Makes me think of the Collective Consciousness, enough of us agree to something, it becomes "true." But, does it really make it true? If we consider the ancients and add Neptune, Uranus and Pluto respectively, with age, they have become "tried and true" for most astrologers. Then, we had people like Ellias assign dwarf planets , astroids, planetary bodies of undesignated category in either co or solo rulership. Then more and more of said bodies came "on line." So my question would turn to, when do we stop? Who decides what newly seen PB we use as rulerships, or octaves and which ones do we pass on? I like that this was brought up as I do think about this from time to time. Well thought out.
With the Facebook debate about rulership still raging, and other issues perpetually simmering (house systems, zodiacs, coordinate systems etc) I doubt that the astrological community will ever reach agreement about anything! Some loud voices would probably relish having the power to dictate such issues. But increasingly it seems to me that it's all about we astrologers developing a personal relationship to the horoscope and extracting what information and inspiration we can from it in our own way. Since we're all such different people, how we go about that is bound to be very individual. So whilst acknowledging tradition, I guess we have to draw our own lines in the sand where we feel comfortable, note the latest discoveries, and be open to some sticking and some not. In the end, everything is connected to everything else, and the process of deriving meaning from it all is surely uniquely personal.
Here’s a nice thought provoking article which incorporates classical and modern sign rulership with higher octaves, and has the alternating diurnal (day/masculine) and nocturnal (night/feminine) signs as a foundation:
Makes me think of the Collective Consciousness, enough of us agree to something, it becomes "true." But, does it really make it true? If we consider the ancients and add Neptune, Uranus and Pluto respectively, with age, they have become "tried and true" for most astrologers. Then, we had people like Ellias assign dwarf planets , astroids, planetary bodies of undesignated category in either co or solo rulership. Then more and more of said bodies came "on line." So my question would turn to, when do we stop? Who decides what newly seen PB we use as rulerships, or octaves and which ones do we pass on? I like that this was brought up as I do think about this from time to time. Well thought out.
With the Facebook debate about rulership still raging, and other issues perpetually simmering (house systems, zodiacs, coordinate systems etc) I doubt that the astrological community will ever reach agreement about anything! Some loud voices would probably relish having the power to dictate such issues. But increasingly it seems to me that it's all about we astrologers developing a personal relationship to the horoscope and extracting what information and inspiration we can from it in our own way. Since we're all such different people, how we go about that is bound to be very individual. So whilst acknowledging tradition, I guess we have to draw our own lines in the sand where we feel comfortable, note the latest discoveries, and be open to some sticking and some not. In the end, everything is connected to everything else, and the process of deriving meaning from it all is surely uniquely personal.
Here’s a nice thought provoking article which incorporates classical and modern sign rulership with higher octaves, and has the alternating diurnal (day/masculine) and nocturnal (night/feminine) signs as a foundation:
https://timenomad.app/posts/astrology/philosophy/2018/10/05/how-classical-planets-rule-zodiac.html