Post by glaucus on Apr 2, 2019 14:25:56 GMT
While checking out Aquarius in Traditionally thread at Skyscript where I had given my two cents on the humanitarianism of Aquarius, I saw a member had typed something interesting about Uranus,Neptune,and Pluto.
"I highly recommend Sue Ward's paper mentioned in that thread "Uranus, Neptune and Pluto: An investigation into the sources of their symbolism" which might be available elsewhere but I could only find it on the website SCRIBD.
Ward makes a convincing case for the overwhelming influence of the Theosophy movement in attributing symbolism to the trans-saturnian planets, symbolism derived exclusively from their own esoteric ideology. What we now pretty much accept to be the nature of the outer planets is pure invention. The Theosophy movement essentially made up stuff about evolved beings and higher octaves and vibrations and if you didn't get what the hell they were talking about that's on you as an unevolved 3d class person (there were classes of people). They believed the "old" system was inferior because they weren't working with all the planets, poor guys. No wonder they had to mess around with things like sect and term and what have you.
"
skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10430
Being the extremely curious and investigative type, I started searching on the internet and I found this:
Uranus, Neptune and Pluto: An investigation into the sources of their symbolism by Susan Ward
Conclusion
This analysis of the symbolic accretions of the trans-Saturnians has, in some instances, been frustrated by the lack of logical method used by those promoting their use. The symbolic overlays are drawn from an increasingly spurious and superficial base. Personal opinion, doctrinal and propagandist motives have confused the various issues. Indeed, the promoters themselves were unclear about how they were or should have been obtaining the natures and qualities of these planets. The symbolism of the new planets has been drawn from a narrowing foundation constructed largely from error and propaganda.
Increasingly, mythology, too, was relied upon, albeit selectively, and was extended to become the archetypes of Jungian psychology. Those who named the planets decided these myths, but this is given scant attention by astrologers; subsequent generations of astrologers having accepted it as meaningful coincidence. The evidence demonstrates quite clearly that the agenda was set for the Theosophists by the events and mood of their time, and yet, although the mood and trends have changed, the symbolism remains substantially unaltered to this day.
The symbolism of the new planets failed the astrologers’ own “scientific” criteria. These planets did not produce the expected events or effects when applied to the astrological chart. If this ever caused doubt, it is not apparent in their writings. Convinced that the theory was correct, it was simply that the practice had not kept up apace, which would be rectified by further experiment. It was left to astrologers of the future to prove their theories, but as little of the symbolism has changed in the ensuing years, that proof has not been forthcoming.
The “esoteric” astrology advanced by the Theosophists, was declared as superior to any other system or philosophy. From this, and in the confusion of astrological principles and techniques, the motivations of astrologers like Leo become clear. Manifestly, astrology was converted, deliberately and knowingly, to conform to Theosophist doctrine. The conversion of the astrological system was carried out with very little consideration given to the result – conviction of the probity of their actions fuelling their momentum. Indeed, anything was deemed better than the system it replaced. That doctrine was presented as Truth, and still forms the major part of astrological practice today, especially regarding the trans-Saturnian planets. Their conviction and their errors laid open this ancient and Divine science to the illegitimate excesses which spawned the changeling system.
Before attempting to combine astrology with a personal philosophy, it is required that astrology’s own philosophy is understood. The difficulties of subjectivity, also, need to be addressed in the attempt to remain detached from the trends of a particular era. The effects of both from the period in question have been disproportionate and little has been done to correct the balance.
Under each point of analysis, the basis of the qualities of these planets has been shown to be insecure, and, subsequently, the Theosophist astrologers were forced to fall back to defensive positions. No point was ever proved astrologically, by experience, statistical evidence, or otherwise. Nevertheless, what those astrologers achieved was of no small importance: they convinced enough influential authors that their opinions were right. Those opinions have become established and many thousands of students have been taught them as proved facts.
Present-day astrologers repeat and replicate the symbolism laid down by the Theosophist astrologers. If an astrologer is not required to predict, in fact is often taught not to predict, then there is no requirement for accuracy. Likewise, there is no requirement for the planets to behave, astrologically speaking, in any predictable way. It is said that it is not possible to understand, or know, how the new planets will behave because they are "generational” in effect, or they effect the deeper regions of our unconscious minds, thus not only can the astrologer not predict their actions, but the native has no way of registering that action. In other words, the astrological community is no further ahead with the symbolism of these planets, than were its forbears. In the early periods of their discoveries a few people argued against their astrological significance; in this the 21st century, the situation remains the same.
These authors were also exercised by the necessity to popularise astrology and impress the scientific community, however, whilst the former was achieved, astrology seems as far removed from acceptance by academia as ever it was, and for much the same reasons. Symbolism has been established on the flimsiest of grounds, and when it failed in practice, that symbolism was altered to accommodate such failure. It is unsurprising that the scientific establishment is not impressed to investigate astrology. The plausibility of those arguments is attractive only to those astrologers who have been trained in the ways of Theosophist astrology, and they are currently in the majority.
Examples are often provided for the efficacy of the trans-Saturnians in terms of their predictive capacities. This is quite apart from those who often quote the effects they have noticed personally. However, this evidence derives from those astrologers who are most firmly convinced of the symbolism: personal evidence comes from those same astrologers. Moreover, they have been taught in the Modern school, which, as has been shown, is based on the Theosophist system. There is little new evidence to be obtained from such sources.
The symbolism of any chart, or group of charts, is multifarious. Identifying the “active” planets requires the training and discipline which few astrologers have. The options available to the astrologer are varied, so it is easy to mistake one for another. Intuition might also be a factor in the successful prediction based on erroneous evidence. However, when a rigorous approach is applied, the new planets are superfluous. They cannot tell us anything new, because there is nothing new to tell.
Astrologers should disabuse themselves of the certainty that the symbolism that has maintained regarding these planets had anything to do with astrological method, rectitude or truth. It has maintained because those who promoted them had a vested interest in so doing, and their numbers and influence were overwhelming. Few were prepared to confront the jumble of sources when they failed in practice, and excuse was layered upon excuse, until astrologers of the present day no longer expect a logical approach. The New Age attitude predominates, and is just as disapproving of logic and commonsense as it ever was. If the symbolism does not make sense, or if it fails in practice, it says that the practitioner should pay more heed to the spiritual model it sets.
The reader is left incredulous and confused. A raft of inaccuracies, illogicality, superficiality and propagandist conveniences assails the intellect. Then, as now, such a non-conformist point of view is deemed non-astrological, or lacking in astrological understanding and on the heretical. It is said that there are certain qualities pertaining to the trans-Saturnians that are “unknowable” to all but the most advanced souls. Yet, astrology was conceived as a method of understanding Divine Will; astrology is meant to be “known”. To say that we are not meant to know yet is an excuse for ignorance and pretended knowledge.
We should return to the beginning because the primary questions remain unanswered: do the trans-Saturnian planets have astrological significance? Indeed, do they have to have astrological significance?
www.scribd.com/document/349526928/Uranus-Neptune-Pluto-Susan-Ward
As for the humanitarism of Aquarius ,
I posted:
I think it's easy to think of Aquarius as humanitarian if you consider its historical connections with Ea/Enki who was known to be a deity that was benevolent to humanity.
In Mesopotamian Mythology, Ea/Enki was the creator and protector of humanity.
In Mesopotamian Mythology, Ea/Enki took part in creating humans.
In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enki prevented the complete eradication of humans by the flood that Enlil brought about to destroy all humans because they created too much noise.
He advised Utnapishtim to build a boat to keep humans alive.
He sent the Seven Sages to teach the arts and skills of civilization to men.