From: S2822338@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU (s2822338)
Subject: Re: origin of planet names
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS - AMHERST
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:28:10 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <15129.2b2f0281@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> cranmer@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:

> >How 'bout the death-rebirth myth in nearly (if not all) ancient human
> >societies?  Some of them specifically point to a second sun that comes
> >into being.
> 
> Really?  I'm curious - which ones?  I know of the Egyptian story about
> the eye of Ra that 'got away from him', but is that really another sun?

The Egyptian gods Ra and Osiris are the example I had in mind actually.
They are nearly synonymous (in function) to Zeus and Hades.  Although entirely
different culturally.  The Sumerians, nearly all native american tribes,
Hindu mystical ideology, the orient, ALL have two powers or beings that
symbolize the death - rebirth cycle, one, of light, the other of dark
and death, and (often understated) change... transformation.  One solid, 
stoic, the other able to cause transformations.  The death - rebirth cycle
repeats itself in more specific areas in most mythological systems, as well.
The fact of the other power or god to actually become the other is entirely
dependant (presumably, I admit) on the age of the culture, because, again
presumably, the transformation takes place over an extremely long period
of time (if there actually is an actual physical transformation).

I hope I'm not sounding authoritative, these are really just ideas, and some
simple observations.  I'd hardly say I have enough of a clue to even form
a solid hypothesis.  Anyone care to help?  :-)

> >And, given the astronomical data we have of Jupiter, one of
> >the facts being that it is nearly (if not greater than) the mass required by
> >the "laws" of physics to begin nuclear fusion...
> 
> No, it's not.  Even if its mass were to mysteriously double, or triple,
> or whatever is needed, it still wouldn't become a star (a la 2010),
> because of its chemical composition.

Well, that depends on if you belive that we can actually tell what it's
chemical compisition is using a spectrometer at this distance...
Or that we really actually have a clue about chemistry.  2010 is a
neat peice of sci-fi, and a great movie, but it's, sci-fi, the mythological
relationships are a lot more solid and, i think, useful.

> >Your last statement brings up an interesting point, it's 12 year period.
> >The number 12, (obviously) is rather important to astrology...
> >Wouldn't it be even MORE important if at one time the great light in the sky
> >DID have a 12 year cycle...
> 
> Well, it's not exactly 12 - more like 11.something -- there are many
> here who know the exact siderial period.  Here's a question - how close
> is Jupiter's siderial period to the sun's ~11 year sunspot cycle?
> Does this have any astrological importance?

Wow.  I hadn't thought of that.  But I havn't a clue what either of the exact
periods are.  I could look it up, but I'm generally pretty lazy.
(although I probably will, it's interesting enough) 

> >>Astrologers generally seem take the myths without question as applicable to 
> >>the significance of the planet in natal horiscopes which does seem to hold 
> >>true but who named them and why and did they have any astrological knowledge 
> >>to help them to make the decision. I almost start to fear that the next 
> >>planet discovered will be imprpoperly named by the scientific community (not 
> >>that they would care about astrologers opinions).
> 
> >Who cares what "scientists" name the planets?  Whenever their astrological
> >significance is discovered (rather than just their physical location)
> >THEN astrologers could simply use whatever name fits for them.
> 
> But they haven't.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't
> astrological literature full of talk about why the names Uranus,
> Neptune, Pluto, Chiron, etc...  (which were chosen by astronomers)
> are completely astrologically appropriate for the 'energy' of that
> body?  Astronomers thus seem to have a good track record for naming
> planets.
> 
> Steve Cranmer

Well, considering that many astronomers (historically) have been astrologers
as well, until quite recently, that would make sense.  Also, I think someone
mentioned the Gestalt earlier in connection with that...  And besides,
who says that even modern astronomers wouldn't at least HUMOR astrologers,
just in case.  Or, maybe they at least sub-conciously agree that there
is something rather fantastic about why exactly the planets move as they do.
Hey, but even if they don't, why not be optimistic?  Besides, astronomy 
still uses a LOT of astrological symbols... the first point of Aries, and
others, why wouldn't they continue?  And, really, what's in a name?  :-)

Also, i belive that for at least Chiron and Pluto, they DID have different
names than they currently do, for a short period of time.  Would you want
a thousand angry astrologers banging on your door?  I think not.

Well, I think I babble too much, so I'm going to shut up, thank's for
listening.

-Erik