Are outer planets generational or personal?

Asteriae

Banned
I have been reading a lot of this thread, and this personally has always been an interesting debate to me. First of all, I do think that the outer planets are worthy of consideration because they revolve around the sun, the same sun which dictates our patterns of behavior via our Sun Sign. Thus, they are subjects of the Sun, staying with the idea of the archetype as the Sun as a kind of Nobility.

Secondly, and therefore, if they are pulled into orbit by the Sun, subjected to the Sun, then they are influenced by the Sun, and must in some way, impact us, on Earth, given that the Milky Way and its orbits work a delicate pattern of gravitational pulls. In other words, the Sun has to be where it is, for the Earth to be where it is, for Neptune to be where it is. Thus, by pure physics, there is a dynamic relationship between all of that which orbits the Sun, and the Earth. The question then becomes, of what great import do the loads of celestial bodies have upon us on Earth, since there are so many to consider. We must draw limits somewhere.

Many traditionalists limit the influence significantly. This may be because around the time much of the older astrology was developing, they could only go with what they saw with the naked eye. Now, that's not to jump ahead and say, that because of a telescope, we can suddenly see planets and asteroids that must have influence, but if it began with vision, and the telescope extended our vision, perhaps it is worth bringing into the fold what our own expanded awareness of the universe has brought to our attention. In my humble opinion it would seem rather silly to just ignore these fundamental changes in our understanding of the universe.

Granted, it is the declaration of what the influences of these newer outer planets mean which is the question. That they could and do have influence to me seems to be without question. They obviously hold our solar system in some kind of balance.

To me, if in the natal chart, the Sun's rays are upon an outer planet (or some very specific asteroids), meaning if the Sun is conjunct an outer planet, or in major aspect, it is worth noting. The same goes for the Moon, which receives the light of the Sun, except that if the planet only aspects the Moon, its impact is thus felt differently.

The angles and the outer planets seem worth considering, except that there must be some relationship the outer planets make to the ruler of the ASC before I'd make any statements on the matter. Conjunctions to these angles seem arbitrary otherwise, as these angles are very fast moving, whereas the planets are very slow moving, though this can easily be countered by the reality of progressed angles. For example, if a person has Aries Rising, and Mars is conjunct Uranus, I'd associate some kind of interaction between the two. Just what, I cannot say. I'd need to look at the sign/house Mars and Uranus were in, the aspects the ASC receives first and foremost, followed by the aspects Mars receives and whether or not Uranus receives them, and then last come to some conclusion about the effects or impacts of Uranus.

Being a believer in Chiron as the link between the inner and outer planets, I think Chiron must be considered when exploring the tone the outer planets take in the chart. The sign Chiron is in very important, as well as its placement, and the relationship it makes to the personal planets, particularly the chart ruler, the Sun, and the Moon. It says something about how the person deals with the impact of the outer planets. We are people within a generation of these outer planets if we are to accept that these outer planets thus have a generational influence.

As for dual rulerships or octaves, I accept the idea that Neptune is the higher octave of Venus, because given that Moderns associated Neptune with Pisces, and Venus is exalted in Pisces, I like the way that logic would flow. The same thus goes for Uranus. I do not however, agree that Pluto is the higher octave of Mars, though there is an interesting association with will and death between the two. Mars is the God of War, and war does lead to the death, where Pluto as Lord of the Underworld rules. Moreover, in order to achieve, Mars must transform (a civilian to a soldier, a warrior to a hero, for example), a lot like what Moderns associate with Pluto.

I suppose then my only issue lies with dual-rulerships. Virgo and Gemini are still subject to being ruled by Mercury alone, so we cannot immediately jump and say it makes sense to apply these outer planets with signs, because we cannot do so completely. We are stuck in the middle if we are to accept this idea at all.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
To me, if in the natal chart, the Sun's rays are upon an outer planet (or some very specific asteroids), meaning if the Sun is conjunct an outer planet, or in major aspect, it is worth noting. The same goes for the Moon, which receives the light of the Sun, except that if the planet only aspects the Moon, its impact is thus felt differently.

Some common knowledge facts re: Neptune
Neptune is 2.8 billion miles distant – that's 4.5 billion kilometers - from the sun which it orbits once every 165 years

(a) Because of its extreme distance from Earth,
Neptune is invisible to the naked eye so it was only when telescopes were invented that it was realised Neptune was there.

(b) Neptune was discovered only as recently as 130 years ago on 23 September 1846 so astrologers have simply not had time to reach an agreed consensus as to the meaning of Neptune aspects.
:smile:

(c) No one ever experiences a Neptune Return because to do so they would have to be celebrating their 165th birthday! But we all experience, Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn returns. A planetary 'Return' means that a transiting planet has returned to where it was located on your natal chart.

Some common knowledge facts on Planetary Returns
The transiting Moon returns to its natal chart location once a month (Lunar Return)
Transiting Mercury returns to its natal chart location every 88 Earth days (Mercury Return)
Transiting Venus returns to its natal chart location once 224.701 Earth days (Venus Return)
Transiting Sun returns to its natal chart location once a year (Solar Return)
Transiting Mars returns to its natal chart location 686.971 Earth days - that's 1.9 Earth years (Mars Return)
Transiting Jupiter returns to its natal chart location every 12 Earth years (Jupiter Return)
Transiting Saturn returns to its natal chart location every 30 Earth years (Saturn Return)

Fewer people experience a Uranus Return
Transiting Uranus returns to its natal chart location every 84.07 Earth years

No one experiences either a Neptune or a Pluto Return
Transiting Neptune returns to its natal chart location every 164.8 Earth years

Transiting Pluto returns to its natal chart location once a year 247.7 Earth years


(d) All the outer planets remain at the same degree for a considerable time when retrograding – as an example from 20 June 1971 until 3 October 1971 Neptune remained at 0[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]º[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Sagittarius. [/FONT]

(e) Everyone born anywhere in the world during those three and a half months from 20 June 1971 until 3 October 1971 has got Neptune at the identical degree in their natal chart.

(f) IMO That's why the outer planets are considered to be a 'generational' influence that is experienced by large groups of people en masse. :smile:
 

waybread

Well-known member
"Astrologers do not need one or more post-discovery complete cycles of a planet to see how it operates, thanks to historical records and horoscopes of historical figures. Looking retrospectively, you can examine as many complete cycles as you wish. Indeed, with a long-cycle outer planet about to enter a "new" sign, mundane astrologers will often look at what happened when that planet was last in that sign.

"Then planets-in-signs is hardly the whole story. All kinds of people during the past 230-80 years will have collectively experienced the different aspects and houses of the outer planets. Astrologers look at charts of their clients or well-known public figures to understand how these houses and aspects operate."
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
The outers move through decanates in 1/3rd the time they move through an entire sign; they move through duodenaries in 1/12th the time they move through an entire sign; since they move so slowly, their movements through the decanate and duodenary signs MIGHT have an effect similar to that of the faster moving planets moving through entire signs; indeed, the outers might well be generational considered relative to their slow movement through entire signs, but can be considered as personal when they are considered relative to their more "rapid" movement through sign subdivisions (especially relative to their movement through duodenaries: Uranus passes through a new duodenary sign every 7 months, Neptune every approximately 13 months and Pluto every 20 months)

Outers, thoug so slow moving, nonetheless can trigger various natal horoscopic points by transit (POF, POS, a house cusp, Bhrigu Bindu point, etc) Such transit-based triggers would be of a substantive and long lasting nature, similar to the long lasting transit triigger results of slow moving Saturn...
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Outer planets ARE generational NOT personal

"Astrologers do not need one or more post-discovery complete cycles of a planet to see how it operates, thanks to historical records and horoscopes of historical figures. Looking retrospectively, you can examine as many complete cycles as you wish. Indeed, with a long-cycle outer planet about to enter a "new" sign, mundane astrologers will often look at what happened when that planet was last in that sign.

"Then planets-in-signs is hardly the whole story. All kinds of people during the past 230-80 years will have collectively experienced the different aspects and houses of the outer planets. Astrologers look at charts of their clients or well-known public figures to understand how these houses and aspects operate."
QUOTE:

"There are two major approaches to the study of mundane astrology. One is the focus on national horoscopes: i.e. countries have astrological charts aka horoscopes aka natal charts just like a person. The other approach is the ancient practice of finding correlations that exist between geological phenomena (such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.) and astronomical phenomena (the movement of celestial bodies in the Solar System) based on the horoscope of the astronomical placements at any given time, without reference to a national horoscope". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mundane_astrology


IMO:

It is common knowledge that Mundane astrology examines the cycles of the planets in relation to (a) the astrology of nations as a whole and (b) to geological phenomena such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis. The history of nations and/or cycles of volcanic eruptions, tsunamis earthquakes and so forth are measured in terms of hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years SO THE EXTREMELY SLOW MOVING CYCLES OF THE OUTER PLANETS may well have a place within that form of analysis.


AND IN MUNDANE CHARTS THE POPULATION IS DELINEATED “EN MASSE” – NOT individually - and that is why the impersonal, generational outer planets may well have an application in the astrological assessment of mass political and/or mass social movements

Historical individuals are remembered due to their fame and/or notoriety for something that was unusual about their behavior, appearance or actions. Famous people are considered different from the norm. e.g. Mozart composed symphonies aged 4 - that's unusual. There is a whole astrology of fame that purports to account for the fame of the famous - and data for famous people is often easily available - although its accuracy is not always unquestionable. e.g. Obama's birth place/time :smile:

IN CONTRAST 'ordinary people' outnumber famous people by tens of thousands - even millions - to one. There are BILLIONS of people who are not famous.

i.e. for every famous person there are tens of thousands of ordinary folk worldwide who are NOT FAMOUS. Furthermore, historical data relating to the many billions of 'ordinary' folk who lived their 'ordinary lives' prior to the discovery of the outer planets is simply not available for assessment, the events of their lives are unknown – and there simply IS NO EVIDENCE regarding whether aspects to planets or angles of the natal charts of NOT FAMOUS people WHO LIVED PRIOR TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE OUTER PLANETS affected those ordinary folks - or not:smile:


 

waybread

Well-known member
Re: Outer planets ARE generational NOT personal

Nice points, JA-- although they don't have much bearing on the use of the outer planets in modern astrology.

1. Mundane astrology deals with additional topics. Right now there is a lot of buzz about the upcoming US presidential election, the European debt crisis, &c.

2. If we think about planetary cycles, they are pretty predictable. We can say pretty closely when a planet at 0 degrees Aries is going to return to that point, and something about the nature of its orbit.

This isn't the case with natural hazards like earth quakes or tsunamis. Geologists can tell us that people who live on a given fault line should expect an earthquake at some point, but they cannot pinpoint when this will happen. They wish they could.

One of the difficulties in predicting natural disasters from astrology is that a given position of most of the planets will be the same all over the globe: Saturn will be at the same degree on a given date for everyone. Yet the disaster will be felt just at a particular point. I've seen astrologers do some nice work on particular disasters doing place-specific calculations like planetary lines; but I don't know how accurate their overall record is.

3. Some astrologers are (or were) deeply into planetary cycles as a means of predicting life events (like Alexander Ruperti.) But not everyone thinks they are so important. I never noticed much difference with a Jupiter return, for example. Was your last Venus return a major life-event? Mine wasn't, either. You can read a lot of astrology cookbooks that never mention cycles of individual planets or planetary pairs.

Moreover, it's not clear what one could say about Saturn in Roman times. The average life expectancy was so low that many people never lived to see their first Saturn return. We find this with Hellenistic astrologers who said there is no point in predicting a boy's future life events if the evidence indicates he is going to die in childhood. What about the Great Year? Astrologers knew it existed, but nobody was going to live through the 24,000 years of the precession of the equinoxes. I'd be hard pressed to think of a Hellenistic astrologer who thought planetary returns were important for chart interpretation, but I may have missed something.

4. I think you have a valid criticism of using celebrity birth charts to delineate planets' meanings. Unfortunately, a lot of traditional astrology is based on celebrity charts, as well. If you wish to discard them, you would have to turf out a lot of Vettius Valens's charts, because he relied heavily on the charts of political leaders to illustrate his points. Astrologers have been doing celebrity charts since ancient times.

Moreover, fame is indicated by particular points in the horoscope, notably the MC and 10th house. It isn't where we would look to find out about somebody's children or married life. With an afflicted Pluto in the 7th, for example, we might expect to see marital difficulties, and a lot of Joe and Jane Averages have these, as well.

Here's the thing. Modern astrologers also work/ed with clients who are Joe and Jane average. After reading dozens of charts, seeing the clients face-to-face, and hearing their stories, astrologers can begin to get a feel for how a given planet works in a horoscope. The astrologers also discuss things with one another and some of them publish their findings, so they can build upon one another's work: or criticize it as inaccurate.

There is also a kind of "sniff test" that takes place. Robert Hand, for example, wrote several highly regarded cookbooks using outer planets in the 1980s. If the outer planets made no sense as he delineated them, wouldn't you think other astrologers would have said so?

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Outer planets ARE generational NOT personal

[deleted attacking comments - Moderator]

Although there ARE detailed notations from ancient times - such as the Mayan study of the Venus Cycle and of Eclipses THERE ARE NO SUCH NOTATIONS FOR THE OUTER PLANETS.

Therefore, there is no actual written evidence of the precise location of the outer planets prior to their discovery. Guess work using mathematical and computerized models decides 'assumed location'. Produce your incontrovertible PROOF that the outer planets were anywhere in particular, prior to their discovery. :smile:

You allege that there is no evidence of astrological practice ten thousand years ago and you therefore allege that 'no one practiced astrology ten thousand years ago'. You cannot prove that.

I remind you that there is no evidence of the precise location of the outer planets ten thousand years ago and therefore modern astrologers cannot, with hindsight, delineate the outer planets prior to their discovery. Modern astrologers may SAY that is what they can do but there is no evidence/proof of that.

Since you mention Vettius Valens - having frequently stated that you have no interest in the astrology of Vettius Valens and that your interest is simply that of an Historian - unsurprisingly, you have neither delineated charts using the techniques of Vettius Valens nor read Vettius Valens delineations of the more than one hundred natal charts (including his own) that he provides in The Anthology.

As an Historian, you instead read other academic points of view of Vettius Valens and base your ideas on those.
Therefore your opinion of the astrological delineation techniques chronicled by Vettius Valens are of no consequence.

btw Vettius Valens cited sources preceding him by more than three hundred years.

IMO THE EXTREMELY SLOW MOVING CYCLES OF THE OUTER PLANETS may have a place within mundane analysis BECAUSE IN MUNDANE CHARTS THE POPULATION IS DELINEATED “EN MASSE” – NOT individually

- SO the impersonal, generational outer planets may well have an application in the astrological assessment of mass political and/or mass social movements


Historical data relating to the many billions of 'ordinary' folk who lived their 'ordinary lives' prior to the discovery of the outer planets is simply not available for assessment - the events of their lives are unknown

– so there simply IS NO EVIDENCE regarding whether aspects by outer planets to angles or planets of the natal charts of NOT FAMOUS people WHO LIVED PRIOR TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE OUTER PLANETS in fact actually affected those ordinary folks - or not
 
Last edited by a moderator:

waybread

Well-known member
Re: Outer planets ARE generational NOT personal

[deleted attacking comments - Moderator]

Although there ARE detailed notations from ancient times - such as the Mayan study of the Venus Cycle and of Eclipses THERE ARE NO SUCH NOTATIONS FOR THE OUTER PLANETS.

No, of course not! But this isn't an ipso facto reason why modern astrologers must not use outer planets.

Therefore, there is no actual written evidence of the precise location of the outer planets prior to their discovery. Guess work using mathematical and computerized models decides 'assumed location'. Produce your incontrovertible PROOF that the outer planets were anywhere in particular, prior to their discovery. :smile:

There is no problem here, because the "guess work" is taken out of the programs by calibrating them to known positions of planets at different times. Also, the same problem would apply to the traditional planets. If applied mathematics and the science of astronomy work on the "inners" there is no explanation for why they should somehow not work for the "outers", as well. Then, as you noted, we have over 230 (Uranus) to 80 (Pluto) years of direct observation via telescopes. Are you suggesting that somehow the astronomical calculations that have worked just fine today somehow fly out the window in the past? You would have to come up with a scientific explanation as to why-- and how-- this could happen.

Let's shift the burden of proof over to your side of the ledger, JA! "Prove" that anything happened in the past (for example, "prove" that Vettius Valens was a real person) when you were not present to observe it. You have to think in terms of the "preponderance of the evidence," or "beyond a reasonable doubt." (With the emphasis on "reasonable".)

You allege that there is no evidence of astrological practice ten thousand years ago and you therefore allege that 'no one practiced astrology ten thousand years ago'. You cannot prove that.

I remind you that there is no evidence of the precise location of the outer planets ten thousand years ago and therefore modern astrologers cannot, with hindsight, delineate the outer planets prior to their discovery. Modern astrologers may SAY that is what they can do but there is no evidence/proof of that.

Please re-read my previous posts on this topic. Where is your proof that astrology was practiced 10,000 years ago? Note that we are discussing astrology-- not other forms of star-lore/cultural astronomy/ ethno-astronomy. Star lore goes back to very early archaeological records, but we wouldn't call it astrology.

Since you mention Vettius Valens - having frequently stated that you have no interest in the astrology of Vettius Valens and that your interest is simply that of an Historian - unsurprisingly, you have neither delineated charts using the techniques of Vettius Valens nor read Vettius Valens delineations of the more than one hundred natal charts (including his own) that he provides in The Anthology.

I am not sure how you are using the term "historian," JA, but I'll let it slide. I doubt that you have delineated any charts using Valens's methods, but I would love to see you post an example of your work. I never said that "I have no interest in the astrology of Vettius Valens, but my interests are clearly different from your interests. Is this a problem for you?

No doubt you are familiar with Neugebauer and Van Hoesen's monograph, Greek Horoscopes. For the others who have not read it, these authors calculated all of the Hellenistic era horoscope descriptions that they could find, including the ones in Vettius Valens, Anthologies. To Valens's credit, all of his checked out with plausible dates. Some were arguably a bit old to be his own clients, but we find many astrologers today delineating horoscopes of people born before their time.

As an Historian, you instead read other academic points of view of Vettius Valens and base your ideas on those. Therefore your opinion of the astrological delineation techniques chronicled by Vettius Valens are of no consequence.

JA, you lose me here. Not only do I read VV when I want to determine what he said about something, but historians precisely need to read widely!! Exactly which books or articles do you think I should stop reading? And which ones to you think have misinterpreted VV?

btw Vettius Valens cited sources preceding him by more than three hundred years.
Unfortunately, some of these individuals are legendary if not mythological.


IMO THE EXTREMELY SLOW MOVING CYCLES OF THE OUTER PLANETS may have a place within mundane analysis BECAUSE IN MUNDANE CHARTS THE POPULATION IS DELINEATED “EN MASSE” – NOT individually

- SO the impersonal, generational outer planets may well have an application in the astrological assessment of mass political and/or mass social movements
I am relieved that you think there may be a place for the "outers" in mundane asttrology, but we part company on individual chart interpretation.

Historical data relating to the many billions of 'ordinary' folk who lived their 'ordinary lives' prior to the discovery of the outer planets is simply not available for assessment - the events of their lives are unknown
Agreed. This is true for most of the people who lived during the period of traditional astrology, as well. Fortunately, we can look at horoscopes and lives of all kinds of people alive since modern astrologers began collecting horoscopes. The Astro-DataBank at Astrodienst includes many ordinary people, BTW, flagged by virtue of some particular attribute such as occupation or mental illness.

– so there simply IS NO EVIDENCE regarding whether aspects by outer planets to angles or planets of the natal charts of NOT FAMOUS people WHO LIVED PRIOR TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE OUTER PLANETS in fact actually affected those ordinary folks - or not
This is hardly a reason to stop using outer planets today for individuals living since these planets were discovered.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Re: Outer planets ARE generational NOT personal

No one has said that any astrologers "must not use" the outer planets! That would be nonsensical!

What I have said is that the three outer planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were simply INVISIBLE to ancient astrologers and REMAIN invisible today UNLESS POWERFUL TELESCOPES ARE USED.

Therefore IMO it is unreasonable to attempt to crowbar or cram these three outer planets into an existing astrological framework that is already proven over two thousand years to work perfectly well without them. i.e. "if it ain't broke don't repair it"

Uranus is on the "edge of visibility"
:smile:
The earliest recorded sighting of Uranus was by John Flamsteed in 1690, and Flamsteed was no astrologer. Of course, he had no idea what he had seen (he just put it down in star catalogs) and we only know it as Uranus now due to hindsight.

You have to realize what's being said with this assumption that astrologers "knew" about Uranus. Uranus has a magnitude of about 5.9-5.6 and the best we can see with the naked eye is around 6. So here's Uranus, floating just around the limit of sight and hardly seems to move. So it would seem to me that those times it was observed and noted, it was probably seen as just another star. These appearances and disappearances of it obviously lead to it not being seen in traditional texts because it wouldn't have been visible long enough to be able to take note of its motion and make the appropriate tables. If they had, then for sure it would have been included in the tradition, but that does not appear to be case.
 
Last edited:
Top