The Outer Planets Are Real! So what do we do with them?

So I'm of the opinion that the Outer Planets* have influence in at least natal astrology. The question is what is the most optimum way of including them?

From a Traditional Astrology perspective they do not have value. The Outers don't fit in the table of essential dignities and thus present a problem in rulership, etc.

My thinking is that they are to be used much like fixed stars... but, most often, more powerful. Possibly, they have rulership, or at the very minimum, co-rulership of signs.

What orb for Outers? I'm not sure that 6 degree orb for Pluto should be relevant. Maybe with a Luminary.

What are your thoughts?

* Outer Planets being the modern definition: Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto... the dwarf planet.

As you know I have expressed my approach to this question in several threads I have made or responded to here on AW over the past several years (including recently)

Relative to orbs (for conjunction and aspects) I use the same orbs as I do for the traditional planets, ie 5 degrees (and for parallel of declination, 2 degrees)
What about "rulership" of signs? For me I go with the traditional planets, however if the sign is Aquarius, Pisces, Scorpio, Gemini AND the traditional ruler of that sign is in a pitted degree, or is combust the Sun (within 5 degrees of the Sun) THEN I will use the respective outer planet as the defacto ruler of that sign IN THAT PARTICULAR CHART AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, for delineative (not for theoretical) purposes.

(Uranus for Aquarius and Gemini; Neptune for Pisces; the planetoid Pluto for Scorpio; I occasionally consider Pluto for Aries if Mars is pitted or combust)

Of course they do have value. The question I have now is why people constantly feel the need to validate their use of them? Frankly I wouldn't care if no one else used outer planets; I still would.

I use aspects and house placement, sign placement for generational trends. Using outer planets as one uses fixed stars would exclude powerful aspects such as the square so that's a no. As someone with an outer in an exact aspect with a personal planet, if you choose to ignore this information in my chart then you will be losing valuable information about my life experience and psyche.

I do not currently use them as rulers because I don't find them effective/as effective but my views on that could change in the future.

Orbs are flexible for outers and personal planets alike. I try not to be strict with them as other factors contribute to whether or not an aspect will be significant. Six degrees is certainly not too large.

dr. farr said:

As you know I have expressed my approach to this question in several threads I have made or responded to here on AW over the past several years (including recently)

Click to expand...

Indeed I have, and thank you again for your comment. I figured I'd start a general thread on the use of the Outers here in the Modern section as it seems a good place to catalog this information.

dr. farr said:

Relative to orbs (for conjunction and aspects) I use the same orbs as I do for the traditional planets, ie 5 degrees (and for parallel of declination, 2 degrees)
What about "rulership" of signs? For me I go with the traditional planets, however if the sign is Aquarius, Pisces, Scorpio, Gemini AND the traditional ruler of that sign is in a pitted degree, or is combust the Sun (within 5 degrees of the Sun) THEN I will use the respective outer planet as the defacto ruler of that sign IN THAT PARTICULAR CHART AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, for delineative (not for theoretical) purposes.

(Uranus for Aquarius and Gemini; Neptune for Pisces; the planetoid Pluto for Scorpio; I occasionally consider Pluto for Aries if Mars is pitted or combust)

Click to expand...

Brilliant as usual!

sibylline said:

Of course they do have value. The question I have now is why people constantly feel the need to validate their use of them? Frankly I wouldn't care if no one else used outer planets; I still would.

Click to expand...

Ever since I began studying astrology I related to the impact of Outers in the chart. So, I'll always use them as well.

sibylline said:

I use aspects and house placement, sign placement for generational trends. Using outer planets as one uses fixed stars would exclude powerful aspects such as the square so that's a no. As someone with an outer in an exact aspect with a personal planet, if you choose to ignore this information in my chart then you will be losing valuable information about my life experience and psyche.

Click to expand...

I agree that aspects play a huge role! So then we should definitely use major and minor aspects to transiting Outers also.

sibylline said:

I do not currently use them as rulers because I don't find them effective/as effective but my views on that could change in the future.

Click to expand...

So you use traditional rulerships? Or no rulers at all? I ask since I know of some astrologers that do not use rulers.

sibylline said:

Orbs are flexible for outers and personal planets alike. I try not to be strict with them as other factors contribute to whether or not an aspect will be significant. Six degrees is certainly not too large.

Click to expand...

Good to know!

Modern only

All,

Just a reminder that this forum is for MODERN astrology. If you want to discuss TRADITIONAL astrology, go to the Traditional astrology Forum. If you want to discuss Modern AND Traditional astrology, go to the Natal Astrology Forum.

About the Forums,

Tim

StillOne said:

The question is what is the most optimum way of including them?......

Ever since I began studying astrology I related to the impact of Outers in the chart. So, I'll always use them as well.

Click to expand...

Hi StillOne,
Am I right in thinking your approach towards astrology is more through the traditional concept than the astrology that includes the influences of the outer planets (aka 'modern' astrology)? I can understand that this could explain title of the thread'; i.e. how can astrology ignore planets that ARE there as if they did not exist.

What I don't understand is, if you ARE using, and relate to their 'impact', what are you querying?

In general terms, I believe the 'modern 'approach to the outers is their influence 'on the world as a whole', which many term as 'the collective conscious'.
What I personally believe it means when an outer planet is in aspect to a personal planet is, that every individual can experience and be influenced by the same type of energy, whether they live in the heart of a major city, in a hut in the density of the Amazon forest, or a tent in the middle of Sahara. E.g. Uranus readjustment towards shifts of change, followed by Neptune disintegration, and Pluto's annhilation of old patterns to instigate new approaches to life situations, are always occuring in all walks of life. Nothing ever remains the same (and that written by a Taurus Sun!).

Such can occur in the micro personal world just as it does in the outer Macro world, in the sense that everyone can experience the effect of a Uranus type separation that is like a world shattering Earthquake (to them); the Neptune dissolution that can wash everything away that ever preceeded it, and the Pluto explosion that is similar to a Volcano eruption that can be experienced as an intimidating force which is beyond one's personal control.
All can create shocks in the outer world that effect millions, just as much as in the personal world that effects an individual.

On a Macro level, who is not personally affected by situations around the globe, even if they are occuring thousands of miles away. Which country is not affected by the Jet Stream, Global Warming, IS, New Governments, failed harvests, etc.etc. that is going to effect the manner of living of every individual in it.

I believe the outer planet influence does mean the necessity of being able to see the Macroscopic Big Picture and how each Micrscopic individual plays its part within its manifestation.

As far as orbs, I still find the max. 8* orb to work in natal charts. Individual influence depends upon whether the personal planet is approaching the outer planet (applying degree) or in a position to (have) jump(ed) and get over it (separating degree.)
I use the max. 1½* applying/separating orb for transits.
Secondary progressions turning direct or retrograde during life can also be significant.

What do you consider the outer planet influence to be ?

Believe it or not, I consider the outers to have just as significant influence upon individuals as the traditional 7 planets do, and just as much influence upon individuals as upon mundane matters; I started out believing that the outers mainly influenced large groups of people (essentially mundane matters) but my experience in delineation has convinced me beyond any doubt, that the outer planets Uranus and Neptune, and even the planetoid Pluto, have significant influences upon individual horoscopes...

dr. farr said:

Believe it or not, I consider the outers to have just as significant influence upon individuals as the traditional 7 planets do, and just as much influence upon individuals as upon mundane matters; I started out believing that the outers mainly influenced large groups of people (essentially mundane matters) but my experience in delineation has convinced me beyond any doubt, that the outer planets Uranus and Neptune, and even the planetoid Pluto, have significant influences upon individual horoscopes...

Click to expand...

And I concur to that.

Two things that I would like to point out though, per the experience that I have gathered over the years, is that:

a) traditional planetary rulerships of signs work better (so Saturn does rule Cap and Aqua for me)

b) in an individual's native and transits' chart, in order to determine the planetary influences upon the native, I look at the aspects between the outer planets and the traditional (inner) planets, and not between the outer planets (so not from Nep to Plu), as those are more generational influences and do not tell you how the next half year for the native is going to be.

I agree: and I use the traditional planets are the rulers of the signs, UNLESS in a particular chart that planet is inhibited from its fullest expression (by being in a pitted degree or combust-within 5 degrees-of the Sun), and THEN, under those special circumstances peculiar to that PARTICULAR chart, I'll bring in the outer as defacto ruler of the sign. If BOTH the traditional ruler of the sign and the outer planet to be used as substitute ruler are inhibited, then I go to the ruling planet of the decan (Manilius decan for me) for the defacto ruler (of that sign in that chart), and proceed in that way...

StillOne said:

I agree that aspects play a huge role! So then we should definitely use major and minor aspects to transiting Outers also.

Click to expand...

I haven't studied minor aspects much at all, so I can't comment there. Major transit aspects I do use although I try not to watch transits expecting something to happen.

StillOne said:

So you use traditional rulerships? Or no rulers at all? I ask since I know of some astrologers that do not use rulers.

Click to expand...

Yes, traditional rulerships. I do consider the position of the modern rulers far secondarily if they are prominent in some way.

aquarius7000 said:

Two things that I would like to point out though, per the experience that I have gathered over the years, is that:

a) traditional planetary rulerships of signs work better (so Saturn does rule Cap and Aqua for me)

b) in an individual's native and transits' chart, in order to determine the planetary influences upon the native, I look at the aspects between the outer planets and the traditional (inner) planets, and not between the outer planets (so not from Nep to Plu), as those are more generational influences and do not tell you how the next half year for the native is going to be.

Click to expand...

Through my personal passionate interest with the health side of astrology over the years it would seem that the traditional planetary rulers do carry more weight in this area. Saturn does, after all, represent the limits of endurance of physical manifestation, existence, and body. The 'this far and no further', 'this is where I draw the line' to difficult situations can aid so much in a positive sense before Saturn gets a chance to work inwards in a negative sense.

The outers have been assigned rulership of an (higher?) abstract mental sign and two signs associated with the qualities of inner emotions. I believe that says a lot in attempting to understand and reach the positive energies they represent, especially if and when Moon with personal planets are harshly aspected.

Jeff W. Green made the comment in his book 'Pluto' that only 30% of the population is 'individuated', which agrees with the land mass of planet Earth.
70% is influenced (governed?) by their feelings, which agrees with the water mass covering the planet. He called the latter 'the herd state' [(Fris.)follow the leader of the pack, i.e. another's will?], which sounds an unkind comparison although understandable as an explanation of its manifestation.

It's a personal view that the outers can fulfil the gift of their (joint) potential when the positive 3-D detachment, disassociation, and destruction of the negative qualities of the 'herd state' within a person is attempted, even if never completely achieved.
The Age of Aquarius may have much to do with that. There is so much in the sign regarding mental mind (Air) development, which will take precedence over and re-view the effect of the passing Water influenced Age of Pisces; on a personal level and collectively speaking.

Frisiangal said:

Through my personal passionate interest with the health side of astrology over the years it would seem that the traditional planetary rulers do carry more weight in this area. Saturn does, after all, represent the limits of endurance of physical manifestation, existence, and body. The 'this far and no further', 'this is where I draw the line' to difficult situations can aid so much in a positive sense before Saturn gets a chance to work inwards in a negative sense.

The outers have been assigned rulership of an (higher?) abstract mental sign and two signs associated with the qualities of inner emotions.
The Age of Aquarius may have much to do with that. There is so much in the sign regarding mental mind (Air) development, which will take precedence over and re-view the effect of the passing Water influenced Age of Pisces; on a personal level and collectively speaking.

Click to expand...

Or, conversely and synchronistically, the (Direct-motion) passing of the Tropical Age of the watery, yet materialistic Age of the Seagoat!
(Or, "Scapegoat", for those who equate the Age prior to the Aquarian Age with an "Age of Christianity".)

According to the "Gaia's Trident" (as described in the Mundane section) method for determining the Ages, both Tropical and Sidereal, there's an overlap of Ages. So, when the Age of a Sign ends according to the position of the first Trident-point, it actually begins for the third-point, and the center-point is at the middle of the Sign. There's a graduated phase-shift, instead of a sudden stop and start. The third-point is one Sign back, so in our current situation, Tradition is still in the Tropical Age of Sagittarius, and Individuality is still in the Age of Capricorn, until the first-point reaches Tropical Aquarius. Sagittarius is the Sign of Vision--seeing is believing. That explains why Traditional Astrology requires that only the visible Planets be considered important.
The Age of a Sign, whether it be first, second, or third-point Age, greatly ups the power of that Sign's rulership. Tropically, it's a combination of Capricorn and Sagittarius, so the two Age-empowered rulers are Saturn and Jupiter.

Right: certainly when we look at the starry zodiacal constellations, there are several overlaps (of 1 zodiacal constellation with another one); so, if using the zodiacal constellations are our "basis" for computing Zodiacal Ages (or Era's), 2 such Ages would be occurring during the same time period in several instances, including (by the way) Pisces and Aquarius (big overlap here!)...

Although it's accepted as general theory that the astrological ages overlap, and the Pisces to Aquarius shift may well be explainable through more recent history in a number of ways, my mind has difficulty imagining what has been occuring on Earth and/or how the same history 'fits' whilst the Sagittarius-Capricorn 'Era overlap' has been occuring. Sagittarius is so open and forthcoming, whilst Capricorn is reserved and distant.
Are we thinking in terms of a Capricorn 'civilised society' gradually taking over from a previous Sagittarius 'uncivilised maverick' dominancy? Will Sagittarius progress either 'stop' or become manifested through Capricorn?

Would it be possible to provide an example of how the outer planets meanings in their positions would work in the 21st century through the techniques as explained in replies 13/14/15 ?

Frisiangal said:

Although it's accepted as general theory that the astrological ages overlap, and the Pisces to Aquarius shift may well be explainable through more recent history in a number of ways, my mind has difficulty imagining what has been occuring on Earth and/or how the same history 'fits' whilst the Sagittarius-Capricorn 'Era overlap' has been occuring. Sagittarius is so open and forthcoming, whilst Capricorn is reserved and distant.
Are we thinking in terms of a Capricorn 'civilised society' gradually taking over from a previous Sagittarius 'uncivilised maverick' dominancy? Will Sagittarius progress either 'stop' or become manifested through Capricorn?

Would it be possible to provide an example of how the outer planets meanings in their positions would work in the 21st century through the techniques as explained in replies 13/14/15 ?

Click to expand...

[Thumbnail sketch]:
The Age of Sagittarius was open and forthcoming, with visions and prophecy abounding. Wide open skies, high-energy adventures, and warrior versus warrior on a level playing field. The Ancient Greeks epitomized the Age, which was at its peak during the middle Decant, centered around about 500 B.C. They were tremendously versatile, and volatile as well. The more disciplined Romans came in during the last Decant, when the changeover to Capricorn was being felt. The Romans worshipped Jupiter, the Age-ruler, as the Greeks worshipped Zeus, who held the Trident of lightning, signifying his power as Sky-god. The Romans also worshipped Saturn and Mars in a way the Greeks never did, but Rome was still a manifestation of the Age of Sagittarius. And when the Age of Capricorn kicked in around 400 A.D., things fell apart. Western civilization has survived by accepting Saturnian authority, and by utilizing Capricornian tenacity and inventiveness. Lightning is wild and free, like Age-sign Sagittarius. But Age-sign Capricorn captures that electricity and harnesses it for use in technological marvels. Too much emphasis is being placed on the Sun-sign characteristics of the Signs. Sun in Aquarius, for example isn't going to display exactly the same manifestations as Asc, Moon, planets, or Age-Indicator placements. Before discussing the role of the outer Planets, which I characterize as "on beyond Saturn", I have to ask: Looking at this Age objectively, in what ways ISN'T it an Age of Capricorn? To me, intuitively, it's NOTHING like what an Age of Pisces would be like, and EXACTLY like what I'd expect from the influence of Cardinal Earth, under Saturnian rulership. So, I personally have to classify the Sidereal Ages as those affecting us in subtle, ephemeral ways, while it's the Tropical that determine how we live our mundane, worldly lives. Frisiangal, if you hadn't been TOLD it's the Age of Pisces, ruled by Neptune and Jupiter, that caused the Dark Ages and all the materialistic greed, cruelty, and organized warfare with ever-more-destructive weaponry that's followed, would you have guessed Pisces? That is, playing "guess the Sign and rulership of this Age", is Pisces really the most obvious choice in your opinion? (Okay if it is, btw! ) Oh, forgot to mention--try guessing the Sign of this Age WITHOUT including Aquarius, since the start of the Sidereal Aquarian Age is still AT LEAST 4 Centuries away according to the conventional use of the V.E.P. as (first-point) Age-Indicator, and the conventional Ayanamsa values.

Here's a thought. I place great importance on an Indicator's rate of movement. The Ascendant is by far the fastest, and the Age-Indicator (which I view as as a measured interval of 30 degrees, moving in and out of alignment with the measured 30 degree Sign divisions--that's where the Trident form originated) is by far the slowest. There's a gradation from extremely personal (Asc) to extremely shared. Saturn is mid-range: We take it personally, but share its effects. So, the outer Astrological-planets are slow-moving enough to be perceived as mainly shared and impersonal. The Personals are a "call to action", and the Impersonals are more about the surrounding "atmosphere" in which those actions take place in the context of the Chart.

The importance of events or activity the outer planets rule (so called moderns Neptune, Uranus, Pluto) involve a larger scale of objectivity to answer the question successfully-as in the consideration given in Mundane events involving a large populace which can tell us how we should involve our insights to answer the question. (yes I include Pluto as a planet) When these appear it is needful of the attempt to delineate at a deeper level of evaluation in that there is something other than the subject matter presented that does not meet the eye. The greater good that can be unearthed is demonstrative on a hidden level-of a higher purpose or plane or that more than just the querent is involved-a broader picture should be evolved in solving the question. The true answer will usually influence other's on a greater scale as mentioned and have a more political repercussion in that unless perceived from the original Host's sign/house subject matter (at root level) it is not as evident to unveil whilst you must question the sometimes hidden ethical premise of the question, does the question involve a deeper spiritual responsibility not revealed of its apparent inception? Is there other than the querents involvement for the reason the question is asked other than to solve the apparent topical question for the originator of the query? Other people, past evidence not revealed etc the astrologer is responsible to unearth to be able to clear themselves of a correct delineation process and other's untold of that will be involved should the question not be considered of their person.

Usually it will be revealed in the chart as to just why the 'ponderous' ones are involved.

Take care
All the best

Vyri

p.s. a deeper psychology must be established between the Astrologer and the querent for the full truth of the question is to be revealed.

'Competency' is usually at the bottom of all aspects of the reasoning for the question to be asked.

david starling said:

Frisiangal, if you hadn't been TOLD it's the Age of Pisces, ruled by Neptune and Jupiter, that caused the Dark Ages and all the materialistic greed, cruelty, and organized warfare with ever-more-destructive weaponry that's followed, would you have guessed Pisces? That is, playing "guess the Sign and rulership of this Age", is Pisces really the most obvious choice in your opinion? (Okay if it is, btw! ) .

Click to expand...

That seems to me to be a trick question challenging my simple mind.
However;
Doesn't it take a learning process of whichever kind, through which a person is TOLD by the greater mind (of the time) what is and means what, to form a later personal opinion that can judge the truth or fault in and of that which one has been TOLD?

I agree with you that, from your focal point of view, the Age/Era from Sagittarius passing to Capricorn, via Jupiter and Saturn, is a perfectly logical way to look at a process. Sagittarius, via its ruler, is associated with ongoing progress and, yes, humans don't still swing from branches of trees, live in caves, and invented the wheel, etc.etc. There has been continuous advancement, which Capricorn has physically and structurally manifested.

Yet can't I ask you similarly, if you were unaware of astrological thought in the teaching you follow, whether you would have placed such Jupiterian trust in the Age/Era advancement as the result of the signs and their applied rulers? What if the rulerships of each had been in the other sign, or given to any other sign ? Would your mind have followed the same train of thought, regardless?

Why do I follow the Pisces to Aquarius Age/Era? I may mistrust much, yet I have complete faith in what astrological symbolism conveys (to me).

Many, many Moons ago, and long before I ever studied astrology, I worked for an international company that published a series of books called, 'The Great Ages of Man'. Without being astrological of content it did use the comparison (or synchronicity) between the constellations and a particular Age/Era. 'The Age of Faith' was said to coincide with Pisces.

When into astrology I heard of the calculation and meaning of principles within The Great Year as a result of Precession. Being a basically Earth/Air type, MY mind grasped the astrological rather than visionary link that provided proof of and in a theory. Precession does work backwards and not forwards; moving in this essence of time from Pisces towards Aquarius.

Without using any influence of modern ruler, Neptune,'and to my own way of thinking, the Jupiter of Pisces concerns the 'vision of truth through UNseeing = Faith'. As a result it works in a totally different manner, and through another 'vision' than Jupiter of Sagittarius. With the greatest respect towards their signs, Sagittarius-Capricorn may enhance 'a societal' visionary and religious/philosophical doctrine made manifest, yet world suffering, persecution, (un)willing death for a cause, etc., all as a result of an inner intangible experience called 'faith', is not ( as far as I am aware)written into their traits.
The big difference may be in the words and interpretation of Jupiter's application towards 'trust' and 'truth'.

The Outer Planets have all worked their way through their ruling signs, bringing a change of perspective towards their previous meanings as per 'the 'spirit of the time'. Don't Jupiter and Capricorn move too fast through a sign to make such a large world development change?

Personally, I can't 'believe' it is sheer coincidence that when transit Neptune completes its home sojourn in Pisces and enters Aries, transit Pluto will be leaving Capricorn to enter Aquarius. This is followed by Uranus entering Gemini. Another major shift of change.
Involving the Age/Era of Aquarius or Capricorn remains to be seen.