Astrology of Dwarf Planets

Q&A and discussion on the Planets.
Post Reply
mikestar13
Luminary Member
Luminary Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm

Astrology of Dwarf Planets

Post by mikestar13 » Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:36 pm

I've seen a bit of discussion on various astrology sites (primarily but not exclusively tropical zodiac oriented) that seem to be rushing to provide interpretations of Eris, Sedna, Haumea, Orcus .... This must have looked a lot like the state of Pluto interpretations circa 1931: all symbolism based on mythological associations of the bodies' names and no observation. Fagan must be turning in his grave to the point that St. Peter is calling him "Pinwheel Cyril".

It is clear that we don't have enough observation to have any good interpretations yet (except for Pluto and perhaps Ceres), but there are some issues to be addressed.

1. The astronomer's official list of five dwarf planets is horse hockey--there are many more such bodies already discovered. If Orcus, for example, isn't a dwarf planet by the IAU's definition,I will eat it.

2. Are dwarf planets important for astrology? Virtually everyone say yes WRT Pluto, but how about Eris? Virtually the same mass as Pluto (a little smaller, originally though to be a little bigger--hence the whole is Pluto a planet brouhaha back in 2006). Then how about ...?

3. Should we plot dwarf planets in horoscopes, even though we can't yet interpret them? For example, let's say a chart has an unaspected Moon (in the traditional Sun through Pluto chart), but is in tight opposition to Eris--should we drop any "unaspected Moon" interpretation, even though we don't yet have an interpretation of the opposition itself?

4.Are dwarf planets fully as important as "planets" (Sun through Neptune)? Same orbs? Have sign rulerships? ...? If not, can the difference be quantified? Are all dwarf planets equal in this regard, or are there as yet undiscovered subcategories?

5. Can we justify some special status for Pluto (can we say, for example, that Pluto rules Aries and a Pluto square is just as significant as a
Jupiter square of the same orb, while Eris rules no sign and and Eris square is unimportant unless partile)?

I don't have answers, but I think this might be the right place to raise the questions. Robert Hand in Horoscope Symbols wrote that with the discovery of new bodies, astrology is faced with a revolution and a disaster--extending the language of astrology with something real, but ending up with too many bodies in a chart for practical interpretation.

I have experimented with plotting the positions of various bodies that meet the following criteria
1.The body has been observed astronomically (no "Uranian" planets or other hypotheticals).
2.The body orbits the Sun or the Earth (not moons of Jupiter, etc.)
3.The body is more massive than Saturn's moon Mimas (arbitrary cutoff).
4. The body has a name (my sole concession to symbolism).
So far that makes 26, and the number is rising.
Time matters

User avatar
Jupiter Sets at Dawn
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1658
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 7:03 pm

Re: Astrology of Dwarf Planets

Post by Jupiter Sets at Dawn » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:29 pm

Jim was doing some collection of statistics awhile ago, type Eris or Sedna in the Search box above right any it should show up.

Pluto was discovered because it created a perturbation in the orbits of other planets we already use. That makes it somewhat different from other asteroids which were discovered because we got better at making telescopes.

I personally think less is more when it comes to astrology. More points in the horoscope, more techniques, bigger orbs, etc, don't really contribute to the accuracy of our interpretations except in hindsight, or add nuance outside of naval-gazing, so I tend to feel they're a waste of time. Your Mileage May Vary. Other people's mileage certainly does.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Nabu
Posts: 4251
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Astrology of Dwarf Planets

Post by Jim Eshelman » Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:32 pm

There's been a bit of looking here, and you can find threads on Eris and Sedna in particular. So far... enough to keep a mild interest going, not enough to both actually using them in charts.

It's quite possible, BTW, that what we normally think of as "physical properties sufficient for effect" (such as mass and proximity) might not apply in astrology. Pluto is enough to bring that into question alone. Also, because Ceres is nearly the size of Pluto (what, a thousand miles difference in diameter?) and far closer, you'd think (by normal physics considerations) that it would be easy to substantiate astrologically, but it just isn't. I've known the alleged meanings for decades, and I've watched closely for a couple of years, and I just can't find even one single interpretation theme that is present each time there is an unusually strong transit to or by Ceres. So... just maybe... things like size and proximity aren't the basis of determining likely viability of astrological presence. (Just thinking aloud.)
mikestar13 wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:36 pm
4.Are dwarf planets fully as important as "planets" (Sun through Neptune)? Same orbs? Have sign rulerships? ...? If not, can the difference be quantified? Are all dwarf planets equal in this regard, or are there as yet undiscovered subcategories?
All good questions. On orbs, at least, I'm sure of the answer: I've never seen any astrological situation where which planet is involved determines an orb. So, if the prove to be valid, there's no reason to think they would have different orbs.

Rulerships? A quagmire, a swamp in which to get lost. If there is anything to them, that can come later. Pinning down their character if any) will provide that answer.
5. Can we justify some special status for Pluto (can we say, for example, that Pluto rules Aries and a Pluto square is just as significant as a
Jupiter square of the same orb, while Eris rules no sign and and Eris square is unimportant unless partile)?
This is jumping the gun. We know, without any doubt, that Pluto has astrological significance. Enormous significance. There is no planet easier to use to demonstrate astrology than Pluto. It's our ace. - OTOH, whatever we suspect, we do not know that Eris has an astrological significance at all, so it's silly to try to weigh whether its speculative or fictional significance is comparable to that of Pluto.
I don't have answers
No, but you have some great questions :)
but I think this might be the right place to raise the questions.
I think it boils down to this - the methods that Fagan repeatedly cited as the way to study Pluto's nature: Look for horoscopes that have the planet in close (let's say 3°, to keep tighter effects) conjunction, opposition, or square to Sun or Moon. Collate these charts, biographies, etc., and look for commonalities. If you find commonalities, use them to predict similar character patterns for other people. See if it holds up over time. (Filtering out luminary sign placement biases in these collations is the hardest factor, so using historic figures across centuries has advantage.)

You can also use transits to try to isolate the effects. Not transits BY them, which are too slow, but transits TO them. To test this, you need examples where the "new" planets are not in close aspect to anything. Keep orbs to partile, stick with 0-90-180, try to isolate effects. If there is something there, you soon should be able to find it. (The narrower the period of time of the transit, the greater the certainty that you have isolated something time-distinctive.)

'I recommend not relying on anything that involves angles. Though I think we've mostly settled the differing scenarios of ecliptical-vs.-mundane angularity, I might be wrong, so consider it a semi-unknown. One shouldn't use unknowns to judge the behavior of other unknowns. So... angularity in natals or in return charts is iffy, especially with bodies that can reach greater celestial latitude than most.
I have experimented with plotting the positions of various bodies that meet the following criteria
1.The body has been observed astronomically (no "Uranian" planets or other hypotheticals).
2.The body orbits the Sun or the Earth (not moons of Jupiter, etc.)
3.The body is more massive than Saturn's moon Mimas (arbitrary cutoff).
4. The body has a name (my sole concession to symbolism).
So far that makes 26, and the number is rising.
Not a bad list. I think we shouldn't get stuck, though, on assuming it is more likely than not that such things have importance. They might. Then again, maybe not.

I think there are scales of importance. For example, I consider every named asteroid astrologically significant, and I consult them < 1% of the time. (Way less.) I lean in the Tony Joseph direction on these, thinking they touch mythic circuits, perhaps quite minor in terms of how people normally live their lives and act out their destiny, but providing something for deeper inspection when the rest of the chart is well understood. I think there is a "scale" of something akin to strength because these smaller bodies merely whisper. But it isn't their size alone - if it were, then Ceres and Pluto would be of comparable intensity, and that just ain't so! <g> So there is some kind of scaling and "class structure" involved, and you have asked quite a few good questions.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Arena
Sidereal Field Agent
Sidereal Field Agent
Posts: 576
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 12:24 pm

Re: Astrology of Dwarf Planets

Post by Arena » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:44 pm

Magi astrology society claims that they have done research and therefore include a few of these. Chiron is considered of great importance in love, marriage, family/procreation and Ceres is considered the godfather of business. http://www.jupitersweb.com/magi-astrolo ... olism.html

I don't know whether it is right or wrong, but I do know that my pr. Moon was conjunct Chiron at the point in my life when I got married... but tr. Saturn was also on Chiron and Magi society claim that if Saturn clashes Chiron (90, 180 or 150°) on the date of marriage = it will not last and end with heartbreak. Well in my case it was a conj, and lasted only a few years. Apparently, it seems to be ok to have Saturn trining Chiron, although any Saturn connection to Chiron is not advisable by their logic.

mikestar13
Luminary Member
Luminary Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:13 pm

Re: Astrology of Dwarf Planets

Post by mikestar13 » Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:21 pm

I've given this a lot of thought and this is what works for me: Pluto has enormous significance beyond other dwarf planets because it is the archetype of all the "mythic chord" bodies and astrologically "represents" all of them. These bodies (Eris, for example) may have significance in that tiny percentage of "highly evolved" individuals, but can be safely ignored in the vast majority (99%) of charts. As humanity itself evolves, this may change. But astrology worked for millennia before Herschel discovered Uranus, so the language of astrology can and does evolve as we evolve. Need I mention that the invention of the Tropical Zodiac was a massive devolution of astrology.

[For the pedantic: Hershel discovered Uranus is a planet, not discovered its existence: it was erroneously listed as a star in some ancient star catalogs. It is visible to the naked eye at certain times under ideal viewing conditions. OTOH, Neptune is invisible without a telescope.]
Time matters

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest