Questions in regards to Dwarf planets in Astrology

I agree with the importance of Pluto in Astrology.

but I have a question

Ceres was considered a planet for decades before it was demoted by
astronomers. So why didn't the astrologers keep considering Ceres as a
planet as they are fighting tooth and nail to keep Pluto as a planet?

John Roth...

I had thought that the notion that Ceres was a planet was
abandoned pretty quickly after the other three major
asteroids were discovered. A matter of years, not of
decades. However, I could be wrong about the history.

The reason it was considered a planet at all was because
it fell into the empty slot in Bode's Law. When they found
several bodies in that same slot, they decided that this was
simply too much.

As far as astrologers in the early nineteenth century,
neither of them were particularly interested. Now this
is an exaggeration, but interest in astrology had been
going downhill for some time, and the discovery of Ceres
is kind of a trough.

I wouldn't consider that astrologers are "fighting tooth
and nail." They aren't at the table at all, and their opinions
won't be considered.

Now Ceres and Pluto are both classified as dwarf planets.

CFA...

One thing is clear to me: there will be versions of astrology, all
more or less equal in veracity, that do and don't use Pluto and/or
Ceres.

Another question

Will astrologers give the other dwarf planets a chance? Will they
consider the astrological influences they have? A lot of people have
probably strong aspects involving the other dwarf planets just a lot of
people probably don't have strong aspects involving Pluto aspects.

John Roth...

There have been people using the asteroids, Chiron and other points
for some time. There's no ruling body for "astrologers", and if a
particular astrologer hasn't gotten into Chiron and the various
asteroids,
this isn't going to change her mind.

CFA...

Whatever it's called, however it's classified, for me, Pluto will
always play a 'planetary' role in chart interpretation.

Astrology is ruled by the planet Uranus which is planet of change.

John Roth...

And what was it ruled by before Uranus was discovered in 1781,
pray tell?

Are astrologers willing to change or are they are going to be rigid
like the Vedic Astrologers who don't use the planets past Saturn
because their scriptures tell them so?

John Roth...

Clearly you don't understand either Jyotsh or the mainstream of
Hindu astrology to make this statement. Hindu astrologers have
been experimenting with the outer planets for some time. They're
just not moving swiftly. Jyotsh is a very intricate system where
pieces fit together in many ways. Changing a rulership would
throw the entire Dasa system out of kilter. Totally and absolutely.
Things would not occur at the same time. Making that kind of
change would be a clear statement that it had never worked
in the first place.

So is Western astrology, if you actually practice it the way it
was practiced from Hellenistic times through the Medievals.
Reassigning rulerships the way the late 19th and early 20th
century astrologers did with Uranus and Neptune simply shows
that they didn't have a clue about how the system actually
fit together and worked.

John Roth

CFA...

Yes.

As for me, I welcome change. I have always been an eclectic astrologer.
I don't follow traditional astrology stuff. I question it a lot. I was

CFA...

So, we could presume you're in the first group above? :-)

a skeptic of Astrology until 1998 at the age of almost 28 years old.

CFA...

I don't see it as black/white any more. It's more about how and where
astrology is useful. There are situations where a coin toss works as
well. For me, it's more a diagnostics tool. I notice client sessions
generally go quicker when I don't whip out the chart/s. Astrology
might clarify what to do, but it isn't the 'doing' itself.

Then again, there are certain kinds of questions for which astrology
excels.

Just some thoughts.