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.
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: