It may even be the opposite. I’ve seen cases where the Sun is ‘dumb note’ will an outer planet was activated. Astrology really needs to be a little more flexible in term of its rules of thumb.

Two people, born at the same time with the same horoscope, may express that horoscope in two entirely different ways. Say they were born in 66 with the Saturn-Uranus opposition. One person may be the rebel, the other quite conservative. Which way it is expressed cannot be determined by the horoscope.

The horoscope simply highlights the tension of the two opposites. Really you need to assess the individual prior to interpreting the horoscope.

BTW – I’ve Pisces rising and, for me, the planetary principle of Neptune is more developed than some inner planets.

In my chart,
My asc; virgo and My dsc; Pisces—
AND BELiVE ME ONLY MY NEPTUNE HAS SATURN SQAURE in my chart, there is no other bad affects, espeacially my jupiter has perfect 60’s and 120’s. Also, There is no planet in my 7th house…It is clear.
And my birth hour is CORRECT.

If pisces is rulling by Jupiter???? why my marriage didnt take place.
THIS SHOWES TO ME, NEPTUNE RULES PISCES

Best wishes to all my astrologer friends.

AND I NEVER MARRIED, AND I AM 45 YEARS OLD

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What is your solution to the issue? What constitutes a ‘planet’ from an astrological perspective?