The Outer Planets in Astrology: To Use or Not to Use?
The outer planets, Uranus, Neptune, and yes, Pluto, are often overplayed in modern astrological delineations. They are overplayed in the sense that they are often the first thing that a modern astrologer will look at in any chart delineation, and it is often the case that without the outer planets a modern astrologer will consider a chart unfit to be delineated, or at least staggeringly incomplete.
On the opposite end of the spectrum there are a growing number of Medieval and Indian astrologers who do not consider the outer planets to be relevant in a chart delineation at all, and do not even include them when they draw up and interpret charts in their personal and professional practice. Part of the rationale for this position, as it has been explained to me by certain proponents of this approach (usually acolytes of Robert Zoller or John Frawley), is that the astrological construct was created prior to the discovery of the outer planets, and any attempt at incorporating them only serves to wreak havoc on the internal consistency of the system and to confuse or muddle delineations.
My own opinion on this matter lies somewhere in between the two extremes. On the one hand, my early investigations into astrology were mainly focused on modern astrology for the first four years of my studies, and during this time I gained an appreciation for the important types of significations that the outer planets bring to a chart, and consequently their relevance in delineations.
On the other hand, over the past few years since I began studying more ‘traditional’ forms of astrology I have come to appreciate the internal consistency of the older systems of astrology and the fact that you can have a completely accurate and encompassing approach to prediction by just using the seven classical bodies alone. For example, I came to realize that the use of the traditional system of sign rulerships is not something that is regressive or outmoded, but it is actually a very elegant and consistent construct that can be used to explain the inner workings of a chart, and plus it just works better in practice.
So, where is the middle ground? For me personally the middle ground is simply to use the seven visible planets as sign rulers and to focus on the deeper implications of each of those placements in each chart, but at the same time to incorporate the outer planets by paying attention to their sign placements, house placements, and aspects with the inner planets. I find that using the traditional rulerships along with the outer planets also has a way of naturally balancing out the tendency to spend too much time focusing solely on the outers when delineating chart, since the traditional rulerships have a way of forcing you to pay more attention and give greater authority to the inner planets.
Certainly the outer planets are important in astrological delineations, and they can be incorporated into transits, synastry, natal analysis, electional astrology, and even horary in order to achieve a greater understanding of whatever it is that you are studying. But not at the expense of the visible planets and the rest of the chart, which can also provide a tremendous amount of information, even if it is sometimes more subtle.
So, that is my approach to the matter. What do you think about the subject? Should the outer planets be used, or should they be ignored? Should they be assigned rulership of signs based on the affinity that they are thought to have with certain signs, or should astrologers stick with the more geometrically elegant construct derived from the Thema Mundi? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Possibly related posts:
Tags:
Hello Chris, just discovered your blog and what you are doing professionally. Liked it all the way. I am an “old hand at astrology”, totally diletante, for over 30 years now.
Agree fully with you that to stay on “safe ground” the traditional 7 planets are to be “doubly weighted”. The outer ones so to say are “salt and pepper”. Chiron and what else can be that “violet” you may add on a special salad…
But in these days of “micro-cuisine” much is permitted and should be so.
My tenet is that astrology works because of a “universal harmony existing”, (but not obvious to be perceived). It’s biblical (or toraic or Gilgamesh etc.):
At the beginning there was chaos. God thought he had to put some order into the place. So He created harmony. And must have been “universal”. Coming from the Top.
Logically, if such harmony exists (and astrology probably only scraches the surface of all that), the inner planets are related to the outer ones and vice-versa. I can imagine that a truly gifted astrologer, without even disposing of the given ephemeris, could “infer”, if not the position, so at least the “influence” of outer planets etc.
When I visited Delphi in Greece, I had a strong sense that the oracle there must have been functioning along those lines. The night sky in Delphi is “speaking books”. At least that was my impression . And then you have the Greek Mythology: Where from did their symbolism come and still has value today?
It’s a true mystery.
Wish you a lot of success with your endevours!
PS. Writing this as Luna conjuncts Pluto, and Venus conjunct Jupiter is in trine with Saturn. Don’t even need to be in Delphos to see a superb triangle in the sky tonight.
:
In my opinion, ‘outer planet’ is a mistaken label for Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, for what we ought to first do is to define ‘planet’. Astronomically, it hardly matters. Astrologically… well, I think that’s the real question.
Ah yes, the question of where to draw the line between planets and other bodies.
What is your solution to the issue? What constitutes a ‘planet’ from an astrological perspective?
If you ask me, stars are celestial lights for both producing and signifying quantitative and qualitative time which can be classified either as fixed (”unwandering”) or as wandering, depending on the key issue if they move together in the daily motion while constituting so-called fixed constellations or have individual motion in respect of these constellation. Since along this classification virtually all bodies out of or in the Solar System are to be included which makes billions of relevant significators, for me the next logical step is, in conformity with proper astrological perspective, that is, with observer-centred notion, to exclude all that are invisible for unaided, naked eyes, regardless of distance, mass and the astronomical class of the celestial body.
It naturally narrows the number of items in our toolkit for seven wandering and some thousands of fixed stars which is still too high to be dealt with. Therefore, if we assume brightness as key factor, apparent magnitude and peculiar behavior (in the case of wandering ones, individual motion itself) make the stars so defined of more or less importance.
A source of confusion can be that the same term may mean different thing in astronomy and astrology. For instance, in this way a wandering star or planet in astrological sense can be a star (Sun), a moon (the Moon) or a planet astronomically, while a fixed star can be a single or a multiple star (binary, tertiary and so on), a star-cluster or even a whole galaxy.
However, I must acknowledge that there are some phenomena which should be labeled as temporal star, either as wandering or as fixed, for example Uranus, Vesta and comets on one hand, and novae and supernovae on the other. But even than the whole system seems to be logical for me, and highly instructive regarding how to use these significators. (In parenthesis, as I see it, the peculiarities of the wandering stars can be and is likely to have been drawn from their color and other factors like speed of motion that can only be interpreted in the terms of naked eye.)
Then, this interpretation may be called idiosyncratic and it isn’t necessarily correct but a sort of logical. Whatever the best way is, my main objection against using Uranus, Neptune AND Pluto is there’s no reason why these three should be included. The may be instructive for some, I admit, but it leaves the question why we should use them still open.
PS Chris, I’m writing a survey on the astrological works of Theophilus of Edessa, and as soon as I’m ready I’d like to submit it for you as a contribution. However, I had to realize that it’s a hard work.
Wasn’t it Boll or one of the editors of the CCAG who put forward an argument at some point that the fixed star delineations in Anonymous of 379 or Ptolemy were derived from their color and/or brightness? I think it was Boll in his edition of Anonymous. I find that to be an interesting idea because it ties into Rochberg’s argument about the origin of the distinction between benefic and malefic planets in the Mesopotamian tradition.
One of the arguments that is sometimes made against using non-visible planets is that under certain conditions Uranus can be seen without visual aid. I always found this argument kind of intriguing.
I do think that people should be able to delineate a chart without including the outer planets, and this was part of the point of my article, although I may not have articulated that clearly. For many modern astrologers this can sometimes be quite difficult, although it really does help to strengthen your understanding of those planets, so I highly recommend it for any of you who may be reading this.
That is really great news about Theophilus! I would love to have that as a contribution on the site. I will definitely be looking forward to it. I hope that most of the hard work is already behind you.
I consider myself a modern psychological astrologer, but I have been using traditional rulerships of signs on house cusps (and looking at dispositors) for a few years now. This may be a silly reason, but the outer planets move so slowly that they don’t afford much variation in terms of sign placement. And from doing relationship astrology, I find that the trad ruler of 7 fits better with one’s mate choice than the outer planets ruling Sco, Aqu and Pis.
I’m not sure where this idea comes from of modern astrologers look at the Outer planets first. If you want to explore the depth psychology of a chart the Outer planets are required. However if you are of the view human beings are simpler than depth psychologists suggest then they are an optional tool.
For me leaving them out only tells me so much about a person and the chart becomes both uninteresting and lacks value.
I always start with the Sun and then look at the Moon and rising sign even if an outer is clearly a major influence in the life/psyche. From what i have seen the more sophisticated modern astrologers do the same since we are always needing to assess the more fundamental ‘players’ to begin with in order to assess what impact the outers may or may not have.
If you encounter an astrologer who talks about the outers initially you are probably wasting your money and should go elsewhere.
To say that a chart is uninteresting and lacking in value without the outer planets in it is quite a statement in it of itself though, if you think about it.
That does essentially reinforce my initial point about how much of a modern chart delineation completely relies on these factors, and while I realize that the argument could be made a number of different ways, it is possible that there is something problematic with that.
I can see the argument going both ways though, so I appreciate that you shared your thoughts on the subject here.
>Wasn’t it Boll or one of the editors of the CCAG who put forward an argument at some point that the fixed star delineations in Anonymous of 379 or Ptolemy were derived from their color and/or brightness?
Well, I checked his edition in CCAG but I haven’t found any argumentation. But it must have been formulated somewhere.
>One of the arguments that is sometimes made against using non-visible planets is that under certain conditions Uranus can be seen without visual aid. I always found this argument kind of intriguing.
For myself, I conceive astrology as a celestial language which can grasped most easily and effectively by using key metaphors of the type that can be seen in e. g. Ibn Ezra’s aphorisms but ultimately they are encoded the Greek technical language of astrology. Along this way, my favorite cover metaphor is of a theater.
In short, all that are visible are on stage; all invisible are in the background. Wandering ones are actors, non-wandering ones are best to be understood as props. The more brightness they have, the bigger importance they hold. In this way there are seven actors and some thousands of props, of them few are as weighty as actors themselves, albeit not acting, but most of them are small items like a handkerchief or a hat.
All the stories are told by these guys. They have some correspondences with different parts of the stage which can be understood as detached chambers, they can occupy different positions in different status, all we can watch and interpret in the frame of our current investigation.
Still, sometimes guest stars arrive - a new, not-seen-before prop which can be quite spectacular to have an imprint on every sort of stories (novas and supernovas)… but who disturbs our life is Mr Uranus himself. (In reality, sometimes Ms Vesta comes to have a guest play as well but she is often forgotten. Poor Vesta.)
Now, Mr Uranus and his chaste mistress are so much less bright than any other components, I mean, actors and props on the stage that if we really put away books and close computers and have a look at the sky itself, we will have to admit their role (in the stage sense) in not more than of a fly which mistakenly found its way to the stage. Or rather, if we consider their speed, a piece of prop, say, a glass ball or a pen which lost its balance and is just pretending movement.
While this is on stage and we are watching the performance, in the background the propworkers are playing cards, the light assistants are turning the lamps on and off, and the wardrobe guardians are talking about the weather and the value of their pension. Yeah, that’s a theater - the staff is necessary but the message comes from the stage not from the shadowy corners of this oldie building we are not supposed to stick our nose into.
In this metaphor, even comet appearances can be interpreted, as, for instance, on stage appearance of a horse or something weird - which of course can’t possess an own chamber (rulership) during his guest play but who will no doubt play a more substantial role than Uranus the Urgent to Be Used.
That’s my view and although I may not be correct, I like it.
>That is really great news about Theophilus! I would love to have that as a contribution on the site. I will definitely be looking forward to it. I hope that most of the hard work is already behind you.
Sadly, there’s a lot to do but I feel the subject is worth a deeper treatment.
Leave a comment!
Subscribe to the Horoscopic Astrology Blog via RSS feed, or get new article notifications delivered to you daily by email:
astrological techniques and concepts »
Tips For Writing A Sun-sign Astrology Column
At one point or another, many astrologers and astrology enthusiasts try their hand at writing a Sun-sign column. If you’re thinking of trying your hand at it, here are a few tips:
astrology news »
CNN Confuses Astrologers With Psychics
CNN has been running a story today about how the difficult economic times have seen a rise in business for “psychics” and “fortune tellers”. The majority of the segment focuses on an interview with …
book reviews »
Book Review: Astrology and the Authentic Self by Demetra George
A review of Demetra George’s recent book Astrology and the Authentic Self. In the book Demetra outlines a practical synthesis of modern and traditional astrology.
conferences and events »
Upcoming Astrology Conferences in 2009
Astrological conferences are an important part of the social dynamic in the astrological community. Since most astrologers and astrological enthusiasts are spread out all of the world, usually studying in relative isolation, the opportunity to …
history and philosophy of astrology »
The Antikythera Mechanism Was Used for Astrology
In 1901 a group of sponge divers discovered a complex mechanical device lying at the bottom of the ocean, just off the coast of a Greek island named Antikythera. The device subsequently became known as …
Video »
The History of Western Astrology
I made a video today which outlines the history of western astrology in 10 minutes. It is ten minutes long because that is the restriction for all YouTube videos, although I covered quite a bit …
Astrological Consultations & Classes
Consultations
Blogroll
Sign Up For My Online Astrology Classes
Tips, Requests & Contact Info
Tag Cloud
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck requires Flash Player 9 or better.
Book Recommendations
Random Posts
Latest Video Post
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Most Popular