Aug 21, 2006

3866 and the new definition of "planet"

3866 hits to my website in one week. It's a record!

The majority of hits come via my blog. Usually, my post Losing my virginity is what draws the crowd in. This week, though, it's my untitled post about Quaoar, which tells me that some astrological people out there are looking for information. So here's my take on the news about new planets or demoted ones, as it relates to astrology:

First of all, my stance is that one should first understand traditional astrology, with the original seven rulers (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) since they aid in understanding the signs and houses, and vice-versa. You can get a depth in understanding Mars when you know it rules both a cardinal (pioneering) Fire (spirit) sign and a fixed (steadfast) Water (emotion) sign (Aries and Scorpio, respectively). Likewise, knowing that stodgy Saturn rules Aquarius can clue you in on that sign's true nature rather than going by revolutionary Uranus alone. (When Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were discovered, they were assigned (co-)rulerships of Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio, respectively, making many modern astrologers ignore the connections of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars to those signs.)

Now, I can honestly say that I have felt the influence of a Pluto transit (I enjoyed it; yes, it was Pluto). Do I think something will be amiss if Pluto gets demoted as a planet and therefore no longer should feature in the basic birth chart? Astrologers have discussed this. I have astrology books published in the 1930's and 1940's that do not mention Pluto at all, and traditionalists would rather focus on the traditional rulerships first and foremost, anyway. But some astrologers say that all new discoveries are significant and relevant to the times in which the discovery happens (Pluto rules nuclear power and bombs because it showed up while research into such things was starting) and to people born during those times. So, anyone born after 1930 belongs to a Pluto generation of people. Likewise, Chiron would feature in all the charts of people born after 1977.

But now our skies, thanks to modern technology, are littered with all kinds of heavenly bodies, some of which are found within our own solar system, and some of these bodies are on the verge of a status change (like Ceres, going from asteroid to planet), depending on the voting of the IAU on August 25. This reminds me of today's world, actually: There are so many sources of information and ways of connecting with people, that sometimes it feels overwhelming. It must be overwhelming. What's important? What matters, whether it be messages at the office or celestial points in a birth chart?

I like simplicity, and it works. Instead of the RSS feed and constant reminders of e-mail via your cell phone, you can go back to basics. Answer e-mail only certain times of the day. Turn off instant messaging. In astrology, remove all the outer stuff and see first what the seven original rulers say in your chart.

The thing about astrology is that it has a lot of failsafes. There's an overall theme to a chart. Start focusing on house cusps and the theme is echoed. Dig a little deeper, and the aspect between two particular planets also echo that theme. The number of dynamic vs. calm aspects echo. The house placement of planets echo. It's a repeating pattern that helps you understand the chart, and it's there whether or not you throw in the asteroids or newer discoveries.

Would I add Ceres to my chart? Or Xena? It might tell me something about my role in the times in which we live. However, so does my 12th house Sun. I'd just be having fun with fractals - seeing the same pattern over and over, fascinating as that is. I am curious about Ceres, since it hits a part of my chart that is also otherwise energized, so perhaps poking around with transits from Ceres would be enlightening. (My experience is that attention-getting planets in a chart are also attention-getting by transit.) I also find some astrologers argument for Ceres as a Virgo ruler to have merit. But I doubt it will replace Virgo's original ruler, Mercury.

So don't sweat the small stuff; have fun with it or not.

UPDATE August 24: The IAU have voted, and Pluto is no longer officially a planet due to its orbit crossing Neptune's.

5 comments:

max said...

Hrmm. I have Ceres conjunct chart ruler Venus, by less than a degree, which in turn loosely conjuncts Sappho.

That means something, I don't know what.

Anyways, the larger asteroids + Eros, Sappho & Amor are pretty useful. They don't rule anything.

Anymore than Pluto does.

max
['Don't get me started on Vendimiatrix.']

Keera said...

I think I love you. I am so annoyed at all the people demanding that Pluto get its planetary status back. Why? You can't see it! You wouldn't know it was there unless some astronomer with a high-powered telescope told you that pinprick light amidst all those other pinprick lights was it. Ceres was initially claimed as planet - until the astronomers discovered all the other bodies around it. Now the same thing has happened to Pluto. We're not losing something, people, we're gaining. Think about all the other space junk we're going to discover in our backyard now!

In order of exactitude: Ceres square Mercury, opposing Uranus, conjunct Chiron. And Mars disposing my Mercury in Scorpio has always worked for me (does muck up my nice mutual reception between Mercury and Pluto, though).

['Start. I have no clue what you're talking about and neither does Google.']

max said...

I think I love you. I am so annoyed at all the people demanding that Pluto get its planetary status back.

I don't get them; it's a fucking snowball. Who gives a shit?

You wouldn't know it was there unless some astronomer with a high-powered telescope told you that pinprick light amidst all those other pinprick lights was it.

If Clyde Tombaugh hadn't dedicated his life to finding it, or had been a little less lucky, it would never have been a planet.

In order of exactitude: Ceres square Mercury, opposing Uranus, conjunct Chiron. And Mars disposing my Mercury in Scorpio has always worked for me (does muck up my nice mutual reception between Mercury and Pluto, though).

So you don't get along with mom so much (I knew that), and you are maybe not the best cook. No insult intended. :>

My everything in Virgo is owned by Mercury in Scorpio which is owned by Mars which is owned by Cap and Saturn which sits in Aries, and is owned by Mars. And the moon in Taurus, is owned by Venus which is in it's home sign, and which opposes Saturn and square Mars by sign.

Hrmm. Women over there, everything over here and the two are in opposition.

FEH. Kill me.

Start. I have no clue what you're talking about and neither does Google.

Vendimiatrix?
Fixed Stars in Libra. Vendemiatrix, actually. Nasty fixed star at 9Lib56.

I have Venus at 6Lib57, Ceres at 7Lib40, and Sappho at 8Lib47. Diadem sits right on Sappho, but the good ones (Zaniah, Tureis and Edasaich) sit earlier in Libra than Venus, and the nasty one, Vendemiatrix is off of Sappho by about a degree.)

Nothing quite close enough to call it a dead on hit (except to Sappho) but close enough to have some effect, I suppose. And that whole Libra complex sat right off BPF's Sappho at 12Lib??, which was three degrees off of Pluto at 15Lib??, and then Pluto squares my Mars.

Chain reaction, no?

max
['Luckily, Agena is very close to my sun.']

Keera said...

you are maybe not the best cook

I do joke about how I didn't realize what a bad cook I was until smoke alarms became mandatory. But I do produce tasty dishes; I'm lousy on presentation, though, and don't like making fussy dishes. My omelets are fabulous.

My everything in Virgo is owned by Mercury in Scorpio which is owned by Mars which is owned by Cap and Saturn which sits in Aries, and is owned by Mars. And the moon in Taurus, is owned by Venus which is in it's home sign, and which opposes Saturn and square Mars by sign.

Moon -> Mars -> Mercury -> Moon. For example. I have two trees. One ends in Saturn, the other in the above-mentioned loop (or as a mutual reception with Pluto). I've given up arguing with my opposite selves. Sagittarius wants to have fun!

I have Venus at 6Lib57, Ceres at 7Lib40, and Sappho at 8Lib47. Diadem sits right on Sappho, but the good ones (Zaniah, Tureis and Edasaich) sit earlier in Libra than Venus, and the nasty one, Vendemiatrix is off of Sappho by about a degree.)

Fixed stars, IME, must be within 1 degree of an actual point or planet in the natal chart, i.e. the angles and the original rulers. Same goes for Arabian lots. Else, no go. Being next to the socket is not the same as being plugged into it.

max said...

I do joke about how I didn't realize what a bad cook I was until smoke alarms became mandatory. But I do produce tasty dishes; I'm lousy on presentation, though, and don't like making fussy dishes. My omelets are fabulous.

Ok, so it's a square. Half and half then. :>
Moon -> Mars -> Mercury -> Moon. For example. I have two trees. One ends in Saturn, the other in the above-mentioned loop (or as a mutual reception with Pluto). I've given up arguing with my opposite selves. Sagittarius wants to have fun!


Saturn demands work. Saturn in Aries demands combat. Venus in Libra would be perfectly happy with the hot SEXXOR.

Hopeless case, I am.

Fixed stars, IME, must be within 1 degree of an actual point or planet in the natal chart, i.e. the angles and the original rulers. Same goes for Arabian lots. Else, no go. Being next to the socket is not the same as being plugged into it.

The Vendemiatrix position is J2000. So it's a bit closer, but wide, for 1967. It's there, sorta.

Weird one with the lots, my part of Sentiment and marriage is @ 8Lib22. Heh.

max
['I married a teenage lesbian.']