Planets in high degrees

Arian Maverick

Well-known member
I like how all of these ideas are coming together; just as planets progress through the twelve signs of the zodiac and are influenced subtly by the signs they occupy, they also progress through the thirty degrees of each sign and may be subtly influence by their position within a particular sign.

This may be a bit off-topic, but has anyone ever wondered if the numerology of a particular degree may be significant as well?

It may also be interesting to study the Sabian symbols of each decanate of a sign and see if the symbols of earlier degrees have a particular "physical" component, the middle degrees have a particular "mental" component, and the later degrees have a particular "philosophical" component.

Continuing with the decanate idea, I cannot help but notice that the decanate sign allocation pattern (i.e. sign, next sign in the same element, next sign in the same element) is circular just like the entire zodiac; it does not stop at Pisces! So If Pisces is the most "advanced" sign, and if the 29th degree is the most "advanced" degree, it would be logical that the 29th degree of Pisces would have more of a Piscean emphasis; but as gaer mentioned, it belongs within the Scorpio decanate and, if I remember correctly, the Aries duad! I like the chess analogy, with regards to complexity--now if only the "rules" of the astrology were as clear-cut as those in chess :rolleyes:

Arian Maverick
Last edited:


Well-known member
milkywaygirl said:
interesting point gaer, i have been sitting here pondering that. i am familiar with decanates and their use in this fashion, but personally only use them in terms of sun signs (especially when people ask me "well i am a blahblahblah, so what do you know about me?" - i usually just ask them their birthday to determine roughly what decanate their sun is in, and then spout off something about their sun sign blended with the sign that rules over that decanate, ie: pisces sun in 3rd decanate is characteristic of pisces but with a little more darkness to its flavour, a little more guarded than the typical pisces).
I like your idea because it is intuitive. We've already discussed the idea that as something reaches the end of a sign, it does seem as though it might be getting ready to move on to the lessons of the next one. Or that the beginning of a sign might mean that the lessons of the last one are done (at least for "this time around" the wheel).

When an emphasis is put on a sign in any way, certainly it's worth thinking about. For those of us are "doubles" (the same Sun and Moon sign), we might also wonder why. My own intepretation, but just for me, is that with Sun/Neptune/Moon all in Libra between about 12 and 17 degrees, so all conjunct, is that my own evolution might be from the more negative characteristics associated with Libra to the positive ones.

To stick with Pisces for a little bit, I would say that at the beginning of the sign we WOULD be dealing with people who more likely to personify the characteristics we most strongly associate with Pisces, though even so we have to remember that as with all signs there are some very great weaknesses and very great strengths. I'd like to think that in entering each sign we are beginning the most intense lessons associated with that sign (postive or negative), but my own connection to the idea of reincarnation makes me interpret this as "this time". If we do reincarnate, surely we have been through experiences associated with all the signs many times. My own visualization of the wheel is one of spiraling inward to the center, where all signs would meet; we would have absorbed all the lessons symbolized by each sign.

For my own sign (Sun/Moon), I would think of "entering on the Virgo side", not talking about a blending of signs, but rather expressing Libra energy with the "color" of one who has completed a Virgo cycle. This would be especially appropriate for me, with Virgo rising, on one hand, yet Mercury and Mars in Scorpio. My planets are in the middle of the sign, and I feel as though I rock back and forth between the more intellectual, analyzing side of Virgo (very useful for my work as a teacher) and the very intense, probing side of Scorpio, which I think pushes me hard to find the reasons "behind the reasons", to always dig deeper.

As always there are an infinite number of connections to be made in any natal chart, so exactly where we get our information from is always at least somewhat a mystery.

Finally, when speaking of the outer planets, especially from Uranus on out, it does seem logical to me that we can make some kind of judgement about the progress of humanity according to how far through the sign each planet is.

What does it mean for all of us, for instance, when Pluto is at 29 Libra, moves into Scorpio, then moves back briefly into Libra (Rx)? This happened just before the middle of the 1980s. Where those who were born then or shortly after most affected by violence on a whole new level? I'm thinking of those who saw bombs land on Iraq, "live, up close and personal", less than 20 years later.

How would people be different who born right at the end of this cycle, as Pluto moved into Saggitarius? Will they be less violent? More philosophical? Will they reform religion?

Who knows, but if we are on the right track, those born when Pluto was moving from Scorpio into Saggitarius would experience the world in a very different way. These people are not old enough yet to have a large impact on the world, but in 10 years or so we should beging to see what the difference might be.
in response to your ponderings above, i guess i would say that for example in the case of the pisces decanates, just because its not pure pisces doesnt betray the philosophy of a progressive growth. at the end of the day, it is still a decanate of Pisces, it just has the added flavour of a scorpionic undertone. in addition to this, one could further postulate that since the 2nd and 3rd decanates of any sign indicate an added flavour of the other signs in that element, they would therefore be more operationally complex due to that added flavour. kind of like the game of checkers in contrast to the game of chess!
I like the idea of added complexity with a movement through the signs. I think that is more general but also more flexible and more useful!



Senior Member, Educational board Editor
Hi all! I'd like to make a few observations:

Shining Ray began by raising the concept that planets in higher degrees may be more *evolved* compared to planets in lower degrees.

My take on this is that it is possible that a planet at a late degree in a sign has reached and passed the zenith of its energy, in that sign.(and is leaving/changing/ evolving into a *new* sign/way of being.No hierarchies there....just change.

Astro-teacher pointed out that a planet in late degree is often void of course, thereby weakened...good point. But *often*, not *always* will a planet in a late degree be void. Some have experienced *the last hurrah* a planet makes before leaving the sign- often true in regard to transits..As if all the *leaves on the trees must be shed* before the spring comes...(if I may use that metaphor).

Wayne penner has said quite rightly that *For one thing the signs do not act like clockwork* (or are we using the wrong clock?)..
Well, here's another theory:
About 2300 years ago, astrologers divided the sun's path into twelve sections and ascribed 30 degrees to each section . But the constellations don't neatly fit into this pattern. For example, Pisces is huge, taking up 38 whopping degrees (now jupiter rulership fits well here!), but cancer takes up only20 degrees (like a crab curled up!). The problem of where the constellation of cancer began and ended was only resolved last century!
So at best we are working with something on a *symbolic level* here...

When a planet is *leaving a sign* it is taking its energy/light to a new place (symbolically) and the affect of a planet is less when it is moving away.
Of course there is *development through the signs/wheel*..Every day we *progress*..this is evolution isn't it? The wheel is infinite, possibly. Like Gaer said, we don't know how many times we've been around, and there might not be any way of telling...(Darn!)..
To me, a planet leaving a sign is like *locking up the house before going out*.A mistake at the point of departure could set the tone for the next chapter which might be why the concept of the *anaretic degree* evolved.

This is a very interesting subject!
Cheers, Lillyjgc


Well-known member
I have sun on 0cap14 and neptun on 1cap04(4th house), so that means that I'm strong capricorn? I also have a stelium in sag mercur-uran-moon.

Is it possible that people with sun on 0 degree have problem of identity? Maybe beacuse we have born in process of change two signs?

I'm now very confused:rolleyes:


Well-known member
Is it possible that people with sun on 0 degree have problem of identity? Maybe beacuse we have born in process of change two signs?

Cusps ... an old and thorny point.

I was taught that ..... the "influence", if any , would be most notable during application , once the 0deg00 is reached the "transition" is complete .... there is no "tail-off" ..... a bit like a pluto transits , it builds it peaks , and is gone in an instant.

Sorry if that stretches the topic a little.


Well-known member
Shining Ray said:
Hi Gaer,I like the idea of using transits to see how the energy works when the planet reaches the last stages of a sign. Like now I think Pluto has entered in to the critical degrees and moves into Capricorn in February next year (I think). Although I just checked my ephemeris it has been at those high degrees since the beginning of this year. I can't think of anything which has happened worldwide as being crucial but I haven't been paying too much attention to the news lately :rolleyes:. The most crucial event which happened was the twin towers, when Pluto was in the middle degrees of Sagittarius opposing Saturn in Gemini, although I have heard of 15 degrees being crucial but not sure if it was in the mutable signs.
Pluto is moving towards the end of Sagittarius right now, of course. But because all of these outer planets retrograde for one-fourth of the year or more (as they approach and leave opposition to the Sun), although Pluto will enter Capricorn at the end of Jan. 2008, it will move back retrograde the beginning of April. So it won't really make it into Capricorn until November of 2008, not "all the way" of "for good". (At least until it goes all the way through and enters the next sign.) :)

My point about the ending of a cycle (final degrees of a sign and entry into a new one) is that when it concerns one of the outer planets, we might consider the generation or sub-generation born in that "cycle".

There is a rather extraordinary aspect that has been in affect now for a very long time. Neptune has been sextile to Pluto, on and off, for the latter half of the 20th century, and that happened because Pluto was closer to the Sun and thus faster than Neptune for a period. This only happens for a few years every 250 years or so.

If you think about it, you have a static or basically unchanging (or vibrating) aspect, and these two planets will again be dead on sextile to each other in the middle of the 2120s. Now, has that aspect symbolized something terribly important? For instance, in spite of a constant threat of another world war breaking out, the world (as a whole) has dodged the "big bullet"—this in spite of a seemingly never-ending string of "local wars". I'm using "local" here in the sense of warfare limited to one particular area (Vietnam, Iraq, and so on), not in the sense of "minor". All these "localized wars" have been horrendous, of course.

That leaves us wondering what it means when such an aspect "progresses" through signs.

Pluto first entered Leo in October of 1937. Neptune did not first enter Libra until October of 1942. But later, a curious thing happened:

In 1956, both Neptune and Pluto advanced to the next signs, Scorpio and Virgo. Because of retrograde motion, they did little dances in and out of the beginning of the signs, but the timing was pretty close.

A similar "dance" occurred around 1971-1972, as Neptune entered Sagittarius and Pluto entered Libra.

And from late 1983 to early 1984, it happened again, as Neptune entered Capricorn and Pluto entered Scorpio.

This parallel movement through signs was lost in 1995, with Pluto entering Sagittarius a couple years ahead of Neptune's movement into Libra, and it is still out of sync now, as Pluto is about to enter Capricorn.

But they come into sync again, for one final time in 2024, when Neptune will enter Aries and Pluto Aquarius, again sextile and with only about 3 months difference.

If we are deeply considering what it means for planets to reach the end of signs and begin in new ones, I think deeply considering the passage of Neptune and Pluto through the signs in the latter half of the 20th century and on into the 21st is an excellent opportunity. What changed during each of the periods?

Since it always takes a couple years for these slow moving planets to move entirely into the next sign, where they are no longer "backing up" into the previous sign during retrograde motion, my questions are:

What changed after 1956, moving into the late 1950s?

What happened after 1971, into the middle 1970s?

What happend in the middle to late 1980s?

These were periods when both planets were in the early degrees of their signs.

Those of you who have an interest in history may make some powerful connections here.

Looking at it the other way, what happened right before 1956? Right before 1971? Because that would be the end of two Neptune/Pluto cycles. That concerns the end of the journey of these to planets through signs, late degrees.


wayne penner

Well-known member
Arian Maverick said:
I personally don't like this theory because it seems to undertone superiority, that "evolved" planets in later degrees are somehow "better" or "more desirable" than "unevolved" planets in earlier degrees.

It's the same kind of idea that runs rampant online that each sign is an evolution of the next from Aries to Pisces. Are signs found later in the zodiac necessarily more "evolved" than signs found earlier in the zodiac? Don't all signs have their own strengths and weaknesses, their own issues to deal with?

Planets in high degrees are undoubtedly significant, but I don't like to think of the entire span of a sign as degrees of evolution.

Arian Maverick

Well I don't think it is necessarily an issue of superiority, as if it is somehow "better" to have Sun in Pisces than in Aries. It does seem to be an issue of complexity however. We all have friends who are Aries and Pisces. Aries people are uncomplicated in their basic drives, easy to understand, but Pisces is all over the place with its poetry and art and addictions. (I love 'em both but Pisces and Neptune is often a "handful" to deal with while Aries is a breath of fresh air, simple and undisturbed.)
Last edited:

Arian Maverick

Well-known member
I didn't mean to derail this thread with my Aries/Pisces comment, but the insecurity regarding my (heavily afflicted) Aries stellium seems to infuse itself somehow in every post; I'm constantly in defensive mode about it.

I'd create another thread about this topic, but I don't want to be self-indulgent, as that would further fulfill the simple "me-first" Aries stereotype. I'm not denying that I possess it, though :rolleyes:

Anyway, I have no new ideas to add to this thread, so I'll let you all carry on...

Arian Maverick