I was talking to someone recently, on Reddit, who said that the essential dignities could not be applied to the outer planets because they belong to modern astrology. Of course this is somewhat ridiculous, because a planet is a planet whether or not the ancients knew of them. In fact, they probably did, at least the astral beings who could see the universe as it was. This person did however introduce this new concept to me, the Thema Mundi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thema_Mundi), WHICH As far as I can tell, is just a hypothetical birth chart for the solar system - I haven't read it yet, so I will need to edit this later -
But it just befuddles me as to why classical astrology finds the need to dismiss the outer planets which have clearly always been in the energy field, and have always exerted a power over the astrological being which humanity begets itself from. If one takes a holistic account of the world, then the realization comes that Uranus' discovery in 1781 officialized the expansion of human consciousness to previously unconscious realms. That is, the European Enlightenment was the flare for a wider and deeper penetration of humanity's collective consciousness into reality. As the discovery of Neptune and Pluto followed on the heels of Uranus' discovery in the next two centuries, humanity had undergone vast transformations in practically every field. But as I insist it is a mistake for traditional astrologers to negate this expansion as if it were quackery. Modern astrology is known for its flaky and charlatan character, but once the new planets revealed themselves, just as when humanity first observed the nearby planets (for one can witness Uranus with the naked eye only if they are a master astronomer, but not so Neptune & Pluto), they had to delineate their divine energies and codify their astrological meaning. And yet traditional astrology rejects this as a watering-down of the 'true' astrology.
I do not care, though, if people utilize their preferred astrological method. But for those who give heed to the outer planets as astrological beings, as eternal as any other planet is,* these planets must be understood within the zodiac, meaning we can try to understand their essential dignities.
As the usual interpretation goes, Uranus is identified with Aquarius, Neptune is Pisces, and Pluto is Scorpio. This should not be taken at face value and they should be questioned. This new conceptuality, for one, gives these three signs two planetary rulers, one more than every other sign. But while I may be biased, there is certainly a depth to Scorpio, Pisces, and Aquarius more than others - and yet who is to say that Capricorn, or Gemini don't have a secret depth? Thus the systemization is potentially arbitrary.
Nonetheless, these planets occur in everybody's chart, and they must rejoice or cause ill in each according to their placement. If we take Uranus first, this planet is supposed to indicate revolution, eccentricity, spontaneity and disruption, and so we might say that it suits the impassioned and revolutionary signs the most. Aries might be comfortable here, Capricorn and Virgo not as much.
As for Neptune, astronomically named because of its intense blue color, it is a planet of illusion, drug-intoxication, egolessness, idealism and purity. One might imagine that Cancer finds some sort of comfort in this planet while Libra and Taurus fare well here too- the Venusian principle might be at home here... while Aries and... Virgo? find no contentment here.
Pluto is probably the most prickly of the planets, and so I really have nothing more to say except my stupid thoughts! Virgo might find some repose here, because they seek to analyze intensely, and Gemini might find neutrality; Pisces is weak here, along with Taurus; Aries loves it and Leo is glad for Pluto's challenge........ Libra becomes corrupted by it, Capricorn detests but respects it.... Sagittarius dreams of murdering it, and Aquarius considers Pluto a nuisance at best.
Anyways, just a bunch of QUACK QUACK QUACKING HAPPY ASTROLOGYING AND GOSH BLESS!
* Astronomically, the theory of the solar system was that the solar nebula (nebula= Latin for cloud, which only means the solar system was once made of a 'cloud' of gas and dust until it compressed into a gaseous proto-sun) produced its eight offspring - since Pluto is a dwarf planet - over a long gestation of time, the outer planets being last - but don't quote me on that, as my astrohistory is rusty
No comments:
Post a Comment