weirdconjunctions
Active member
I agree about outer planet placements being a generational thing, but what if an outer planet is powerful in your chart? I have Neptune in its fall conjunct my sun and aspecting three other planets as well as my MC.
what if an outer planet is powerful in your chart?
dr. farr said:What if (pure hypothesis) a new monomoiria using the 10 planets were applied? Starting with the new "outermost" planet, making a New Chaldean Order (Pluto - Neptune - Uranus - Saturn - Jupiter - Mars - Sun - Venus - Mercury - Moon), and beginning the 360 ecliptic degree circle with Pluto at 0 Aries? Using a 10 planet Chaldean Order, each planet would repeat exactly 36 times in the circle of the zodiacal degrees, with no planet getting an excess number of degree affinities.
The north node is exalted in Gemini
The south node is exalted in Saggitarius
The reason there are three signs left over (Leo, Aquarius, Scorpio) is that this system was developed for the nodes plus seven planets, nine in all, with three left unassigned.
With these three signs remaining, "moderns" attempt to "fill them up" with the outers. The "old rules" said that only one "thing" could be exalted in each sign (nodes and planets).
Now, if you give Leo to Neptune, you have two signs left over, Aquarius and Scorpio. But then you would have to consider both Uranus and Pluto exalted in their own signs, flip them (which would be pretty weird), or have them exalted in signs that already have been used.
Your only solution is revise the whole system, and I think that most people are not going to agree with that.
Gaer
All of the outer planets are beyond dignity and debility. I'm not so into tradition that I think that the outers should be ignored completely, but I do contest that they have any place in an already holisitic and complete system of essential dignities and debilities.
Is it impossible to regard the outer planets, interesting as they are, without finding it necessary to squeeze them into a system where they do not belong, because they epitomise forces so great and as yet mysterious that they are above and beyond any such categorisation?
Trying to cast dignities and debilities upon the outer planets is not only unecessary and inappropriate, but damaging to an already badly wounded and confused art.
This is an interesting thought, but there's no such thing as "elementally dignified". But I understand what you mean - they belong to either fiery or watery "triplicity", and thus, would simply be dignified by triplicity.Following along with the Modernist speculations I made in my earlier post in this thread, could we allocate the following "dignities" to the outers-not based on any type of "rulership" concept, but rather upon an "elemental affinity" or "elemental resonance" basis?
+Pluto "elementally dignified" in the fiery triplicity of Aries, Leo and Sagittarius
+Neptune "elementally dignified" in the watery triplicity of Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces
+Uranus "elementally dignified" in the airy triplicity of Gemini, Libra and Aquarius
Could we also, possibly, assign "detriments" to the outers as well, based upon dissonance of elemental qualities in the relationship between planet and sign?
For example:
+Pluto "elementally detrimented" in Water signs: Cancer, Scorpio (!), Pisces
+Neptune "elementally detrimented" in Fire signs: Aries, Leo, Sagittarius
+Uranus "elementally detrimented" in Earth signs: Taurus, Virgo, Capricorn
...just food for thought!
Modernist pioneer Charles Carter (in his excellent book "The Zodiac and the Soul") discussed qualitative affinities of the outers with the 7 traditional planets: Carter connected Uranus with Mars, Mercury and the Sun; Neptune with Venus, Jupiter and the Moon; Pluto with Mars, Saturn and (somewhat) with the Sun.
I have found these affinities suggested by Carter to be of much value in practical delineation and prediction...
Another opinionI also agree with Carter's observations. Pluto is surely penetrative (Mars shaprness), deep (Saturn the hidden matters) also with the nature of active structural transformation, restructuring with the Sun along with Mars both representing Creation.
But I don't think Pluto is detriment in Scorpio as Mars rules this in traditional rulership and Pluto is matching with it nature. Being a Scorpio Sun, Mercury, Saturn and Pluto. I can say my water is not the water like Cancer and Pisces. The Water of Scorpio is rather like Ice/boiling water fitting it extremeness. If we see Cancer as flowing water, Pisces as mist. When we see Cancer as pleasant water like rain, river or spring, Pisces as the boundless ocean, lost in direction, then Pluto as the water that runs deep into root of the beneath, the drain water all the ugly dirty water that got removed from the system to assist better purity.
Anyhow, all outer planets have more than one elementary characters. Mercury ruling both Air and Earth elements, most people agree Mercury exalts in Virgo or perhaps Aquarius. Venus ruling both Air and Earth again but exalts in Water element Pisces. Jupiter rules both Sagittarius and Pisces, how fire and water be matching, while he exalts in Cancer. I am sure the rules for the traditional dignity and debility can also be used to form modern dignity and debility with the outers.
The other side of the idea is, if outers representing transcendence outside the boundaries and rules of the physical world Saturn, can we really be able to limit them into the Dignity and Debility as they simply doing different things in different signs but always to lift to elevate the matter beyond the physical boundaries.
I'm of the opinion that unless the pre-existing schema for assignation of exaltation is fully understood,
we have no reason to 'tinker' by adding in newer planets:
On what grounds would we do so if we do not understand its current logic?
Clearly the current logic was not based upon "this planet really really suits this sign" kind of mentality. Therefore I would encourage Element to move away from his rationale.
I agree with whomever mentioned the aversions of the Thema Mundi. But really I'd be inclined to not see Neptune as ruling Pisces either so I'm not sure how popular that theory would be. I think I'm saying the same thing as Dr Farr (if I understand him properly) and would say that the modern planets may have some affinity with certain signs - I just do not think that the affinity is to rule over the sign, and to have domicile dignity therefore in that sign.
I see some connections with Neptune and Pisces, it is true, and also see some with Pluto and Scorpio. I tend to see more connections with Uranus and Aries tbh, but I'm not advocating anyone else follow that mentality of course. It is just that I see Neptune as a 'blending' quality, and Uranus as having an 'individuating' or 'separative' quality that suits my understanding of Aries.
Not all astrologers would agreeNeptune rules Pisces and Sag.
I'm of the opinion that unless the pre-existing schema for assignation of exaltation is fully understood, we have no reason to 'tinker' by adding in newer planets: On what grounds would we do so if we do not understand its current logic?
Clearly the current logic was not based upon "this planet really really suits this sign" kind of mentality. Therefore I would encourage Element to move away from his rationale.
I agree with whomever mentioned the aversions of the Thema Mundi. But really I'd be inclined to not see Neptune as ruling Pisces either so I'm not sure how popular that theory would be. I think I'm saying the same thing as Dr Farr (if I understand him properly) and would say that the modern planets may have some affinity with certain signs - I just do not think that the affinity is to rule over the sign, and to have domicile dignity therefore in that sign.
I see some connections with Neptune and Pisces, it is true, and also see some with Pluto and Scorpio. I tend to see more connections with Uranus and Aries tbh, but I'm not advocating anyone else follow that mentality of course. It is just that I see Neptune as a 'blending' quality, and Uranus as having an 'individuating' or 'separative' quality that suits my understanding of Aries.
Most modern astrologers do not agree at all regarding the 'rulerships' of the outer planets, in fact there are multiple opinions on the subjectMost astrologers do agree about it.
I don't think there's anything that all astrologers agree on.
.....we have no reason to 'tinker' by adding in newer planets:
On what grounds would we do so if we do not understand its current logic?
...I think I'm saying the same thing as Dr Farr
(if I understand him properly)
and would say that the modern planets may have some affinity with certain signs
- I just do not think that the affinity is to rule over the sign, and to have domicile dignity therefore in that sign.
I see some connections with Neptune and Pisces, it is true, and also see some with Pluto and Scorpio.
I tend to see more connections with Uranus and Aries tbh, but I'm not advocating anyone else follow that mentality of course.
It is just that I see Neptune as a 'blending' quality, and Uranus as having an 'individuating' or 'separative' quality that suits my understanding of Aries.
I have Neptune in capricorn and I can say that I feel it's effects very intensely (it's 1-degree from my ascendant; and possibly chart ruler). From my situation I would agree that it's in fall in Cap. As a sun in Cap as well, I'd like to be practical, dependible and straightforward; but it seems I can never see relaity for what it is, and I'm always lost in a dream world (many people often say I appear as if I'm not-quite-here). So definitely this position is putting me off. ... I also have Neptune conj my mercury and a lot of times people do not take my arguments seriously, as if I'm not realistic.
So I know it's a generational planet but maybe it affects the person more when it's on the ascendant or maybe even a certain house placement could highten its affect to the individual. Maybe even in tight conjunct to personal planets.
Like someone else said I can see Neptune being a better influence on a Leo too.
On the contraryYes, most do agree.
Most books and authors list Neptune as ruling Sag and Pisces.
The ppl who disagree are mostly traditionalists who don't use the outers as well.
Uranus ruling Aq and exalted in scorps.
Pluto ruling scorps and Aries.
Neptune ruling Sag and Pisces.
Are the consensus opinions today.
The only real divide is that some astrologers only give pluto to scorps and others assign jupiter to just sag and neptune to just pisces.
Because Traditional astrology IS OLDER THAN Modern astrologyDignity and debility is both a traditionalist and modern concept
Traditional Astrologers are the originators of the concept of Dignity and DebilityBecause both actively use it and both have contributed to it
Perhaps you refer to http://www.librarising.com/astrology/misc/wholesignhouses.htmlA traditionalist concept would be the old house system, which traditionalists mainly use
My contention is in fact that astrologers who originated Dignity and Debility are now called Traditional astrologersIt seems to me that what you're arguing is that only the traditionalists who lived 100's of years ago are allowed to assign degnities and debilities to planets.
And there are many who disagree with youI disagree