A Foggy Memory of my Rulerships Hypotheses
I haven't done a lot of SERIOUS astrology in recent years and I didn't write down my ideas about rulership. I had this fairly elaborate set of ideas about how to group stuff and yadda and I don't really remember all that stuff. Maybe over time more of it will come back to me.
Here are some hypotheses I DO remember having about how we should consider updating our rulerships:
As noted previously, we really need to assign rulership to the Earth. I think Taurus makes the most sense, but someone should look into that and see if data supports this idea.
Venus is listed as ruler of both Taurus and Libra. I think it doesn't make sense for EITHER ONE. I propose that Libra is ruled by the asteroid belt.
I've always felt Librans tend to be kind of scattered and this Asteroid Belt from what I gather was supposedly a planet in the making that fell apart. There is enough mass there for a planet, it's just scattered.
SOME astologers already track Chiron in the chart, though it does not have rulership, etc. Chiron is kind of a funky little wandering heavenly body that sometimes gets described as an asteroid and I don't see why we can't do the research and see if it makes sense to use it as an important asteroid to track info about Libra, sort of the important asteroid that serves as a mouthpiece for the asteroid belt.
This would free up Venus and I feel like we could probably designate Venus as the ruler of Virgo instead of having Virgo -- an Earth sign -- share Mercury with Gemini -- an Air sign.
Currently, a lot of heavenly bodies get designated the ruler of more than one sign because rulerships were originally based on what could be seen with the naked eye and astrologers didn't count the Earth. I think if we include the Earth as one of the nine planets, PLUS the Sun, the Moon and Asteroid Belt (with potentially Chiron being used as a representative of the Asteroid Belt), then we have twelve signs and TWELVE heavenly bodies to designate as rulers.
We can start to untangle this mess rooted in astrologers doing the best they could with the information to which they had access -- aka what they could see in the sky with the naked eye before telescopes were invented.
Get DATA. If "Chiron as mouthpiece for the asteroid belt" fails to make any fucking sense based on DATA, GO LOOK FOR ANOTHER asteroid as a potential mouthpiece for the asteroid belt.
Do NOT try to force-fit your DATA to MY HYPOTHESIS. That's IDIOCY.
Here are some hypotheses I DO remember having about how we should consider updating our rulerships:
As noted previously, we really need to assign rulership to the Earth. I think Taurus makes the most sense, but someone should look into that and see if data supports this idea.
Venus is listed as ruler of both Taurus and Libra. I think it doesn't make sense for EITHER ONE. I propose that Libra is ruled by the asteroid belt.
I've always felt Librans tend to be kind of scattered and this Asteroid Belt from what I gather was supposedly a planet in the making that fell apart. There is enough mass there for a planet, it's just scattered.
SOME astologers already track Chiron in the chart, though it does not have rulership, etc. Chiron is kind of a funky little wandering heavenly body that sometimes gets described as an asteroid and I don't see why we can't do the research and see if it makes sense to use it as an important asteroid to track info about Libra, sort of the important asteroid that serves as a mouthpiece for the asteroid belt.
This would free up Venus and I feel like we could probably designate Venus as the ruler of Virgo instead of having Virgo -- an Earth sign -- share Mercury with Gemini -- an Air sign.
Currently, a lot of heavenly bodies get designated the ruler of more than one sign because rulerships were originally based on what could be seen with the naked eye and astrologers didn't count the Earth. I think if we include the Earth as one of the nine planets, PLUS the Sun, the Moon and Asteroid Belt (with potentially Chiron being used as a representative of the Asteroid Belt), then we have twelve signs and TWELVE heavenly bodies to designate as rulers.
We can start to untangle this mess rooted in astrologers doing the best they could with the information to which they had access -- aka what they could see in the sky with the naked eye before telescopes were invented.
Footnote
IF you take these ideas and run with them, PLEASE do NOT follow a policy of confirmation bias.Get DATA. If "Chiron as mouthpiece for the asteroid belt" fails to make any fucking sense based on DATA, GO LOOK FOR ANOTHER asteroid as a potential mouthpiece for the asteroid belt.
Do NOT try to force-fit your DATA to MY HYPOTHESIS. That's IDIOCY.
