The Outer Planets

For those of you who believe in synchronicity towards the end of last week I had such a moment. I'd just finished reading Sue Ward's Uranus Neptune and Pluto

http://www.sue-ward.co.uk/

(this costs £5 to purchase and is 82 pages but there is a free sample to download)

and then Dave sent me a link to Phillip Sedgwick's Galactic Times - If I'm right here (and Dave will correct me, otherwise) Sedgwick argues that we need to re-examine the role of the Outer Planets and also treat the Kuyper Belt as a sort of spiritual membrane dividing the solar system from the rest of the galaxy.

http://www.philipsedgwick.com/

Both seem to argue that the current delineations of the three outer planets are wrong - Ward says that the delineations are based on faulty astrology and taking meanings from other planets, with resulting confusion. Sedgwick appears to be saying that we have not gone far enough in our delineations.

There's little doubt that most trained Astrologers believe that the outers are correctly delineated - but then as virtually all Astrology courses teach those delineations, that's not surprising. So has the time come to start a proper debate on the value of the outers?

Outer planets: what to do with them?

They are there. They are not going away. In fact, they seem to be increasing their number ---- and the confusion of finding them, categorizing them, finding meanings for them.

Oh, that last phrase is so important to us. If we have not accomplished anything else in several thousand years of civilization, we have at least named everything and associated a meaning. use or purpose for it. So, what do we do with Eris and Makemake, and with Pluto and Ceres who are both now minor planets? What do we do with the many cosmic points and phenomena that Phillip Sedgwick has identified and positional located---he has given meanings to dark stars, black holes, pulsars, etc.

If we have trouble folding into our charts the many asteroids, the TNPs and Uranian hypotheticals, what do we do with these far distant objects? Don't say we should ignore them. Why?
** Some stars, nearby as well as impossibly distant, flood us with more energy at times than our own close-by Sun.
** Sirius, eight light years away, as aligned the closest point of the solar systems planet's orbits to the Sun such that it aligns with the Sun and Sirius. So, don't say other Suns don't gravitationally or energy-radiation affect us because they do.
** Distance doesn't diminish influence. So, the outer dwarf planets so far outside of Pluto's orbit and into the Kupier belt can have an impact. Further, there is evidence that a very large planet, very dark, bigger than Jupiter is out in the Kupier belt . . . its presence is hinted at by gravitational variations in the orbits of comets and distant bodies, but it hasn't been actually found yet.

So, how would we work with all of this? I had suggested to Minderwiz that our natal chart needs to become our natal chart set . . . we might have a chart for:
** The original planets; indicating our basic cultural role and character.
** The original planets plus Uranus and Neptune. Uranus is the new "Saturn" in that it (for some) moves our personal bounds out so as to help define our individualization within a circle that is greater than our family and local culture. It may help us to identify our linkage to the cosmos, certainly to the greater world and all of its variety and emerging complexities. It breaks down the limitations of culture and opens us up to humanity and cosmic ideas. Neptune (for even fewer of us) sets up visions of the future and what may become part of us -- or it defines what we may become part of.

For now, we do have interpretive meanings for the outer planets, but take the time to look at what those meanings are. They are definitions that are bounded by the minds of those still struggling to be free of Saturn's control. They are not spiritual or as mind-expanding as they might be, but are instead pitiful attempts at defining more.

We are at the same stage with the new dwarf planets, the comets and the asteroids, the fixed stars and the cosmic phenomena that Sedgwick identifies and gives meanings to.

Before we can create special charts that just show those entities, we need to have a different view of "us." Perhaps the works of Rudolph Steiner make a good place to define the eternal cosmic "us" and the "this life, this time" version of the cosmic us. If we were to attempt that, perhaps it would be easier to find a purpose and a meaning for all of these new entities that we are becoming aware of. Wonderment is but the first step. Names are the second step. Meanings are a next step but perhaps not "the" next step. It may be that we have to first redefine us before we can apply these new factors in our lives and plans for man's future.

So, the question is, "What would a new form of natal chart or cosmic chart need to look like and for what purpose would it be used for?" Dave

Thanks Dave. That's some post to get the discussion going. Rather than try to respond in one post, I'll break up my comments into a few smaller posts - otherwise we'll end up with really monster posts LOL

dadsnook2000 said:

They are there. They are not going away. In fact, they seem to be increasing their number ---- and the confusion of finding them, categorizing them, finding meanings for them.

Oh, that last phrase is so important to us. If we have not accomplished anything else in several thousand years of civilization, we have at least named everything and associated a meaning. use or purpose for it. So, what do we do with Eris and Makemake, and with Pluto and Ceres who are both now minor planets? What do we do with the many cosmic points and phenomena that Phillip Sedgwick has identified and positional located---he has given meanings to dark stars, black holes, pulsars, etc.

If we have trouble folding into our charts the many asteroids, the TNPs and Uranian hypotheticals, what do we do with these far distant objects? Don't say we should ignore them. Why?

Click to expand...

Well they've always been there - or at least as long as humanity has existed but we got along without them quite well till about 1850 (when Uranus was finally named). So the issue of whether they have utility is a genuine one.

Yes the nominalist approach suggests that naming things gives them substance and meaning - but are we giving really new meanings, or are we simply transferring meanings from other things?

Indeed as the names are allocated by Astronomers with no reference to Astrology, are we saying that Astronomers are the only people who can identify the true meaning of Astrological bodies. There's some evidence that the name 'Pluto' was chosen after being suggested by an 11 year old English girl (and Pluto was her favourite Disney character) - now it's stretching synchronicity to breaking point to say that Astronomical naming gives Astrological meaning.

If we accept all these bodies then indeed we wil have to have several chart for one event, simply to allow us to see all the bodies clearly. If all we are doing is taking properties from other bodies and redistributing them to new bodies, as we find them, then we are indeed making Astrology confusing and indeed Occam's razor suggests that this would be bad practice. There is a real possibility that, if we go ahead and use all these bodies, the confusion will be so great that potential students will be deterred and Astrology will eventually die.

Should we ignore them? There are indeed several reasons why we should and I'll go into those in more detail in a separate post. I don't expect to convince you, merely to show that there are sound reasons for not using them.

Ignore them?

My present position on this is that we might need to consider several charts that might serve the individual as well as our collectiveness.

** A conventional natal chart that we use to identify character, potential, etc.

** A "place within the world" chart that incorporates the outer planets, the new planets and their association with long term cultural and mundane developments. The original planets would take on different or nuanced meanings when integrated into the patterns of Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and the dwarf planets so as to place us into the context of business, social, political, financial cycles.

That brings us to the issue of "meanings" --- we will need to take the current meanings (such as they are) and rewrite them so that they incorporate the bigger picture of our world over the past and future century. In other words we need to place ourselves into the middle of a three century context to better understand what influences us relative to our family upbringing and recent heritage as well as to see what we need to work on for the benefit of our children and their children.

** A "spiritual" or cosmic chart in which we explore what our inner selves require and offer for the greater benefit of ourselves and those we incarnate with. This would require new techniques of chart interpretation as well as a life-view model built on the works of spiritual mentors and philosophers that we resonate with.

So, we might postulate the need for three "natal" charts. We might also wish to start looking at long-cycle mundane charts. Just some thoughts. Dave
ADDED COMMENT:
Of course the extended time frames that we might wish to cover in some of these charts would require that a chart format be used that would more clearly show the "cyclic" activity of the astrological bodies used over an extended period of time. In this sense, the use of phase-angle relationships which I've used here over the past decade or so would be highly useful.

It seems to me that we are at another leap-forward point such as that of the 1950s or so where there was a consensus of "how astrology was used" which was quite limited compared to todays multiple techniques, methods and practices. We just might "complex" things more than they are currently constructed. If so, like all new developments, only a very few will lead the way at first. In doing so, they will define the astrology of the next century.

Thanks for the clarifications Dave - a very cogent and concise statement as usual. I'll try and respond with my own position but I think the object will be to clarify choices that a student of Astrology can make within the Art. There is no way of coming up with a 'correct' view - mainly because I don't think there ever was one.

dadsnook2000 said:

Of course the extended time frames that we might wish to cover in some of these charts would require that a chart format be used that would more clearly show the "cyclic" activity of the astrological bodies used over an extended period of time. In this sense, the use of phase-angle relationships which I've used here over the past decade or so would be highly useful.

Click to expand...

Well I think we could both agree on that - though I'd tend to take the 800 year Jupiter/Saturn cycle as the basis, you might prefer to use another cycle. LOL

I'll preface this post by saying that I'm not a professional astrology.

I learnt Astrology using the outer planets and so didn't know any other way. When I started to look at traditional astrology, and particularly traditional rulerships, suddenly the outer planets seemed a lot less meaningful. I basically stopped using them unless they were in some very significant position, like conjunct an angle or planet. Now when I consider the idea of whether to use them or not I'm inclined to wonder just how meaningful they can be considering just how many bodies there are now known, and named, out there. And the whole naming issue is something else.

Minderwiz said:

Indeed as the names are allocated by Astronomers with no reference to Astrology, are we saying that Astronomers are the only people who can identify the true meaning of Astrological bodies. There's some evidence that the name 'Pluto' was chosen after being suggested by an 11 year old English girl (and Pluto was her favourite Disney character) - now it's stretching synchronicity to breaking point to say that Astronomical naming gives Astrological meaning.

Click to expand...

I think this is a really good point. What I like about the traditional system is that it's a logical system, everything fits and makes sense. As soon as the outer planets come into the picture and become rulers of signs etc, I feel like the system starts to fall apart.

And, on top of that is the question as to whether the planets exert influence upon us, or whether they just signify events or meaning, which becomes a philosophical discussion, which this probably isn't.

Anyway, sorry, I'm rambling as it's very late here and it's been a long day. Apologies if this post has made no sense. I look forward to following what other more lucid folk have to say on the topic.

Dave gave a very good exposition of his views and the possible way forward for Astrology. I don't see things in quite that way (what a surprise LOL) Returning to Dave's original question - why would we choose to ignore not only the outers but also a mini galaxy of other bodies.

To answer that we need to be aware of some background. In the middle of the nineteenth century there was a feeling that Astrology needed to be more scientific. That led to a desire to strip Astrology of what seemed superstition (the oral tradition having died out) - one way seemed to be to establish an Astrology of 12 planets, one ruling each sign. Uranus had already been discovered (though it only received the name Uranus in 1850), the discovery of Neptune held out a tantalising vision Three more planets would complete the system, and so Astrologers began to speculate and indeed delineate the missing planets - Astrology sprouted a host of hypothetical planets.

Astrologers such as Alan Leo, derided old style Astrology - how could it be effective when the ancients were not aware of those missing planets. And indeed how could his contemporary Astrology yield accurate predictions when those planets were still waiting for discovery. Progress to Astrological perfection required new planets.

The Astrologers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were Theosophists - it was they who introduced karma into Western Astrology and it was they who delineated Uranus and Neptune to fit their own beliefs in spiritual development - indeed they believed that the new planets were associated with the evolution of mankind and that mankind would eventually live on Jupiter and Leo clearly stated that Astrology was brought to Earth by immortals from other worlds.

They believed that Uranus and Neptune were 'higher octaves' being associated with the developed souls (Theosophy is certainly elitist if not racialist) And they began to attribute characteristics to the new planets, not from any evidence (or if they had any they never published it), so for example Uranus became associated with electricity, air and space travel, on the grounds that the old planets could not symbolise such developments.

Of course electricity occurs naturally, and the electricity that is manufactured uses coal or oil power or wind or water - which have natural rulers in traditional Astrology. Indeed the most that could be said is that Uranus symbolises the application of old science to new technology. And new technology is not a fundamental change - an oven cooks, whether it is powered by burning wood or electricity - it might be easier or quicker but the food still tastes much the same and serves much the same purpose in life.

They borrowed symbolism from other planets - Mercury for example which rules calculations and mathematics, Astrology and communication, is displaced so that Uranus can rule them instead - without any satisfactory reason.

Faced with a lack of basic building blocks for planetary meanings, they fell back on the Myths surrounding the god, after whom the planet was named - though rather selectively. Uranus is seen as revolutionary, but the Ouranus myth has Ouranus as the status quo, and it is Kronos (Saturn) that is the revolutionary god.

Neptune is seen as cloudy, mysterious, confusing, muddle all of which meanings come from Leo's original statement that 'viewed clairvoyantly in the crystal, Neptune appears as a nebulous plasma' So Leo's crystal gazing establishes the meaning and it's held till the present day.

I could go on but I think I've at least raised the possibility that these planets may carry no Astrological meaning, other than assigned to them by the TS, to suit their own world and spiritual views. Now they might be right but they are not based on any Astrological principles, merely private reported revalations.

It might be argued that some modern developments are so fundamentally different that they require new planets - atomic power being the obvious and of course that necessitates Pluto. Again though, the development of nuclear power is the end of a process begun in classical times, but especially developed in theoretical terms in the early nineteenth century by Dalton and others. Only the end product is taken, not the development in assigning nuclear power to Pluto (and as the only naturally occurring nuclear fusion device, the Sun would be the obvious ruler).

The traditional system provides a coherent, structured framework that encompasses all of creation, as it impinges on humanity - it does not require further bodies, and they simply end up producing confusion. We now have far more than 12 named bodies, so the longed for perfection of the nineteenth century revisionists has been destroyed.

Oddly the Theosophists thought that Uranus and Neptune would only be felt by the developed souls, given the extent to which these are now incorporated into natal delineations it appears that we are now all developed souls. That leads to a snag though - the developed soul is not bound by his or her horoscope - so Astrology becomes pointless for a society of developed souls.

The mentality of the 1800s and 1900s

The mentality of the 1800s and 1900s needs to be considered. Those two centuries, taken together, were both times of new thinking and times of being very much hung up on the views and customs of previous centuries. I think of them as a "transition" period for today --- this century. We have to recognize that some "thinkers" such as the Theosophists were both bound by earlier times and guided by their developing views of the then current period and its near future. Not all of their thinking should be accepted without question.

When I see modern practices such as Ebertin's midpoint system I see two things; First, I see a methodology that permits us to see astrological planets in new relationships, Second, I see a system where aspects and sign placement is not so important --- perhaps not even relevant. This requires me to consider that the nature of astrology may operate on very different levels and within very different operational influences.

When I read non-astrological papers such as that by the Russian scientist Kozyrev I have to think about the influences and operations of "time." He has seemingly demonstrated that "time" is a function of Earth's rotation and that there is a "space" between when an idea or action is occurring and when it has an influence somewhere else. Further, he has demonstrated that distance has no restrictions of thoughts and actions. So, how does all of this impact our understanding of astrology.

I almost cry inside when I see the heavy emphasis on natal charts which I consider static and un-reflective of our dynamic nature and being. I believe we need to open up bigger pictures of possibility to place ourselves within, that our simple natal charts actually inhibit our mental growth and thought patterns. This includes the views that classical astrology is the best or only way to learn and portray our lives (Sorry, Minderwiz). We are meant to move forward in many ways, make our mistakes, and to refine our paths and tools of living within the world. So, I embrace the possibilities that may lie within change and innovation. My astrology has to fit these views. Dave
PS: Maybe, after this discussion moves forward, we should experiment with a few possible new forms of astrology?

dadsnook2000 said:

The mentality of the 1800s and 1900s needs to be considered. Those two centuries, taken together, were both times of new thinking and times of being very much hung up on the views and customs of previous centuries. I think of them as a "transition" period for today --- this century. We have to recognize that some "thinkers" such as the Theosophists were both bound by earlier times and guided by their developing views of the then current period and its near future. Not all of their thinking should be accepted without question.

Click to expand...

Well we are all slaves to past thinking to a greater or lesser extent - today is no different than in the past - what particularly 'new' thinking characterises the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that cannot be found at some time in the past? The cycles of Astrology are reflected in the cycles of thought and action. Philosophical, religious, ethical, scientific, and astrological thought was as vibrant in the past as it was last century. OK that's a generalisation but it's a defensible one. Even the medieval period had 'new' thought as Arab philosophy, medicine, science and Astrology was filtered back into Western Europe (the European centred view itself being a dangerous one to take).

dadsnook2000 said:

I almost cry inside when I see the heavy emphasis on natal charts which I consider static and un-reflective of our dynamic nature and being. I believe we need to open up bigger pictures of possibility to place ourselves within, that our simple natal charts actually inhibit our mental growth and thought patterns. This includes the views that classical astrology is the best or only way to learn and portray our lives (Sorry, Minderwiz). We are meant to move forward in many ways, make our mistakes, and to refine our paths and tools of living within the world. So, I embrace the possibilities that may lie within change and innovation.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure I understand your argument here. I certainly agree with you that far too much emphasis is placed on natal charts and regarding them as the 'container' of life is much too static. However it's the Astrology of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that values that static position, not classical Astrology. Leo led the abandonment of dynamics in Astrology by abandoning prediction and focusing on character - this was then taken on by those influenced by Jung who take the delineation of the natal chart to the extremes of 50 page reports but with no prediction of real world events, simply possible changes in 'feelings'.

In his book on Natavities, Lilly spends 150 pages on setting up a natal chart and how to assess it and then another 200 pages looking at the dynamics of life and how to chart out the development of an individual over their lifetime. Now he uses techniques which use some derived charts, but then so do you. I'm not sure what you meant in your comment on 'best way to learn or portray our lives'. If you meant the best way to learn Astrology, then I would have to say yes it is. That might not be the end of things but it is a lot more systematic and structured than the modern confusion. If you have a disciplined apporach then you can begin to wade through the morass of modern Astrology and pick out the nuggets (if any) - if you start from a confused base, you have no chance of getting anywhere. Do I mean that classical astrology is capable of portraying the events symbolised in a chart for any event, then I again have to say it will. I'm not saying it's the only valid approach, simply that it's probably the simplest and possibly most effective approach.

So what do you see a 'new' Astrology doing that current Astrology cannot?

A Possible Approach

Here's a possible sketch but it is very tentatively advanced:

Firstly a recognition that, at our current level of understanding, the Kuiper Belt is the 'limit' of our Solar System - this might change as Astronomy develops but it seems a working hypothesis now. The Kuiper Belt includes Pluto/Charon, so they are best considered in that context.

Secondly that leaves two planets (Uranus and Neptune) and the dwarf Ceres and the larger asteroids.

My feeling is clearer with the two gas giants. Sue Ward's paper has shown that the delineations are highly suspect, based not on evidence but on a feeling of what they'should be' in the context of a particular weltanschauung. However her conclusion that they are not relevant is not so clear. They may have been mis-delineated but that doesn't mean that they have no relevance, it simply means that we need further investigation.

Uranus has an orbit time approximately equal to a human life and has at least some claim for visibility. Neptune is not as clear (no pun intended) but I don't think could be ignored (in the sense of having to be investigated, not in the sense of accepting modern delineation). It would seem sensible to actually investigate them, rather than accepting delineations thought up by some Astrologer or group, however eminent. Dave's proposal of 300 years is about the minimum, as that's not quite two orbits of Neptune. We might really need 5 orbits, which is around 850 years. However go for Dave's 300 years and observe their placement in charts we cast - and major aspects to a degree of orb. In other words treat them as fixed stars, till we know better.

The dwarfs are a real problem - Dave has indicated some that we know of and also that there are almost certainly many more. No one knows for certain but I've seen estimates from 40 to 200, enclosed within the boundary of the Kuiper Belt - and there may be many more beyond, but that's another story.

My feeling is that even 40 is beyond the realm of sensible delineation - so we might have to treat the Kuiper Belt as an entity in it's own right rather than a collection of dwarves.

This is not the work for one Astrologer, by it's very nature - we need some Astrological organisation to take it on, providing regular reports. That organisation needs both sceptical and enthusiastic members so that it's considerations are balanced.

Now that's a stab at a possible framework - and it is a highly debatable one but it is nothing compared to the task of coming to a set of agreed delineations. That may never happen but a body of published evidence will at least provide a sensible basis on which Astrologers can make their own decisions, rather than either deny relevance or parrot what previous Astrologers have said, without serious thought.