listening will never be a sensible one. These are only suggestions, by the way.

Thanks for the participation and for the patience to read all of this hahaha

Where do you consider the issue of planets as being stronger in the signs of their domiciles? Where do you consider planets' thematic rulerships?

These are just crucial.

Mythology is important, but how well do you really know it? A little knowledge can lead you to conclusions that make little sense. We have to see myths as the ancients saw them. Uranus/Ouranos was the god of the starry heavens. Which is why Uranus is the modern ruler of astrology.

Astrology is really not that much based on modern astronomy, except for a few modern astrologers who have tried to make it fit.. Much of modern astrology's lore actually dates back to Hellenistic astrology.

I'll try to respond further to your long post tomorrow if I have more time than I do now.

 

[waybread]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

Hi, again, Angelo.

Good for you that you've put so much thought into this topic-- more than I could do last night, because I was rushed. So here is some more feed-back.

1. Astrophysical characteristics. These are very recent compared to astrology's long history. I find them to be kind of an add-on, for the most part. Orbital characteristics have had more traction in modern astrology, notably planetary cycles like the Saturn return.

2. Mythology: Unfortunately a lot of astrologers do not know their mythology very well. Here is a really good site: www.theoi.com . Note that Greek astronomers call the planets by their Greek, not Roman names; as did the ancient Hellenistic astrologers who wrote in Greek, like Ptolemy. As most of the Roman names got used up for asteroids by around 1900, all kinds of names have come into use, like Sedna, Make Make, and Haumea for some trans-Neptunians. Which is fine. There is no actual reason to stick with Roman names.

Mars actually is not a red planet. When you see it in the sky it looks more pale orange or flame-coloured. Prior to adopting Babylonian gods translated into Greek mythology during the 3rd century BCE, the Greeks called the planet Mars "the fiery one." Mars was the Babylonian planetary god Nergal, who ruled war and drought.

3. I agree with you on the very Euro-centric bias in mundane events used to identify planets' characteristics. On the other hand, much of the world today was ruled by Europe during the colonial era when Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were discovered.

4. Under "others" I hope you will get into planetary domiciles. I'm a modern astrologer, but traditionalists also use a lot of lesser "essential dignities." Learn which planets rule which phenomena. Then just see if they work in chart interpretation.

 

[CapAquaPis]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

While in the Solar system as more planets or dwarf planets are being discovered, times are changing and society goes through a new phase of world or human history in the new Aquarian age. Here's why Eris should be co-ruler of Aquarius, Taurus and Libra.

1. Astrophysics: a dark world, Eris is a dwarf planet which takes 510 years to orbit the sun, and it's actually larger than Pluto-there ought to be influence in astrological profiles.

2. Mythology: Eris is the Greek goddess of discord, despair and disaster. But she represents business, profiteering and economic growth, she could co-rule Gemini or have influence in Gemini's lives.

3. Discovery: In 2005, when Eris was discovered, women in the western world are more empowered, becoming equal and the societial barriers of sex or gender are narrowing.

4. The Air signs (Gemini, Libra and Aquarius) have a bi-gender, gender neutral and ambiguity in sexual or gender identity. Eris symbolizes the strength of women (when society is rejecting sexist notions of gender roles) and masculine signs will have a feminine (dwarf) planet. Other "feminine" planets are the Moon (Cancer-the birth mother and maybe Leo), Venus (Taurus and Libra) and Ceres (maybe Cancer and Virgo-the virgin maiden).

 

[Angelo Viggiani]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

I'm a little late, but I simply need to thank everybody (specially waybread) for attention and the participation.

It's truly important for my studies and their refining.

I have a few questions for you all according to what I've understood about what you've said (I'm not a native speaker and sometimes I can't understand some complicated sentences about a subject I'm not comfortable):

Dr. Farr.

If you call it "dispositor" or "ruler" it doesn't change the function of a dispositorship/rulership, does it?
What do you exactly understand as a "dispositor"? What are its function or action over a sign or a chart?
Thank you for the answer and for saying that the post is intriguing

WayBread

The "positive/negative thing" is useful for me since it defines the yin/yang kinds of expressions for each sign. But it's useful only to the signs. On the other hand, although I don't interpret Venus (or either any other planet) as a "dual ruler" with a positive and negative expression, I think it's relevant to study what was the polarities for the ancient and try to understand how it has changed and what it became nowadays.
It's not concerned to this post, but maybe you'd like to know that I study possible three "energies" for each planet: Positive, Negative or Neuter.

The second part, where you used other quotes, I couldn't understand what was yours and what was mine because it seems that the quotes tool didn't work. But for the parts I understood I have some notes:
1 - I've already read that "Uranus" is the Greek name for "Ouranos".
2 - I didn't understand why you've said about Persia and Mesopotamia
3 - Why would Saturn be linked with the air element?
4 - I didn't understand it: "Where do you consider the issue of planets as being stronger in the signs of their domiciles? Where do you consider planets' thematic rulerships?"
5 - I liked what you said about "interpreting" the myths with the ancient view and mind. Thank you!

When I say "Astrophysical characteristics" I mean the academic ones, but I also consider the visual aspects the ancient could see as astrophysical. At least it was physical.

I like the point that you say that the language of the myth's name isn't relevant. The important thing is what the myth itself used to symbolize for that culture. But I find very difficult to consider "make-make" as a important astrological body as well as the nodes. Not only for the name, but for the origin of the myth. I know it's probably prejudice o'mine.

I have a whole other topic to be written talking about rulerships. But as I said, I need firstly to understand what has to be considered to give a planet its functions.

So... Summing up

1. You think that the astrophysical characteristics can't define what's the function of a planet. Just add some lesser important characteristics. Right?

2. You think that the myths are an important thing to be seen, specially because some different myths from different cultures were related to a even planet. Ok. I like to consider the myths too, but what do you say about this part of the problem: "since Uranus was discovered scientists don't believe the planets are the deities and the names of the bodies are arbitrarily chosen in astronomical congresses not concerned to any astrological knowledge, nor physical or mythological characteristics."
If the names are randomly chosen, how to give any function based on that? Even if the names weren't randomly chosen; if they were really chosen to have some specific functions... How could men choose the astrological function and influence of a recent discovered body with almost no interpretation of that in charts?

3. You're right about widely Euro influences over the world. But shouldn't this criterion (of events) be valid to the former planets as well? Or is it a criterion that has to be used only with no traditional planets?

4. I'll still speak about rulership, but I don't think that the rulership itself could define the functions of a planet. Could it?
It makes sense for me that before we define which sign a planet could be ruler of, we define the functions, influences, themes and actions of the same planet and after that, look for a sign that resonates the same characteristics and themes of the planet.

Oh God... I wrote too much and I'm totally tired now hahaha

Thank you so much for your participation Waybread!


CapAquaPis

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand why you said about Eris and Co-rulership...
The motion I proposed is to choose some criterion to define what are the functions of a new planet or body and only after that start to think in possible signs to be ruler for these planets.

But thanks even this way!

 

[Angelo Viggiani]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

I'm sorry.
I nearly didn't understand what you meant.

Is it all about the functions of the planets? Could you please explain me your point?

 

[aldebaran]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

I believe astrology never lost a spectrum of "occult", "esoteric" science, in such a way that not every researcher/practioner wants to make everyone aware of it's methods/reasoning - and the real roots for relating a planet to a sign might often be among this blur.

The association of Planets/Signs are made by many different people with way different techniques, from statistics to spiritual practices; and there's still much debate about it, as you know, bread or breads, it's a matter of opinions.

 

[dr. farr]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

For me, dispositorship means that the dispositor of the sign (significator of the sign) has a relationship with whatever planet (or node or Lot) posits that sign, that is, the dispositor "colors" the net influence of the planet (node or Lot) in the sign of that dispositor.

Further, the dispositor (significator) of the sign can be taken as the planetary KEYNOTE representing that sign (in certain astrological applications, such as horary)

Also, when the dispositor (significator) of a sign is posited in that sign, because of the resonance between that sign and the dispositor (sigificator), that planet is particularly enhanced in its potentials.

I reject the concept that a planet COERCES, or even has the potential to COERCE, a sign or planets (or nodes or Lots) in that sign: that's why I try to avoid using the term "ruler", because this implies the potential for coercion. I think of the signs (as opposed to the starry zodiacal constellations) as "windows" through which planetary energies pass and are colored thereby. If the "color" of a planet is near exact to the "color" of a sign (I am using analogy here) then that planet is significator for that sign; since the "color" of the planet and the "color" of the window (sign) are so close, any OTHER planet "shining" through that "window" would be "disposited" (influenced) by the "color" of the planetary "significator" of that sign (since the "color" of the planetary significator or dispositor of that window/sign, is so close to the exact "color" of that window/sign) Please understand that I am using the term "color" here only by analogy-the actuality of the situation is really one of subtle enegetic patterns of resonance, but I think my use of these terms-color, windows-helps to convey the esoteric concept I am trying to explain.

 

[dr. farr]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

To the OP's question about how these allocations of planets to signs were originally made, my answer is that it is my opinion that these relationships were revealed by the direct gnostic experience of the relationship of signs and planets, by those adepts who originated the fundamental concepts of the astrological art.

 

[Angelo Viggiani]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

Aldebaran.
I understand what you say and I can accept that in a small level, but not wholy. I believe that parameters are important when we intend to analyse anything, and it's the same for astrology, in my opinion.

We'll never know some reasons and secrets about the Universe, but looking for some answers for some questions which still don't have their answers is an important part of knowing anything deeply.

That's why I propose this topic.
For you, Aldebaran, I ask again.

What defines the function, characteristics and themes of a planet?

 

[Angelo Viggiani]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

For me, dispositorship means that the dispositor of the sign (significator of the sign) has a relationship with whatever planet (or node or Lot) posits that sign, that is, the dispositor "colors" the net influence of the planet (node or Lot) in the sign of that dispositor.

Further, the dispositor (significator) of the sign can be taken as the planetary KEYNOTE representing that sign (in certain astrological applications, such as horary)

Also, when the dispositor (significator) of a sign is posited in that sign, because of the resonance between that sign and the dispositor (sigificator), that planet is particularly enhanced in its potentials.

I reject the concept that a planet COERCES, or even has the potential to COERCE, a sign or planets (or nodes or Lots) in that sign: that's why I try to avoid using the term "ruler", because this implies the potential for coercion. I think of the signs (as opposed to the starry zodiacal constellations) as "windows" through which planetary energies pass and are colored thereby. If the "color" of a planet is near exact to the "color" of a sign (I am using analogy here) then that planet is significator for that sign; since the "color" of the planet and the "color" of the window (sign) are so close, any OTHER planet "shining" through that "window" would be "disposited" (influenced) by the "color" of the planetary "significator" of that sign (since the "color" of the planetary significator or dispositor of that window/sign, is so close to the exact "color" of that window/sign) Please understand that I am using the term "color" here only by analogy-the actuality of the situation is really one of subtle enegetic patterns of resonance, but I think my use of these terms-color, windows-helps to convey the esoteric concept I am trying to explain.

Your analogy with "colors" is great hahaha Don't you worry about that.
But I keep asking you about it:

If the "color" of a planet is near exact to the "color" of a sign (I am using analogy here) then that planet is significator for that sign
...

What defines the color of a planet?
It doesn't matter if we call it a "ruler" or a "significator". Both are fine for me. By the way, I like more "significator" than "ruler". I liked your explanation...

But the question's still around.

What are the parameters which can makes us know and define the color of a planet?

 

[david starling]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

To the OP's question about how these allocations of planets to signs were originally made, my answer is that it is my opinion that these relationships were revealed by the direct gnostic experience of the relationship of signs and planets, by those adepts who originated the fundamental concepts of the astrological art.

That was a visceral type of direct confirmation. As I've (" mentioned" is an understatement, "reiterated" is more like it ) there is a Tropical Age system available. And Astrology as we use it developed during the Foreground Age of Tropical Sagittarius, when such visionary ability was readily available. Sagittarius is a visionary Sign, and vision relates to Light, which Gnosticism considers the Higher Reality. Gnosticism is a Sagittarian Age religion. When the Age of Tropical Capricorn "kicked in" around 400 A.D., Sagittarius became the Background Age-sign, and visionary ability became increasingly less accessible. We're reduced to having to trust what was revealed to the Seers and Prophets of a bygone era, and extrapolating from that, analytically and intuitively.

 

[david starling]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

In my own studies, entirely personal, I use patterns based on the rate of movement of what I call the "Major Indicators", relative to the Modalities and Elements, for the Fixed and Mutable Signs. This includes the Sun, which I have (as per usual) ruling Fixed-fire. But, for the Cardinal-signs, I use a Heliocentric "cipher", where positionality relative to Earth's Heliocentric orbit determine rulership: Adjacency to Earth's orbit for the Equinoctial rulers (inside and outside, Venus and Mars); and a position ON Earth's orbit versus farthest distance away from it, based on the limiting factor of naked-eye detection, for the Solstitial (Moon and Saturn). The obvious fact alone that the Sun is Fiery, and fixed in place in the Heliocentric coordinates, marks it as ruler of Fixed-fire when using the cipher. I took nothing for granted and started from scratch, while using the Ancient's revelations as a guide. There are some differences, but nothing that can't be explained using other patterns. I'm not looking for agreement, just letting you know not everyone is relying on intuition alone when it comes to Modern rulership-assignments. The patterns I'm using do confirm the three outermost rulerships uranus:/, /, and /.)

 

[david starling]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

Happened to notice a pattern, not a convincing one, but still a pattern IF you number the Signs (I happen to), from 1 to 12, beginning with (Tropical) Aries: As each Planet past Saturn was discovered, the higher-numbered Sign ruled by the outermost Planet that ruled 2 Signs was taken away and given to the newly discovered one. So, Sign #11 was taken from Saturn, Sign #12 from Jupiter, and Sign #8, from Mars. Leaving them with Signs 10, 9, and 1, respectively.

 

[aldebaran]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

Aldebaran.
For you, Aldebaran, I ask again.

What defines the function, characteristics and themes of a planet?

I wasn't intending to undervaluate the question, but only giving other scopes.

To be more comfortable, I would rather change the question to "What are possibilities of defining function, characteristics and themes of a planet?"

One method is just seeing "what happens" when the planet is activated, be it by transit be it by other predictive methods; whatever happens - be it an action, be the presence of an object, be certain kind of feeling, etc - it seems to belong to the realms of that Planet/Sign.

Another approach I find quite interesting is paying attention in elements and modalities. Water, Earth, Fire, Air - Cardinal, Fixed, Mutable.
The signs are perfectly symetric in 12; the Planets, well, if we believe in modern rulerships, they seem to aim at a symmetry, with mysteries surrounding Venus and Mercury yet.

Those elements/modalities can be found on your own psychology:what is fixed fire on yourself? what is mutable water? And to understand what is it, you can use all symbolism of Sun/Leo/5th house, Neptune/Pisces/12th house, etc. From that, what is mutable water on your life? What does it appear of mutable water when Neptune - or it's dodecatemorion - is around?

The generality runs around. Those generalities are without size. At the end, everyone whatever wants approves, lord knows: bread or breads, it's a matter of opinieads.

 

[dr. farr]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

What are the parameters which can makes us know and define the color of a planet?

Ultimately, the direct gnostic experience of the reality ("color") of that "planet", which ultimately is a shamanic-based direct experience.

Failing such a direct experience of the reality ("color") of the planet, we go with the record of experiences (empiricism) related to the planet as accumulated over time by substantial numbers of independent astrological observers (which is what has occurred relative to the outers, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in modern astrology)

 

[CapAquaPis]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

Angelo, there's a good reason how come Uranus became the ruler of Aquarius.

1. A tilted planet (98' Axis), Uranus surely stands out in our solar system.

2. Uranus is the god of Liberty, science, innovation and radical politics.

3. In 1781, during the American revolution, followed by the French in 1789.

4. Discovered during the age of reason in British and western Europe cultures.

You see, Aquarians are under the influence of such a planet much like them.

 

[david starling]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

Right-- this goes back to around 2000 years ago. I don't know that the day/night or positive/negative is used a whole lot these days, other than in some of the essential dignities of traditional astrology. Hellenistic astrology didn't much exist before then, and the older Babylonian didn't use this scheme.



You are probably aware that European astrology nearly did out ca. 1700 CE (AD) The few surviving English astrologers were familiar w/ Saturn as ruling both Capricorn and Aquarius. They assigned Uranus to the "further-out" sign of Aquarius. They saw it as a malefic, like Saturn.

Mythologically Uranus was the father of Saturn, Saturn was the father of the Olympian gods, so there was a semblance of order.

Uranus is the Latin. The Greek is spelled (in Latin letters for anglophones) as Ouranos.

Waybread, you're usually quite accurate, but from my research, "Uranus" isn't the Roman version of Ouranos. It appears to be an incorrect rendering of "Ouranos" by modern Astronomers. In the Ancient Latin, the Roman equivalent of Ouranos was "Caelus", just as Jupiter, for example, was the Roman equivalent of Zeus. So, if "Uranus" is definitely intended to mean "Ouranos", it's just misspelled, and Angelo is quite right--it's a Greek name for a god, whereas the other Planets, with the exception of Pluto, are exclusively Roman names. "Dis" was the original Roman name for Pluto, and "Caelus", for Ouranos (or, Uranus, going along with the modern misspelling). But, eventually, the Romans did adopt the name Pluto for the brother of Jupiter and Neptune, whereas they never did use the name Ouranos (again, modern misspelling Uranus). The other MAJOR Greek God who kept his name from Greek to Roman, was Apollo, "most Greek of the gods".

 

[aldebaran]

Re: Modern Rulership. What defines a ruler?

DrFarr,

For predictive, do you use Saturn/Jupiter for Aquarius/Pisces or the modern? If not the modern, do you find Saturn/Jupiter more akin to Aquarius/Pisces "color" (using the very helpful metaphor), or do you have other criterium for doing so in predictive?

ps: I finally understood fixed stars a little better, and now I see them as really indispensable.