The Meaning of Outer Planets

Minderwiz

Yesterday I was reading an article in the Astrological Journal (of the Astrological Association of great Britain) which discussed the Chiron cycle and the likely experiences associated with it. Turning to the letters page, I came across a letter from the Editor of the Journal of Spiritual Astrology. His basic 'complaint' was that we have become too certain of the astrological meaning of the many Astronomical bodies that have been discovered.

He asks why we have taken the wounded healer view of Chiron, virtually to the exclusion of other possible meanings, when we only learned about this body some 26 years ago and for a large part of that time we did not know what sort of a body it was.

In the process he quotes Alan Leo, saying that the nature of Neptune is presently 'little understood' (written around 1900) and Isobel Hickey around 1970 making similar statements about Pluto. Yet the cookbooks are full of statements about what these planet mean (rather than 'may' mean).

I've also just finished reading John Frawley's The Real Astrology, wherein he questions the validity of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in Astrology, to say nothing of Chiron, the Asteroids and a variety of hypothetical planets.

So my question to everyone is - What do the outer planets signify if anything, and on what basis should we continue to use them?


If you wish to broaden this to include Chiron and any other body please feel free.
 

lunalafey

Interesting. We have just discovered (realitivly) these planets, why? because it took technology to 'see' them. We can see as far as Satrun by just looking up at the right time. We have known about them for ages. With that, then how can we give any validity to the meanings of Urn, Nep, or Plu? We don't 'know' these planets well at all. From a cookbook, the inner planets deal with ourselves, the outer, more of what can happen around us.
Going blind, what meaning/influence can we assume? Tech stuff for Uranus, since that's what it took to find it. What about Pluto? It is not always the last planet, with it's erratic orbit?
I wonder what sign the planets where in at the moment of discovery.....
 

Macavity

I suppose, as a non-astrologer, my question is: Did astrology need then BEFORE they were discovered? I find that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto spend 7, 14 and 21 years in each sign, so presumably e.g. their aspects and influence changes on (almost) a "generational" basis? And we already know about the generation gap! Finally, there seems to be now 40(?) of these objects (I hadn't web-searched before!) so, as with Pluto and similar bodies, I just wonder when one would STOP incorporating them... ;)

Macavity
 

Moongold

Dane Rudhyar says that the solar system proper - the heliocosm - ends at Saturn. Saturn has always been the symbol of limitations and boundaries but also of the boundaries for the devlopment of individual consciousness and personality.

Rudhyar says s that ....The solar wind - direct emanations of solar particles - apparently does not reach further than Saturn but...just as the human body, which we normally see as bounded by the skin, actually reaches further through surrounding space through an electro magnetic aura, so the aura of the heliocosm reaches beyond Saturn. This aura is the realm where Uranus, Neptune and Pluto move in a remarkable three fold geometric pattern; and it is through these planets that, symbolically speaking, the power of the galaxy mainly operates.

How does the body of knowledge about meaning develop? I can accept that the Greeks and others tapped into the collective unconscious and that meaning, in the form of mythology, partly sprang from there. Intuitively I can accept the parallels between transformational change and the outer planetary cycles. Transformational change seems to be often a slow evolutionary process of awareness. This makes sense with the development of insight that has come with the growth of knowledge about the collective unconscious and psychic and intuitive awareness.

Astrology is not entirely scientific, right? I thought it had developed through a combination of objective observations and intuitive awareness. In non-western societies these ways of knowing are often taken for granted, accepted without question. We each make up our own minds about how far we want to go along this road of awareness. I have often looked at the interpretations given for some aspects of astrology and wondered where they came from. I hoped that by actually studying I would find out and I'm beginning to put some pictures together.

I am so sceptical of the infallibility of science per se that I'm willing to trust my intuitive and spiritual judgment for a while yet.
 

Minderwiz

Some good points Moongold,

Astrology is not scientific in the modern meaning of the term - though there are many Astrologers who are trying to prove it is.

Mythology may play a role, but as Alexander Markin (Editor of The Journal of Spiritual Astrology) points out mythology is no substitute for proper research. He then asks the intriguinging question - what if Chiron had instead been called Donald Duck? What interpretation would have been placed on this body then?

This is not quite the silly question that it seems - there is, for example, an Asteroid called Frank Zappa. How would we deal with that Astrologically.

Personally I don't agree with Frawley - though I'm not completely sure of the rationale. Uranus I'm more comfortable with - it has a cycle of a human lifetime - around 84 years and I have seen some apparant evidence of its effects - most recently in the thread on Whats Happening to Scorpio.

But does it really rule technology - the technology existed some hundred years or so before it was discovered, and the general means to its discovery, Bode's Law also existed before its discovery. It could well be argued that technology is essentially ruled by Mercury. Indeed prior to the discovery of Uranus, Mercury was the ruler of Astrology - and is linked in modern Tarot to the Magician.

But Neptune and Pluto - I've use the text book meanings but I have reservations. We haven't had a full Neptune cycle since its discovery - so how can we really know what it means. Pluto is of course an even 'worse' case.

Also because we didn't know about these planets 250 years ago does that mean that they had no effect before then?

In the article in TMA about the Mars perigee the author actually says that if we presume that planetary symbols don't exist in our collective consciousness until we've discovered them then ....the Sun - Mars - Uranus alignment has never ocurred before.

So are did these planets only gain importance because we know about them?
 

Baby Owl

This discussion reminds me of the question "If a tree falls in the forest when no one is around, does it make a noise?"

Baby Owl
 

Minderwiz

Well you've virtually put your finger on it - except its more see than hear.

The argument Frawley uses against the outer planets runs a little on these lines. Planets 'work' through light. The Sun and the Moon are the two luminaries, but all the others receive and reflect light. Indeed the word 'aspect' comes from the Latin word to view or glance, which implies seeing.

If a planet cannot be seen then it cannot make an aspect, so it has no effect (though I believe but I'm not absolutely sure on this that Uranus can be seen under very favourable conditions and only then as a very dim object).

I might actually go along with this argument because it is highly logical. However, Frawley makes use of Arabian Parts, which are not objects at all, they are points in space which are only occupied by a planet by accident. Frawley believes, as do most Astrologers that these points can receive light but not reflect it. However the act of receiving light must have some effect here, otherwise why bother with the points. So if Arabian Parts can have some effect then why not Uranus and co. if they receive an aspect?
 

isthmus nekoi

Thanks for raising this, Minderwiz. It's always good to discuss the system itself, as well as its uses....

I've always wondered how much emphasis to put on the outer planets, and if I was unaware of them, if I'd simply attribute aspects of my personality to other planets. Sometimes I think that if we add too many bodies, it's too easy to look for a quick explanation there (must be Juno squaring sun!) instead of actually synthesizing the more basic, fundemental elements of the chart properly.

Since I've never looked at Chiron, I can't speak for it.... but I can say that I've seen the transiting outer 3 planets have an effect on other ppl's charts. So.... I'm not about to discount the outer planets.
However, we haven't had as long to observe them, so I agree that we don't know nearly as much about them as the closer planets. But from what we've seen (ie. Uranus in Aquarius = internet), I'm sure there are generalities that we can agree upon, even if things like rulership, exaltation etc are called into question. ie. No matter which sign/house Pluto rules, it is in no way a planet that tries to make nice.

One thing this questioning raises for me is this: to what extent does human consciousness shape/alter the gods, and to what extend do changes in the mind effect the outer environment?
Does human consciousness *discover* or does it *create*?
What if Neptune was named Pluto and Pluto was named Neptune?
 

Minderwiz

The mythology side is quite intriguing really. The first seven planets were known in ancient times, there names being settled on perhaps 2500 years ago or more. Greek mythology was not independent - it evolved in an inter-play with Egyptian, Persian, and Babylonian beliefs. The ancients named the planets out of their own cultures. They also did not 'discover' a planet one day and name it the next. Clearly the names and concepts too, evolved over perhaps a thousand years and innumerable practical experiences of the planetary cycles. For the New planets we have three Uranus cycles, and not one cycle of the other two.

When Uranus was discovered by Herschel, he wanted to call it Georgium Sidus (George's Star) after his patron George III and and then named it after himself - indeed I have seen references in Astrology texts to Uranus as Herschel. He was persuaded to keep to the Greek Gods tradition and so he suggested Uranus.

The point I think, is are we simply drawing on our comparatively limited knowledge of mythology (we no longer live it) and give names without the proper consideration that the ancients gave.

Just to act as devil's advocate - one argument is that Planets reflect the times in which they were discovered. Hence the link of Uranus with revolutions (Amercian and French) but Neptune was discovered at the start of the most bloody period in western history - the Crimean War, The American Civil War, The first World War, and then the Second World War - The machine Gun rather than the idealist came with Neptune.


Also, still playing devil's advocate, which seems more to have the characteristics of the internet, Mercury or Uranus? LOL
 

isthmus nekoi

WW2 strikes me as having a few Neptunian qualities - this was the 1st war where civilians were really attacked. Also, the motives behind the actions of WW2 are still taught in secondary school, or portrayed in pop culture as heavily inflected w/ideology. Although w/Neptune, I'd imagine a greater religion inflection, given its relationship to Jupiter as ruler of Pisces. Having said that... the ensuing polarization b/w capitalism and communism seemed to hold extreme religious energy.

I did a little search and an interesting thing that popped up was that Neptune was discovered as early as Galileo, but not recognized as a planet. The info comes from a UK school, not sure about its cred.

I find post WW2 very Scorpio; from the Cold War to film noire. Also note the rise of mass consumer culture exported from the US, and the rise of '(nuclear) family values' - Scorp being the opposite of Taurus. It'd be interesting to know if Pluto was discovered around this time, but it was earlier around the beginning of WW2 wasn't it?

And as for internet... Tricky ^_^. I'd say it began as more Uranian - there was a strong antiestablishment element to the internet when it first came out, and conceptions of the net were heavily tied to cyberpunk. But now it seems much more in line w/Mercury. Online shopping, e-mail, these are daily habitual things that hardly challenge the status quo. Sometimes, despite all the advances in software and hardware, I miss the old days of the internet.... Yes, I'm being nostalgic about the net :)