How will redefining the planets affect astrology?

Question

This week a new proposal to define what constitues a planet has been getting lots of press coverage. Ceres and Charon look ready to be upgraded to planets, along with catchily named UB313!

I'm not aware that Ceres and Charon (or Ewe-Bee) are used in creating horoscopes, unlike Pluto. I doubt astrologers are going to pay any attention to what scientists say about how you "define" a planet, but it does seem strange to exclude these two great rocks if Pluto is deemed to affect our daily lives.

Ceres is quite large and far closer to us than Pluto. Charon is comparable to Pluto in size and position. Just because these objects were discovered only relatively recently (Ceres in 1801 and Charon in 1978) should they be excluded from Astrological considerations? If so, why? What special place does Pluto hold in the heavens?

Answer 1

Charon ("The Wounded Healer") already plays a part in the horoscope.
There has long been talk of 12 planets for the the twleve signs, but maybe we can find something that harks back to the Mayan calender - 13 moons, 13 months, 13 signs & houses....

But astrology is not dependent upon the planets in quite that way. It is phenomological - things are noticed here on earth and have correspondances in the heavens. We konw, for instance, that the moon affects the tides. It affects the earth too in other ways. We ourselves are mainly water... so it must affect us.

The other planetary bodies have an effect as well. If you ever have a full chart done, you will see that it bears no relationship to those columns in the daily newspaper. It talks about your base-line structures, your potential. That these are 'related' to particular movements of planets does not mean that the planets themselves or their composition are the direct cause. Rather it is an 'inter-relatedness of all things' issue. Chaos Theory, if you will.

So finding new planets will result in a refining of the process of understanding.

Answer 2

I truly think it loses power if you don't believe in it's power anymore. Pluto is in my fourth house in a stellium and I had a pretty hard childhood. The effects were felt a long time, but it seems that when Pluto was demoted those lingering effects left. I feel the astrological community should address it and reclassify how the energy is used or it loses it validity. If a planet was discovered it would be embraced, just as Pluto was embraced in the 30's, so why be inflexible by trying to keep it. I asked this question 3 hours ago.

Answer 3

I wish the sun didn't rule Leo. It's too darn hot.

Oh, your question--I don't know. Did astrology change when telescopes were invented? If so, then it's probably fluid enough to change the tradition to include new planets. I mean, just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's there, so maybe the planets had an influence even when they weren't planets. Not that I know much about astrology, but I guess you should look back at the history to see how it adapted to changes when people got better optical devices.

But think about this: the Pleiades (among other names) supposedly represent 7 sisters (or pigs, or whatever your culture thinks.) Technically, the Pleiades are a group of a bunch of stars but only 6 look visible. So where does the idea of a 7th sister come from? Everybody says, well, the 7th sister is hiding or didn't go to heaven or whatever. But the myths, from culture to culture, all talk about 7 objects even though only 6 are visible to the naked eye. So unseen objects have an influence.

It seems stupid to only include stuff in astrology that was visible to the ancient world. Shouldn't astrology change with technology? I'm not much for traditions (and I'm not much for astrology), but just from a logical point of view, I think it should get with the program.

Answer 4

Good question. I have wondered this too. Astrologers have been saying for a long time that a total of 12 planets will be discovered eventually, to match the twelve signs. But the Sun will still rule Leo and the Moon, Cancer, I presume, although co-rulers might come into play. Isn't Charon already configured in some horoscopes?

Answer 5

Nobody has absolutely agreed to anything yet. As far as I'm concerned there are still only eight Planets and a rock called Pluto which is the beginning of the Kuiper Belt.

Answer 6

I think it'll make the discipline a lot richer- in other words, astrologists are sure to incorporate them in their calculations. For believers, this may be a kind of heresy, but they may also welcome it, as it could explain previous inaccuracies.

Sort of, "Well, my prediciton was incorrect, but it would have been right if I could have allowed for the influence of Charon on Pluto.'

That's my prediction anyway... trust me ;)

Answer 7

Once the orbits are planned and charted it should make astrology more accurate, but if you don't believe in astrology then it isn't going to make any difference to you whatsoever.

Answer 8

It won't - they recently discovered a 13th constellation (according to Western Astrology - obviously Middle Eastern, Chinese, and Indian Astrologies are all different) & most astrologers have pretty much ignored it since.

Answer 9

Astrology gives us many centuries of data linking personalities to when and where we were born. The positions of the planets and major constellations are important for deciding yearly. monthly, daily and other cycles. What we call them is largely irrelevant. After all, classical astrology still uses language that suggests that the universe revolves around the earth and that the sun and moon are planets.

Answer 10

They can't be upgraded to planets, they will always be moons revolving around a planet!

They could only become planets if they get out of the gravitational pul of Jupiter and go and spin around a sun.

The chances of this happening without destroying jupiter and the moon are about 6 trillion-1.