|
Author
|
Topic: history question
|
moonshine
unregistered
|
posted October 25, 2004 05:48 PM
 
HI as a fairly new astrology-enthusiast, could someone please explain to me how planets are assigned by astrologers? How did they know how which planet influenced us in which way? I know its hard to answer as most of it was set up in ancient times (eg Babylonian), but when the "newer" planets were discovered, (eg: Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), how did they know what they represented? How did rearrange their existing system of knowledge to incorporate new information — and do they all agree? Is there a commitee of astrologers, somewhere who decide this stuff?I know this is a bit technical, but the more I read about astrology, the more fascinated I get with astrologers... like how did they get to be astrologers? Are they psychic, or just very good at learning all the technical stuff? sorry about all this, I cant seem to find the answers i seek anwhere..  IP: Logged |
astro junkie
unregistered
|
posted October 25, 2004 06:02 PM
From what I understand, they take note on the types of changes or prominent going's on when the planet was discovered, so the discovery and the events become one. Chiron is an example of a Planetoid discovered relatively recently, and astrologists are still passing information back and forth and trying to arrive at a consensus or understanding. It's not something that one person decides. Sometimes it can take a long time.IP: Logged |
Gemini Nymph
unregistered
|
posted October 25, 2004 06:13 PM
The newer planets were assigned to signs after consdierable debate, discernment and observation. Uranus and Neptune were assigned to Aquarius and Pisces respectively *partly* in due to them being the last two signs the Zodiac (although this was also debated). Before then the two furthest planets - Jupiter and Saturn - were assigned to Pisces and Aquarius. Then Pluto was discovered in the last century and screwed things up worse. There were three planets still being co-ruled: Mercury (Gemini and Virgo), Venus (Taurus and Libra) and Mars (Aries and Scorpio). It was largely accepted among astrologers that Pluto had something Martian about it, and then a debate insued which - Aries or Scorpio - should be assigned to it. To some extent, these newer assignment can be and are still challenged, although mostly it's just Pluto. It looks like right now that Scorpio will get Pluto, but there's still some hold outs that want Aries to have it. Things potentially could get more interesting int eh near future as it's being debated among astronomers whether one of Pluto's moon is a moon or planets, as it is nearly the same size as Pluto and it doesn't techincally revolve around Pluto (a requirement for moons) - Pluto and this moon revolve around each other like waltz partners. Strangely astrology hasn;t begun to investigate this (we're still figuring out Pluto), but if it does, the theories should be intriguing.
IP: Logged |
moonshine
unregistered
|
posted October 25, 2004 06:32 PM
Oh I see, thanks. That's made it a little clearer for me. OK so what about the planet Vulcan, which apparently hasnt been discovered yet, but which Linda has mentioned in her books as the true ruler of Virgo? Was she predicting this, since of course if it hasnt been discovered yet, how does she know?! Or was she being facetious and I am just a gullible idiot!
IP: Logged |
astro junkie
unregistered
|
posted October 26, 2004 01:52 AM
No, you're not a gullible idiot. Linda thought of a couple of "planets" that were to be discovered. One for Virgo, and one for Taurus. I was saying in a past thread that we don't really know how she arrived at their names.IP: Logged |
puppyblew
unregistered
|
posted October 26, 2004 02:34 AM
cool question moonshine!  i've always wondered this myself. thanks for bringing it up and thanks guys for making it clearer for me!p.s. and i would keep pluto with scorpio. anyone knows you don't mess with a scorpio!
what are they thinking? IP: Logged |
astro junkie
unregistered
|
posted October 26, 2004 02:53 AM
I vote Pluto for Scorpio  IP: Logged |
moonshine
unregistered
|
posted October 27, 2004 10:52 AM
OK so basically astrologers assign planets to signs by observation and debate. Thanks I have more questions! If pluto was assigned to scorpio would there be different implications than if it was assigned to Aries? ie would it change the sign somehow? How do astrologers know that it doesnt belong to say, Gemini instead, or Aquarius? I mean, what is it about Pluto that makes them think it can only relate to aries or scorpio and not some other sign? Does it relate to the Greek god Pluto? Also who named it Pluto in the first place, an astrologer or astronomer? If it was given another name, (ie not related to Greek gods, would that confuse astrologers? Sorry about this, Im probably not making myself clear - I just have so many holes in my knowledge! I often find information on the Whats in relation to astrology but not enough on the Whys and the Hows!!  IP: Logged |
astro junkie
unregistered
|
posted October 27, 2004 01:46 PM
I'm sure there's a lot more to this, and I do not mean to make it sound simplistic, but there is a "dark hidden" personality to Pluto. Mars is seen as the fiery one, red and more akin to fire ... Aries ...IP: Logged | |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
