Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: SN of Pluto  (Read 734 times)
Heidi
Active Member
*
Posts: 56



« on: Feb 28, 2012, 05:14 PM »

Hi Rad and everyone,

Since natal Pluto correlates to the bottom line of a chart, and also the soul's past when determining past lives, I am curious how this relates to the south node of Pluto. I read recently (Essays in Evolutionary Astrology: Planetary Method) that natal Pluto does not correlate to ALL past lives, only those that the soul will draw upon in this particular lifetime.

So beyond the generational correlation of us all having the SN of Pluto in Capricorn, which symbolizes the transition into the patriarchy, I am wondering about the personal implications of the house. Does the SN of Pluto (house and sign) determine ALL of the souls's past lives? Does it correlate to the individual past lives (house) as they relate to the patriarchal transition? Would the SN of Pluto be the ultimate bottom line in which the house would correlate to a deeper level of unconscious security patterns than that of the natal Pluto?   

Thanks and blessings,
Heidi
Logged
Rad
Moderator
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 20357


« Reply #1 on: Feb 29, 2012, 08:27 AM »

HI Heidi,

Hi Rad and everyone,

Since natal Pluto correlates to the bottom line of a chart, and also the soul's past when determining past lives, I am curious how this relates to the south node of Pluto. I read recently (Essays in Evolutionary Astrology: Planetary Method) that natal Pluto does not correlate to ALL past lives, only those that the soul will draw upon in this particular lifetime.

So beyond the generational correlation of us all having the SN of Pluto in Capricorn, which symbolizes the transition into the patriarchy, I am wondering about the personal implications of the house. Does the SN of Pluto (house and sign) determine ALL of the souls's past lives?

*************

The Soul of course contains all the prior lives that it has ever lived. However, in any given life, the Soul does indeed only draw upon those prior lives which are directly linked to the current and ongoing evolutionary purposes that it has. So, no, the SN of Pluto by house and sign does not correlate to ALL of the Soul's prior lives.

**************

 Does it correlate to the individual past lives (house) as they relate to the patriarchal transition?

****************

No. A total and comprehensive understanding of the entire chart which would include the employment of geodetic equivalents which are linked to the Ages and their sub-ages would be necessary in order to understand where any given Soul was during that transition.  

********************

 Would the SN of Pluto be the ultimate bottom line in which the house would correlate to a deeper level of unconscious security patterns than that of the natal Pluto?  

*********************

No. It would be equal to the natal Pluto itself.

**********************


A couple of years ago there was a thread in which we discussed the S and N Nodes of Pluto that was very intense and detailed. If you would like to read through that here is the link:

http://schoolofevolutionaryastrology.com/forum/index.php/topic,163.0.html

God Bless, Rad
« Last Edit: Feb 29, 2012, 09:15 AM by Rad » Logged
Heidi
Active Member
*
Posts: 56



« Reply #2 on: Feb 29, 2012, 12:00 PM »

Great, thanks Rad!
Logged
serban_p
Active Member
*
Posts: 65


« Reply #3 on: Mar 20, 2012, 01:40 AM »

Hi Rad,

I would like to check my understanding of the interplay between the S.Nodes, N.Nodes and the polarity points of planets in the birth chart if that is OK with you. I have always felt that this was something that eluded me and now -having read through the thread you indicated above- I am sensing I may have got to grips with this, but I want to make sure.

Every planet in the natal chart has its past (symbolized by that planet’s S.Node) and its future (the planet’s N.Node) and the “struggle” between the known past (leading up to the current life position of the planet in the birth chart) and the future (which is attempting to shape the present) is “fought” (for lack of a better word) within the natal position itself. However, this natal position also has a polarity point (except for the Sun, for which there is no polarity point) which represents the current life evolutionary intentions for that natal planet.

So if the polarity point is not embraced, then the current life position of the planet is only a mere reflection of its past and therefore the natal planet correlates to a distorted expression of whatever archetypes are involved (for instance, Venus in Leo would translate to a person’s overly narcissistic relation with itself etc.). However, if the polarity point is embraced, this is automatically integrated in the natal position and this causes an evolution of the natal placement itself, which now becomes a vehicle for the actualization of the future symbolized by the planet's N. Node. However, during any given life the evolution of the function represented by a planet occurs within the same spectrum shown by the natal placement itself, as this spectrum contains both the distorted as well as the more natural expression of the archetypes involved. Furthermore, everything happens within the framework of the Pluto paradigm, which is to say that unless and until the Soul (Pluto) desires to evolve (by embracing the polarity point, which in turn brings about an evolution of the natal placement itself, which then serves the intentions of Pluto’s N.Node), no polarity points for other planets can be embraced, thus no evolution towards the N.Nodes of various planets in the birth chart.

Assuming the above is correct from an EA perspective, this then means that: (a) the polarity points are not goals in and of themselves, but rather methods for causing the evolution of natal placements (the counterpoint awareness that JWG taught about) within a given spectrum; and (b) it is by employing these methods (i.e. by embracing the polarity points) that natal placements themselves evolve and serve the very purpose for which they have been created, which is to allow the future to manifest in the present (again, everything occurs under the “umbrella” of Pluto, which is the root cause for everything (planets’ S.Nodes, natal placements and N.Nodes) in the birth chart).

Since evolution from a distorted expression of the archetypes to a more natural one occurs within the same spectrum that is symbolized by the natal placement, instead of saying that, for instance Venus in Libra needs to embrace the Aries polarity, we can also say that for Venus in Libra the Venus function needs to evolve from an expression of the Libra archetype that is distorted because it only carries forward the S.Node into the current life to a more natural expression of the Libra archetype that will allow for the actualization of the N.Node and this can be done by embracing the Aries polarity (I am oversimplifying things and not taking into account aspects to the natal placement etc., just to be sure I understand the basic paradigm).I know this may seem like the same thing to you, but to me the distinction between the method (Aries polarity) and the objective (achieving a more natural expression of Venus in Libra) makes a lot of difference.

Finally, I have another question that has been on my mind ever since purchasing the Pluto II volume. Do you know why in the “cookbook” section dealing with Mars and Venus through the various signs JWG did not make reference to the house positions as well (he taught about, for instance “Mars in Aquarius”, not “Mars in Aquarius or the 11th house”). Since presumably the Mars in Aquarius section would be equally applicable to Mars in the 11th house, with the 5th house as the polarity instead of Leo (not to mention the fact that a house position is more personal than a sign position), is there anything I am missing here or is this a non-issue?

Many thanks again Rad for your patience with this.

All the best,

Serban
Logged
Rad
Moderator
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 20357


« Reply #4 on: Mar 20, 2012, 08:35 AM »

Hi Serban,

Assuming the above is correct from an EA perspective, this then means that: (a) the polarity points are not goals in and of themselves, but rather methods for causing the evolution of natal placements (the counterpoint awareness that JWG taught about) within a given spectrum; and

***********

It only 'means' that because you have decided that it means that. This is not what JWG taught. To use your meaning goals correlate to the methods, and the methods correlate to the goals. In essence, there is no difference.

**************

Since evolution from a distorted expression of the archetypes to a more natural one occurs within the same spectrum that is symbolized by the natal placement, instead of saying that, for instance Venus in Libra needs to embrace the Aries polarity, we can also say that for Venus in Libra the Venus function needs to evolve from an expression of the Libra archetype that is distorted because it only carries forward the S.Node into the current life to a more natural expression of the Libra archetype that will allow for the actualization of the N.Node and this can be done by embracing the Aries polarity (I am oversimplifying things and not taking into account aspects to the natal placement etc., just to be sure I understand the basic paradigm).I know this may seem like the same thing to you, but to me the distinction between the method (Aries polarity) and the objective (achieving a more natural expression of Venus in Libra) makes a lot of difference.

************

You have created within yourself a 'distinction' without any actual difference. If that is what you need to do, then that's what you need to do.

*****************

Finally, I have another question that has been on my mind ever since purchasing the Pluto II volume. Do you know why in the “cookbook” section dealing with Mars and Venus through the various signs JWG did not make reference to the house positions as well (he taught about, for instance “Mars in Aquarius”, not “Mars in Aquarius or the 11th house”). Since presumably the Mars in Aquarius section would be equally applicable to Mars in the 11th house, with the 5th house as the polarity instead of Leo (not to mention the fact that a house position is more personal than a sign position), is there anything I am missing here or is this a non-issue?

**************

To you it may be a 'cookbook' but for almost all others those chapters correlate to the archetypal spectrum, the total spectrum, of how and why Mars and Venus manifest in the way that they do through the signs. To my knowledge, no other astrologer had ever written about Mars and Venus in this way. If that is a cookbook for you, so be it. I have no idea why JWG did not say Mars in Aquarius or the 11th House when he wrote about Mars in Aquarius for example. He did in fact write about the polarity to each sign in those chapters. In EA there is no such teaching that the house is more personal than the sign. That's your astrology.

**************

God Bless, Rad
Logged
serban_p
Active Member
*
Posts: 65


« Reply #5 on: Mar 20, 2012, 09:30 AM »

Hi Rad,


To you it may be a 'cookbook' but for almost all others those chapters correlate to the archetypal spectrum, the total spectrum, of how and why Mars and Venus manifest in the way that they do through the signs. To my knowledge, no other astrologer had ever written about Mars and Venus in this way. If that is a cookbook for you, so be it. I have no idea why JWG did not say Mars in Aquarius or the 11th House when he wrote about Mars in Aquarius for example. He did in fact write about the polarity to each sign in those chapters. In EA there is no such teaching that the house is more personal than the sign. That's your astrology.

**************

God Bless, Rad

Please accept my apologies--I had no intention whatsoever of referring to that material in any depreciative manner (especially since I am extremely grateful to EA for how it has helped me in some very difficult moments in my life and completely committed to learning as much as I possibly can). So the thought of using a derogatory word in relation to JWG's teachings did not even cross my mind and I was shocked to find out that I may have inadvertently done so--for which I apologize.

Please be assured that it was just an unfortunate choice of words --I mistakenly thought that such a term can be used when referring generically to material that examines a planet's placement through the 12 signs or houses. Apparently that's not the case--your point is well taken--but I can assure you I meant nothing derogatory by what I wrote and I sincerely hope that you understand this. All I wanted to do was to make sure that for instance the Mars in Aquarius section applied to Mars in the 11th house as well.

What I meant by a house being more personal than a sign was that -and please correct me if I'm wrong- in EA the house is interpreted before the sign (although they are both personal in the sense that they relate to the same birth chart).

All the best,

Serban
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Video