What are the outer-planets outside of?

1
I was just working through an international student's assignment and corrected a reference to Jupiter as an "outer planet"; explaining that the correct term for Jupiter is "superior planet" and the term "outer" usually identifies Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. I could give an explanation for why Jupiter is called a superior planet but realised I am not sure why the "outer planets" are called "outers". In the end, I wrote "I suppose, to show that they are outside of our visible frame of reference". The only thing I could think of - is there something else I ought to have thought about? Other than that, I'm not sure what the outer planets are supposed to be outside of.

2
I actually remembering being confused a little by this at one point.

The problem I think is that actually the term 'outer planet' is a relative one and means different things to different people sometimes depending on context.

For example we can think of the inner planets as being those within the earth's orbit - mercury and venus. We might also call them inferior planets. This suggests those planets outside of the orbit of the sun are superior planets - mars, jupiter and saturn.

In other instances we see the 'inner planets' as being all the planets as far as Mars, with Jupiter and Saturn in some special category (superior planets or generational planets). With the modern planets being 'outer planets'.

Still others refer to the modern planets as having a generational effect and so they are referred to as generational planets instead.

In fact the dividing line of what is an outer planet seems to change from author to author and may sometimes depend on context.

When we talk about something like combustion we may separate the planets as being inner/inferior planets (Mercury and Venus) and the superior/outer planets being all the rest.

Traditionally planets were inferior or superior depending on whether they fall within the sun's sphere.

Ultimately then the terms are almost meaningless in any objective sense, and are instead idiosyncrasies of given astrologers or groups of astrologers who amongst themselves know what they mean by the term, even if context is sometimes needed.

With that in mind, it seems perhaps a little unfair to correct terminology which is basically not a 'technical term'. I think it's entirely possible that this student had in mind that Jupiter is "not an inner planet" and so went with an antonym of this by saying it was therefore an outer planet - which I think makes as much sense as anything else. It is confusing only because most of us decide that the outer refers to be outside of the old limit at Saturn.

4
I would wager a moderately priced lunch that astrological political correctness has its hand in this. Planets used to be classified as inferior and superior, those "inside" and "outside" the orbit of the Sun around the earth. Those words are too "judgmental" for our modern counterparts, despite their being accurate for their intended purpose. And we now know the Sun doesn't orbit the earth. So it became personal planets (previously known as inferior), non personal or quasi personal planets (formerly known as superior planets; I think there was another name that I can't recall) and outer or generational planets. The irony is that the personal planets are all but ignored by moderns, in natal astrology. Chances are outer is meant to designate those outside the orbit of Saturn and therefore are generational not personal or near personal.

5
I wouldn't describe Jupiter as an outer planet, but it isn't a personal planet either. Jupiter and Saturn are an interesting pair, and recently somebody described them as planets of manifestation, which got scribbled down in my brain.

Chiron and Uranus are another interesting pair, though Chiron has one foot in mundane manifestation, Uranus seems to be totally in a world outside of Time, and rules the study of Time we call Astrology.

When I say "outer planets", I mean Neptune and Pluto. Lazily I might be including Uranus, though I think Uranus is a special case, and more linked to Chiron.

So, outer planets means outside ruling mundane manifestation, planets ruling things beyond Time, beyond Saturn. Except Chiron has one foot in both worlds, and Uranus is strange. If anyone has an apt description for Chiron and Uranus, I would greatly welcome it.

I have wondered a lot about the planets of manifestation, Jupiter in particular, and how it really does operate.

7
Fleur wrote:
I wouldn't describe Jupiter as an outer planet, but it isn't a personal planet either. Jupiter and Saturn are an interesting pair, and recently somebody described them as planets of manifestation, which got scribbled down in my brain.
I see it likewise. Jupiter and Saturn do not seem to be personal planets in the way of Moon to Mars. They have stronger traits of collectivism or connection to the collective unconscious. Note that Jupiter and Saturn are the two first (and the biggest) gas giants in our Solar system.

Your remark re Jupiter and Saturn as planets of manifestation is highly interesting. Something I have come up with once is a scheme linking Jupiter to the etheric level/body and Saturn to the physical level/body. The latter analogy finds support in astrological and alchemical tradition, but as far as Jupiter ruling the pre-manifestative etheric level or body is concerned, I did not read too much in direct confirmation of this in astrological literature so far. Any hints would be welcome.
Chiron and Uranus are another interesting pair, though Chiron has one foot in mundane manifestation, Uranus seems to be totally in a world outside of Time, and rules the study of Time we call Astrology.
Chiron, and supposedly other centaurs as well, straddle and link the realms of physical manifestation and transcendental dimensions.

Fleur, sorry, I'm out of time. I'll try to continue this later.

Best wishes
Michael

8
Tom wrote:I would wager a moderately priced lunch that astrological political correctness has its hand in this. Planets used to be classified as inferior and superior, those "inside" and "outside" the orbit of the Sun around the earth. Those words are too "judgmental" for our modern counterparts, despite their being accurate for their intended purpose. And we now know the Sun doesn't orbit the earth. So it became personal planets (previously known as inferior), non personal or quasi personal planets (formerly known as superior planets; I think there was another name that I can't recall) and outer or generational planets. The irony is that the personal planets are all but ignored by moderns, in natal astrology. Chances are outer is meant to designate those outside the orbit of Saturn and therefore are generational not personal or near personal.
Where is the "political correctness" in this, Tom? Yes there is a lot of bad modern astrology out (oops, no pun intended) there, but I don't know any modern astrologers (except those specifically writing about outer planets) who ignore the inner/personal planets. Among my favourite modern astrology textbooks are the older ones by Robert Hand, and I wouldn't call them "judgmental."

Somehow early in my astro-studies I learned the distinction "personal planets" (through Mars, with Jupiter and Saturn sometimes included, sometimes not.) Some modern astrologers call those two "social planets." I don't think modern astrology is much concerned with whether or not a planet lies within or beyond the earth's orbit so far as the Big Seven are concerned.

To minimize confusion, I use the expression "modern outers" unless it is clear in the context of a particular conversation that we are specifically talking about Uranus, Neptune, and/or Pluto. The latter three are sometimes called "generational" or "transpersonal" planets. And then we might get the "luminaries" vs. everything else.

A lot of modern astrology texts really don't make much distinction between categories of planets in horoscope delineation, except for modern outer-outer aspects, like the longstanding Neptune-Pluto sextile.

A tight sun-Pluto square gets pretty personal!

I just rummaged around through some of my 'older" modern astrology books and don't see much of a distinction made between planets by orbital properties until I get to Dane Rudhyar, who distinguished the modern outers by their supposedly more transformative properties.

But see Liz Greene and Howard Sasportas, The Inner Planets (1993, Weiser) on Mercury, Venus, and Mars.

9
I have seen scores of astrological talks where a chart is shown on the screen and comment is invited from the crowd who were largely modern. I can assure you that they ignore testimony from the traditional planets no matter how obvious in favour of the outers no matter how wrong

This is called anecdotal evidence so feel to dismiss it but it is true

Matthew
Matthew Goulding

10
For what it's worth, the current astronomical definition of outer planet is the four gas giants beyond the asteroid belt, and before its demotion Pluto. This muddies things further for us, since in no form of astrology do I think it's really appropriate to lump Jupiter and Saturn with the more newly discovered planets - the operation is demonstrably different.

The problem is this a heliocentric definition, which isn't terribly useful for anything other than heliocentric astrology, which I honestly know nothing about. My guess is that when astrology was resuscitated we ended up using some astronomical vocabulary that has little or no astrological meaning.

The personal-social-transpersonal/generational dichotomy doesn't have a lot of meaning to me since Saturn rising is surely as personal as Venus rising. I think it's better to call Mercury and Venus inferior and Mars through Saturn superior. Uranus onward can remain "outer," though not in the sense of outside the asteroid belt so much as outside the classical paradigm.

11
Gas giant could be a metaphor here. When my friends discover my interest in astrology they think I have a telescope. I try to explain to the layman the different disciplines of astrology and astronomy they do not get it. How come those learned in both still think heliocentricity has relevance to what happens in the sub-Lunary realm is beyond me. No one is born on the sun. It is hot and dry and remissly cold and wet and thus inimical to life
Last edited by Mjacob on Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Matthew Goulding

12
Hi, I'm back again!

Fleur wrote:
When I say "outer planets", I mean Neptune and Pluto. Lazily I might be including Uranus, though I think Uranus is a special case, and more linked to Chiron.
Interesting that you mention Uranus as a special case of outer planet! I, too, think he is.

For one thing, he is the only one of them which can be spotted by the naked eye under good circumstances (that is, if you have a good naked eye).

Also, in the modern extended rulership scheme, Uranus in Aquarius is coupled with the Sun in Leo via opposition. (Whereas the rest of the transsaturnians are in the same way coupled with other transsaturnians, at least in my favourite scheme, but that may be going off-topic).

The Sun is, in my opinion, a transpersonal factor himself, really, by signifying your inner core being (Jung's "Self"), rather than your conscious personality (Jung's "I" or ego).

The Sun's "coupling" with Uranus in the modern rulership scheme is meaningful because sign rulers in opposition to each other are always of contrary but related nature. To give you a few simple examples:

Moon - Childhood, Saturn - Old age;
Mercury - Analysis, Jupiter - Synthesis;
Venus - Love, Mars - Conflict

By this same logic, Uranus can indeed be seen as "the Sun turned inside out", or the Sun as "Uranus turned outside in". Which is highly significant regarding both Uranus' designation as an "esoteric Sun" and your personal observation that Uranus somehow links back to the inner Solar system.
So, outer planets means outside ruling mundane manifestation, planets ruling things beyond Time, beyond Saturn.
This is actually in line with the gnostic (orphitic) lore that it was God Saturn who created time and space, and still guards the border to the paradisical realms beyond.

While modern cosmology offers little evidence that time flow significantly changes outside Saturn's orbit, I could well imagine that in metaphysical terms we indeed enter a dimension of "hypertime" here - as reflected in certain kinds of psychic or transcendental (transsaturnian) experiences.

In medieval depictions the outer universe is the realm of the Holy Trinity. A modern view would be that in your (or your soul's) experience time flow changes and slows down as you enter stellar, intergalactic, etc. space, out towards infinity = eternity = timelessness.

Well-known physicist Arthur Eddington actually proposed a model of the universe in which time slows down toward its periphery.

Tom wrote:
Chances are outer is meant to designate those outside the orbit of Saturn and therefore are generational not personal or near personal.
:( I hear things like this a lot from certain astrologers. But what is it supposed to mean?!

Let's break your statement down a little, please:
Outer planets are generational.

Alright - but arguably, generational traits are nothing but the summation of the traits of the individuals comprising the "generation" (quite a vague term to me, by the way).

Some astrologers say that aspects from the personal to the outer planets signify how a native interacts with collective influences. This may hold true.

Outer planets are not personal or near personal

This is correct only if you use these terms in a specialised sense. The transsaturnians' functions are trans-personal. They relate to inspiration, dreams, psychic and transcendental experiences.

True, things like these may not play a very obvious role in John Smith's dull existence. :-T

So some people say that, on an individual level, the outer planets exclusively manifest themselves in extraordinary people of great influence on the collective. This is not totally wrong - but I personally know plenty of transsaturnian personalities who don't make it into the headlines!

When a pitiable drug-addict comes in for a therapeutic session, am I not supposed to talk about the prominent Neptune placement in his chart? Or, when my electrician mentally scans all the circuitry in my house in no time while holding an electrified lecture about the subject to me, is he not manifesting Uranian energy on a personal level?

Oh, and don't you tell my Afghan wind-hound that she is not Uranian!

Further, if outer planets were so insignificant on an individual level, how come in modern astrology we pay more attention to their transits than to any other body's?

Matthew wrote:
It is outside the sphere of Saturn so it must be the inside the sphere of fixed stars and no I am not being flippant.
The ancient model of the universe assumed a sphere of fixed stars that would (in a modernized scheme) coincide with the transsaturnian orbits. I would say that the transsaturnians are really links between the Solar system and the stellar realm, along the lines Dane Rudhyar suggested.

Michael