Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The outer placements effect your more subconsciously, like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.
I have SO many questions.
When you say YOUR above I have to ask YOUR what?
And when you say Pluto - are you teaching us that the planets have an influence or all of the spacial bodies? Because I have been led to believe that Pluto is no longer a Planet.
Well, if you're a skeptic, you're a skeptic. However, that viewpoint would make humans the only living creatures on earth not subject to at the very least the lunar and solar cycles.
Apologies for the lateness of my reply. I was on business in Antwerp and the combination of the draw on my time, with the wonders of their local beers, meant I was unable to return to internet life in any meaningful way for a few recovery days.
I fear we may be talking at cross purposes here. Some clarification from my side is perhaps beneficial. I was not referring to the effect of the moon on us. Which is in real time and we likely would not even have the ecology we do without it. Perhaps not even life at all.
I was more referring to the influence on our future, our personality, and our ethics and so forth due to the position of the planets and stars at some point in our history, such as our moment of birth.
Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson did the maths on this once for example and discovered that the gravitational effect of the sun on the water in your head is several 1000 orders of magnitude smaller than the pressure on your head from your pillow when you lie down at night.
Very unlikely indeed. And in fact I can tell you as someone versed in this subject that that article is a bit misleading in the "conditions" it lists for inclusion in the definition of "planet". More specifically in the third option which is very much incomplete.
However I think it would be a waste of our time to debate nomenclature and classifications and labels. What would be more interesting in the context of Astrology is to consider effects. If one is to suggest that Pluto has some kind of effect on our personality, then what LABEL we give it (planet or not) could not be more irrelevant. What _is_ relevant is to realize that Pluto is one of a multitude of real estate that fit the exact same characteristics in our solar system. Pluto is one of thousands of similar objects in an area known as the Kuiper Belt.
So my feeling, and my knowledge of astrology is limited so a feeling is all it is, is that if one assumes some effect on human personality from Pluto, then ones "charts" and accounting of this phenomenon must also equally account for the effects of its 1000s of brethren. The article mentions Eris for example. But there are 1000s of others.
Though I am open to enlightenment on reasons I might not know of why Pluto is considered to have influence when it's brethren do not?
Nozz- I can totally understand your wonderings and doubts. I grew up without religion in a scientific home. That lead me to approach certain subjects in a different way.
While I cannot explain everything, like why Pluto's kin are not counted, I have studied astrology long and deeply enough, with a skeptical and semi-scientific approach and have found that there IS something to it.
My skeptic scientific me put charts to the test. I gathered the charts of my friends to pick apart aspects and placements. A very adverse Sun Saturn square in a female's chart is said to express an estranged relationship with the father, people are more drawn towards signs of thier Sun Moon midpoints, Cancer Moon and Sagittarius Venus = expresses hurt with sarcasim....I could go on. More often than not, the pieces matched up.
How or why it is what it is explained scientifically, physically?...not sure. But going on observation and study, odds are in favor of astrology being valid.
Explained scientifially? In the early days of modern science we knew of gravity, and like the push and pull of the moon, this was thought to be the force of the planets upon people. This explination did not sit well with me. What I knew about this aspect of science and physics, I could not accept this explination for the validly of how astrology 'works'.
Later we learn that planets emit a pulse. Each planet has its own frequency. It is a well known fact that frequencies have an effect on living beings, as well as inanimate objects.
So I find that planetary frequencies being a far better explination than gravity.
When talking futures astrologically, it is more about potential. A person can have the chart of a great musician, but may never go that direction. It may be because of being born into poor family who would not be able to provide lessons. The 'environmental factors' argument goes both ways. A transit or progressed chart may show potential for a major injury. If one is aware of this potential, they can be more careful and possibly avoid it.
I have one astrology book that has a whole chapter on people who have the same charts. Strange and as hard to believe as it may be, these people had the same or similar first names. One pair with exact first and last names discovered each other by attending the same collage, another pair both died when they did a head on into each other...
if one assumes some effect on human personality from Pluto, then ones "charts" and accounting of this phenomenon must also equally account for the effects of its 1000s of brethren. The article mentions Eris for example. But there are 1000s of others.
Though I am open to enlightenment on reasons I might not know of why Pluto is considered to have influence when it's brethren do not?
Its brethren do have an influence; it depends on how many variables one wants to consider. Some astrologers routinely include asteroids, dwarf planets, points (line intersections) and even distant so-called "fixed" stars in charts. However, if you look at the attached, you will see that the inclusion of so many factors makes charts that are unreadable. And this one doesn't include the stars!
As distant and as small as Pluto is, if it escaped its orbit it would cause havoc in the solar system in a domino fashion: Pluto perturbs the orbit of Neptune, Neptune of Uranus, etc., not to mention if this happened to Jupiter. It's not that a 'ray' or 'force' emanates from a planet to us on earth, it's that the planets, asteroids, and we ourselves are considered to be in an extremely complex synchronicity.
Astrologer Michael R. Meyer's reply to "What is astrology for?":
"Astrology is a discipline of mind, a technique for the development of holistic thinking. The study of the cyclic patterns of astrology places the mind in the habit of constantly perceiving things as wholes rather than unrelated parts. An understanding of astrology makes the mind aware that what is happening at any given moment is just one point, just one moment of an entire cycle of complex and intimate relationships. It gives one an objective awareness of the unity of all things, the conscious realization that all things are in some way intimately related to everything else."
This naturally leads to whether one thinks there is an inherent (but inconceivable to the human mind) pattern to all existence, or not. Astrology, positioned in the former category, attempts to correlate the cyclic motions of the planets with an interrelationship to the growth process, beginning with birth. It makes each individual the center of their own universe, and relates the sky pattern at birth to certain archetypes. The degree to which an individual chooses to expand or reduce the amount of data considered in mapping their personal map is totally their option.
While I cannot explain everything, like why Pluto's kin are not counted, I have studied astrology long and deeply enough, with a skeptical and semi-scientific approach and have found that there IS something to it.
I think there is "something" to it too. When I do talks publicly I often read out a horoscope or personality profile telling people it is, for example, Virgo. I then ask how many of the Virgos think that their horoscope was highly correct for them. I THEN reveal that I was actually reading from a completely different sign set.
Or a similar experiment if you read from a chart set without revealing which one it is and then ask how many people in the room think it fits them, 75%+ hands go up. Which is clearly impossible.
So the "something" I think there is to it is more based in human psychology and being someone trained AND interested in neuroscience and human psychology and, well, just about everything to do with the brain in general, I think I can offer some insight into quite a lot of it.
Which is why I am genuinely interested in how people creating these charts account for things like Plutos brethren. When I ask why Pluto is effective on us, but its brethren, bigger than it and smaller than it, have not, I do not get any intellectually satisfying answers despite my curiosity. It seems too coincidental that the only one of these 1000s of bodies that affects us, just happens to be the one we mistook to be a planet for awhile.
I am also wondering how the star signs NOT included in the charts affect us. There are whole signs left out which the average person does not seem to even know exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlKaMyst
Later we learn that planets emit a pulse. Each planet has its own frequency.
I have to plead ignorance as to what you are talking about here. Could you clarify exactly what "pulse" you are talking about here and what frequency? There is a couple of things I think you _might_ mean but none of them are things I would describe with the word "pulse" so it is unclear to me if you are talking about the things I am thinking of, or something else. Can you clarify for me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlKaMyst
It is a well known fact that frequencies have an effect on living beings, as well as inanimate objects.
From a physics perspective this sentence actually makes no sense because just about everything is "frequencies". All energy and light has a frequency. Saying things are affected by frequencies therefore actually does not say anything scientifically coherent so again I fear we might end up talking past each other unless I request some clarification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightlysparrow
Its brethren do have an influence; it depends on how many variables one wants to consider.
Perhaps my language could use some more thoughtful clarification then. Perhaps with the addition of a single word. What I am confused by is why pluto is RELATIVELY considered to have influence, to the point that it is included in the charts, when its 1000s of brethren are not.
Because two things strike me. If one is going to pick just one of the 1000s then one should at least pick the one that has the _most_ influence. And Pluto is far from the biggest or most relevant object in that particular class of real estate.
Secondly if there are 1000s of them then averaging their combined influence by the selection of a single example is not going to be useful either.
At the very least one would have to consider the entire Kuiper Belt as a single object and base "charts" on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightlysparrow
As distant and as small as Pluto is, if it escaped its orbit it would cause havoc in the solar system in a domino fashion: Pluto perturbs the orbit of Neptune, Neptune of Uranus, etc., not to mention if this happened to Jupiter.
I can not say I can comment about Astrology charts but I can comment a bit more informatively on astrophysics and actually it would cause very little effect at all. Remember there are 1000s of its brethren in the Kuiper Belt. The addition or removal of a single object, such as Pluto, would have very little noticeable affect on the rest of our solar system at all. Let alone a cascading domino effect.
Interestingly, my signs and rising signs, all match up with who I am. Across the standard Zodiac, and the Asian and Native American Zodiac as well, though I don't like my Native American sign. The Raven.I find the Raven a detestable bird. Ravens fit with me like kerosene and a brushfire. I do NOT like them. Yet, the raven is my spirit animal. Hmmm...I am the antithesis of a raven. I am not some dirty , nest robbing, scavenger, that gangs up to fight Noble animals such as hawks and eagles. My allegiance lies with the true raptors. Falcons, hawks, owls, and eagles. Ravens are not my favorite bird.
1- the native people (and others) don't view the Raven that way.
2- Native American astrology as it is 'practiced' today is a modern day invention.
Oh I know that Native Americans don't view the raven that way. Not at all. Lol. Its actually a powerful and wise "spirit animal". I can see that. They are quite intelligent. If I stopped not liking them and listened, maybe I'd come around. My sister is way into Native American beliefs. She scolds me , regular, for shunning my spirit animal.
As I age, I've softened some. Might be that someday something will happen and I'll ...connect.. Time will tell
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
