posted February 19, 2010 04:36 PM              

Many of the most respected and experienced astrologers do not consult the asteroids -- as they see it, these are minor influences, and the chart already provides more than enough to interpret (including planetary placements by sign and house, aspects, transits, progressions, house-cusp rulers, and so on). And many who have experimented with the asteroids and found them useful still say that the same information can be found by a proper study of the primary archetypes, as signified by the signs, houses, and planets.

I am inclined to agree that we have scarcely enough time to confront the major themes (as shown by the primary planets, transits, and progressions), without giving our attention to the minor influences signified by asteroids. But what I really want to know is how astrologers are coming up with interpretations of these asteroids, by the dozens. What methods are they using to determine the probabilities? How many thousands of charts are they comparing, in order to statistically determine the interpretations of each one of these asteroids?

Are these interpretations reliable, or just figments of the astrologer's imagination, eagerly seized upon by people desperate to find meaning in their natal (or synastry) charts? Do we enable poor astrologers, and encourage them to think they are more accomplished than they are, just because they can point to an obscure body in the heavens and reassure us that there is indeed strong karma between us and so-and-so, despite the lack of major planetary interaspects? Do we fool ourselves into thinking some asteroid is really important because, after all, it's conjunct our sun (and nothing else is)!? Why are we so quick to believe the first astrologer who claims to have discovered the meaning of an asteroid? Have we interrogated him/her in order to learn the semi-divine methods by which he/she has come by this rare knowledge?

If there is an astrologer out there who claims to have "cracked" the meaning of more than a dozen asteroids, I'd love to hear them share their methods with us. How did you do it? Don't be coy. Share the wealth and wisdom. My Sun/Uranus in Scorpio on the Midheaven would seem to be perfect for an astrologer, but, for the life of me, I can't begin to make claims about the meaning of some obscure astrological body -- not when every conceivable theme has already been covered by the dominant archetypes.

What do you think?

posted February 19, 2010 06:02 PM            

If they support the planets, and add more confirming dimension, I think they are accurate.

Some asteroids are more studied and proven, such as lilith and chiron.

posted February 19, 2010 06:04 PM            

It seems like a clutching at straws to me.

But, then again, in a hundred years when that is the only system relevant, we may be eating our words, so, who knows???

posted February 19, 2010 07:08 PM            

I'm not sure that the word "important" fits the bill here. I think it's important to fully immerse yourself in basic astrology. Make sure those skills are pretty strong before you allow asteroids to tell the whole story. I think of it like baking a cake and then adding the icing. I love icing, it's my favorite part of the cake, but I would hate to just sit down eat icing, it needs the cake, the foothold, the solid structure. That kind of thing.

EDIT: Just thought I'd add these...

posted February 19, 2010 07:19 PM            

Valentine=Love

posted February 19, 2010 07:23 PM            

Ok so asteroids - does size matter? Nope.

Some are important. Some are not important.
I think it depends more on how well known the name is.

Valentine has figured prominently in all my relationships.. but Valentine is HIGHLY publicized practically all around the globe.. That's how I explain it.

Other asteroids are words we use daily. They are very ingrained in our speech (in several languages) - like Union.

I think astrology in general works through word-vibration.. I'm not sure how else it could work. Mars is not objectively "red" (it is red based on our-human visual perception). Mars is not objectively war-like, because red is not objectively war-like. We attributed these traits to the planet when we gave it the name: Mars (due to the associations with Roman and Greek Myth)

So that is how I see asteroids working also..

quote:

---

How did you do it? Don't be coy. Share the wealth and wisdom. My Sun/Uranus in Scorpio on the Midheaven would seem to be perfect for an astrologer, but, for the life of me, I can't begin to make claims about the meaning of some obscure astrological body

---

I think it's mainly through looking at charts over and over again.. and finding patterns.. things that are significant and things that are not.
Isn't that how we learn most things.. and how we form conclusions? Through research?

posted February 19, 2010 07:37 PM            

I don't use asteroids when I do consultations, everyone once in a while at the end of a consultation, out of curiosity. I would never judge the whole horoscope based on that, but I do think that after looking at the scope of the woman's life, and how she is thought of "collectively" in the world of entertainment, even internationally it holds a curious significance.

posted February 19, 2010 07:47 PM            

How wonderful to see you back!

posted February 19, 2010 08:07 PM            

Check out this website...

posted February 19, 2010 08:18 PM            

I guess it's subjective. I am not saying it's wrong, but it just doesn't knock me over. It seems to generalized to me. I don't really associate hearts with Valentine's Day, although I know I am in the minority with that, because most people do think of the heart shape with valentine's day. But even if I did, a heart symbol as the opening of the show doesn't equal "Valentine" to me. I just think it's a stretch.

Now, if the show had 'Valentine' in the title, I would be more swayed.

Also, rasperri and I both have it conjunct our suns as well...

It's too bad her name on the show wasn't different, because that would probably floor me, if it was conjunct her sun.I think 'valentine' is too generic. JMO.

posted February 19, 2010 08:46 PM            

When I see really good looking men or women, I always assume there is a connection between their Mars and Neptune and I'm right about 85 percent of the time.