16
Where is the "political correctness" in this, Tom?
Please read the entire sentence and note the qualifier.
I would wager a moderately priced lunch that astrological political correctness has its hand in this.
Then read 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,
It's all there.

18
"What are the outer-planets outside of?"

looks like an exercise in how to have fun with the word 'outside'.. folks here seem to be taking it seriously!

saturn was considered the boundary to the solar system for centuries and the same one some astrological traditionalists can't see beyond.. i think this defines what is outside or inside this same tradition to a large extent.. skycript even has a forum appropriately called - "traditional astrology" where one may or may not be allowed to talk about anything outside the orb of saturn.. i don't think i am 'thinking outside the box' when i say any of this.

19
Astronomically, the outer planets, according to what I learned from the Introduction to Astronomy course, are the planets outside the snow line or frost line; this includes Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and the now de-promoted Pluto.

The snow line is the line beyond which the temperature is low enough for water to condense into solid ice. Water exists in two primary forms in space: gas and solid. The temperature for the change of state is about 150 K.



Astrologically, I think 'inner planets' refer to the planets that have faster movement than the Sun (from a geocentric perspective). 'Outer planets' refer to those planets that are slower than the Sun.

By the astrological definition, Mars is considered an outer, whereas the astronomical definition considers Mars to be an inner planet.
Interested in Hellenistic astrology? Visit my blog.

The appearance changes, but the essence remains.

20
Larxene wrote:
Astronomically, the outer planets, according to what I learned from the Introduction to Astronomy course, are the planets outside the snow line or frost line; this includes Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and the now de-promoted Pluto.

The snow line is the line beyond which the temperature is low enough for water to condense into solid ice. Water exists in two primary forms in space: gas and solid. The temperature for the change of state is about 150 K.
Your basic thought is correct, and it's a good one.

However, the snow line that you are talking about is the distance from a star from where on carbon monoxide (yeah, the stuff that comes out of your muffler) freezes on floating dust particles which is a requirement for the creation of gas planets.

There is also a snow line at which water turns into ice, but this is much closer to the star.

The division of planets into rock planets and gas planets is another significant division for astrology, the former arguably being your most personal planets, the latter being more collectively/spiritually orientated. However, Pluto (still considered a planet astrologically) seems to make an exception to this rule.

Michael

21
Waybread wrote: Mar 29, 2014 6:18 am
Modern outer planets are "generational" only by sign. Their houses and aspects will vary significantly among people born within a short time of one another. However, sometimes these signs have meaning because people surely are products of their generations (narrowly defined: 7 years for Uranus is hardly a demographic generation.)
It is one of the basic principles recognized by most astrologers that a sign "colours" a planet that is in it, and I'm not sure why this shouldn't be applicable to the outers in an individual's natal chart.

As I mentioned before, it is rather the "generation" that is characterized by so many people individually contributing to it - even though, admittedly, there is always a give and take between the individual and the collective.
I don't like the term "transpersonal." It sounds loftier than "generational" but it makes little difference in most actual chart interpretations.
The way I see it, the transsaturnians are corresponding with sub- and superconscious levels in the psyche's spectrum. Perhaps "transcendental planets" would be a better description. :???:

22
Michael Sternbach wrote:However, Pluto (still considered a planet astrologically) seems to make an exception to this rule.
I like this! :) :'

In my own instance, I am considered either English, British, Norwegian or neither.
It is all a matter of perspective!
(re. whether Pluto should be considered a member of the planets-club, or not.)
http://www.astronor.com

23
Michael, I have no problem with a sign "colouring" a planet, but when everyone born within a 7 or 22-year period has it, then the sign as such does become less personal.

I personally think that a lot of hoo-ha was written about the modern outer planets as somehow indicating "sub- and superconscious levels in the psyche's spectrum" or "transcendental planets." After reading hundreds of charts, I just don't get it. Neptune squaring a personal planet (luminaries through Mars) shows up frequently in the charts of alcoholics. Pluto can be the real bully of the zodiac.

Then the moon works fine for the sub-conscious. Somehow Neptune has to be different from the moon, which I think it is.

The mysticism about the modern outers came from astrologers who emerged out of the theosophical movement, like Dane Rudhyar. They were more concerned with using astrology as a suite of metaphors for personal enlightenment than with addressing the practical issues of concern to most consumers of astrology.

I was very taken with Dane Rudhyar, Allan Oken, et al., till I began to see the transcendental approach as so much cotton-candy for the soul. I don't know how one would use the modern outers esoterically to to read charts for women who wonder why their BF is an alcoholic or why they don't get along with their boss.

p. s. Tom, I did read your post the first time; thanks ;)

24
waybread wrote:but I don't know any modern astrologers (except those specifically writing about outer planets) who ignore the inner/personal planets.
Waybread, perhaps you would agree that modern astrologers tend to place less emphasis on the personal planets than they do on the outer planets?
Among my favourite modern astrology textbooks are the older ones by Robert Hand, and I wouldn't call them "judgmental."
And neither did Tom. Are you sure you read and re-read Tom's post? I think you will find he did not call Rob Hand or other astrologers judgemental.


I think Tom may well be right actually that the terms superior and inferior were not PC enough - it reminds me of the knee-jerk reactions away from the terms malefic and benefic.

25
I think Tom may well be right actually that the terms superior and inferior were not PC enough - it reminds me of the knee-jerk reactions away from the terms malefic and benefic.
I do and have used these terms frequently, without any sense of restraint or disapproval from anyone - whether presenting at conferences, or in magazine articles or general conversation with other astrologers. I'm sure most astrologers are quite comfortable with them being used correctly according to context as part of a dialogue that helps establish interpretative meaning. What astrologers need to be cautious about, is how they convey astrological information to clients - that is where we need to use discretion and avoid stating things in a way that might seem negative, fatalistic or doom-laden.

26
I get (I hope) the implication that calling a planet "inferior" vs "superior" could seem perjorative in ordinary speech, but I honestly don't think that it is at the heart ignoring these terms with modern astrologers. Yes, mods are accused of wanting everything to be all nicey-nice and egalitarian, but really, I just don't think the orbital distinction where Mercury is "inside" but Mars is "outside" makes much difference to horoscope-reading.

Tom wrote:
Those words are too "judgmental" for our modern counterparts, despite their being accurate for their intended purpose.


I haven't seen this judgmentalism about inferior planets in any modern books. Has anyone? Or is this an assumption?

"Inner" or "personal" in modern astrology usually means at least Mars through the luminaries; Jupiter and Saturn are negotiable and sometimes in their own category, with the modern outers in a separate class. Some authors of modern astrology primers, however, make no distinctions at all.

"Malefic" vs. "benefic", to me, is another matter, because in both traditional and modern astrology, a "malefic" can have a positive effect, and a "benefic" can have a negative effect, depending upon their placement and question that is asked of a horoscope. Terms like "inferior" and "superior" are at least consistent. I don't see the point in calling Mars malefic if it supports a good athlete or gives someone the energy to get up off the couch.

Paul wrote:
Waybread, perhaps you would agree that modern astrologers tend to place less emphasis on the personal planets than they do on the outer planets?
No, absolutely not! I don't know how one could actually read a chart this way. I assume we are talking about normative applied modern astrology, not something like Jeff Greene's books on Pluto. You might read, for example, more theoretical material on an outer planet, but then if someone wants to know why her money isn't working out, you quickly have to get beyond "Neptune in Sagittarius" or "Uranus in the second house."

I have a decent-sized collection of modern astrology books and articles, astrology web site access, and have read thousands of chart interpretation posts by modern astrologers at Astrodienst and Astrologers' Community. I just don't see an imbalanced focus on modern outer planets to the detriment of personal planets.

Probably due to most modern astrologers' greater emphasis on aspects and de-emphasis on dignities and fortitudes (compared to traditional astrology,) you will see the modern astrologers considering something like sun square Pluto or Venus-Neptune contacts to be very important. But the outers are usually discussed in relation to one of the Big Seven or angle.

Of course, there is a lot of pop-schlock modern astrology out there. But this isn't the material that I read, nor do the modern astrologers whom I respect. To me it makes more sense to become a connoisseur of modern astrology, rather than to assume a uniformity that I just don't see in it. (And I am not saying anyone on this thread does this.)

Deb wrote:
What astrologers need to be cautious about, is how they convey astrological information to clients - that is where we need to use discretion and avoid stating things in a way that might seem negative, fatalistic or doom-laden.
Totally!!!

27
waybread wrote:I have a decent-sized collection of modern astrology books and articles, astrology web site access, and have read thousands of chart interpretation posts by modern astrologers at Astrodienst and Astrologers' Community. I just don't see an imbalanced focus on modern outer planets to the detriment of personal planets.
I guess we have different experiences then. Perhaps if I said that modern astrologers may tend to focus more on their Pluto squares than their Mars squares you would agree, or perhaps not. Maybe we just perceive things differently. I remember a thread on astro.com (seeing as you mention it) where someone was looking at a chart of a car accident and nobody bothered with the obvious mars aspect which perfected on that very day. Uranus and Pluto (and Mercury incidentally) were getting all the headlines.
Probably due to most modern astrologers' greater emphasis on aspects and de-emphasis on dignities and fortitudes (compared to traditional astrology,) you will see the modern astrologers considering something like sun square Pluto or Venus-Neptune contacts to be very important. But the outers are usually discussed in relation to one of the Big Seven or angle.
Right, but isn't this putting more emphasis on the outers? I am not implying the inner planets are ignored or not used (which seems to be your counter approach) but rather that more emphasis is given when an outer planet is involved.

Perhaps our experiences just differ. For what it's worth (almost certainly nothing) my experience differs from Deb too, in that I have certainly gotten knee jerk reactions when I use the term malefic, quite before I've even made an interpretation or judgement.