31
Matthew wrote:
Kenneth Grant was a follower of the western occult tradition with its roots in the qabalah. This emphasises the numbers 12, 7 and three. Sepher yetzirah is clearly related to seven planets and 12 signs then 3 other higher spheres

Grant attempted to assign these three spheres or sephirot to the outer planets

More if you wish
Hi Matthew

Thanks. For talking about this further, may I refer you to my newly opened thread "Astrology and the Cabala" in the philosophy section.

Michael

32
As a connoiseur of astrology (whatever that implies) I rarely venture from here to the Astrodienst forum but I see that Paul does and mentions in an exchange with Waybread a particular chart delineated using the outers.

I took a brief look at one forum topic and of the first few questions the ones that mention planets were nearly all about outers. Of the first dozen it was five outers one inner and a couple without (math is not my strong suit)

More anecdotal evidence but tell me how much it would cost to do a statistical study on ignorance of basic principles

If you read a lot you must assume that the authors have some knowledge of the subject but where do you imagine the amateurs and newbies get their knowledge if not their wisdom from?

I have no wish to widen the oceanic divide but I think asteroid obsession is more manifest in the New World

Matthew
Matthew Goulding

33
Waybread wrote:"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.
All astrologers need to understand which planets are naturally malefic or benefic, and how basic states are enhanced or impaired in individual charts so that a naturally malefic planet can act as an accidental benefic or vice versa. So these terms are not expected to convey static conditions or have one consistent application. The terminology we use to express this is not worth troubling about, so long as the principles are properly understood. If anyone does find it hard to say the words "malefic" and "benefic" out loud (I don't), they can use the terms "afflicting" or "assisting" instead. One way or another we have to identify which planets are indicative of difficulties/setbacks/challenges and get to the details of how and why those difficulties arise. If astrologers are uncomfortable with the use of descriptive terminology within astrological literature, I think they are going to have very hard time dealing with those clients whose lives are, in reality, full of difficulty, pain and heartache at the time of the astrological consultation.

34
Just because my faculties particularly shine on this specially assigned day, I think it is about that stone throwers(asteroid) belt beyond Mars that Jupiter-Pluto are called outer planets.

The astrologers already had the work-up on the Jupiter and Saturn, so what was left was called:
-Extra-saturnine and because all Extra saturnine are outers as well , so , in astrology they became outers.

No follow up questions will be answered before the same date next year :D

http://ronyerby.com/ss/Outer.html

NASA has special pages on how to operate the solar powered battery on these missions, so I guess, central heating would be a problem too on those space crafts.

PD

35
Good points, Deb-- and the ability to give bad news tactfully and sympathetically or good news disrespectfully seems to be more a character trait of the astrologer than of the system employed. A tactless modern astrologer can profoundly upset people.

I think there are two issues about terms like "inferior" or "malefic" in the sensible applied sort of modern astrology I hope to practice.

1. Whether planets are inherently helpful or harmful. As you know, how planets are classified in binary categories is easy for anyone to learn. To many modern astrologers, however, if we took away the words "malefic" and "benefic" it would not change much in natal chart interpretation, because they see each planet as inherently having positive and negative potentials. The milage varies, naturally, in horary astrology.

2. Most fields have specialized vocabularies, which are fine for the cognescenti talking among themselves. But in interpreting a horoscope for a client, words like "inferior", "superior", or "malefic" could easily be misunderstood--either because they mean something different in everyday speech, or are archaic. There is a rational case to be made for labeling planets with terms that are consistent with today's speech.

I looked up the term "inferior planet" in two astrological reference books (Gettings, Arkana, and Lewis, Astrology Book) and they mentioned that modern astrology dropped the word "inferior" because it was too easily misunderstood.

I don't think this has to do with modern astrological "political correctness" (in wanting astrology to be sweetly sanitized) but simply because everyday languages change over time. A perfectly good vocabulary word among specialists can pick up a negative connotation in ordinary common speech, so it seems reasonable to use a word without baggage.

Come to think of it, "inferior" and "superior" planets based on Ptolemaic concentric spheres in relation to the earth and sun might just as easily have been termed "inner" and "outer" ages ago.

37
So far as I know, Michael, it's in relation to their position in hypothetical concentric planetary "spheres" in the Ptolemaic geocentric system. Mercury and Venus occupied lower spheres than the sun; Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn occupied higher spheres.

In this context and based on their Latin roots:

"Inferior" simply means lower (than the sun.)
"Superior" simply means higher (than the sun.)

There was no connotation of "inferior" implying sub-standard or inadequate; or "superior" implying excellence. (Think: Lake Superior is the uppermost lake in the Great Lakes chain. It's not necessarily "better" than Lake Huron!)

Everyday English, however, changed over time around the meaning of these words.

We have many parallels in which concise terms no longer mean the same thing in vernacular speech. One that comes to mind, however, was when I was a child, I broke my arm. I understood the orthopedic surgeon at the hospital to say that the fracture was "humorous." When he saw the shocked look on my face, he hastily explained that this was a medical term, not that there was anything funny about my breaking my arm. (Turns out the medical term is actually "humerus", referring to the upper arm bone.) But one hopes that he used a different word subsequently to explain this type of fracture to a patient, as it could be so easily misunderstood.

I think the potential for misunderstanding was the reason why modern astrologers prefer terms like "inner" or "personal" planet; although the meaning is slightly different.

38
Waybread is correct that the traditional meaning of the terms relate to the status of being lower or higher than the Sun. But there is actually a lot of meaning and astrological implication attached to this notion of status, and this is why the terms shouldn't be changed casually: because "inferior" and "inner" don't convey the same principles.
Basically, the more superior a planet, the more lasting and significant its influence. The inferior planets, being lower and quicker in movement (or ?lighter?) do more, but to less substantial effect. In horary or any kind of astrology that makes use of significators this is used in many ways. For example, using traditional sign rulers means that in relationship matters, or a situation involving negotiating a contract, or 1st-7th house matters generally, one party will be signified by the superior planet, the other by the inferior planet. The superior planet will describe which of the two is more mature or influential, or acting as the decision maker. The inferior planet will be the one that is seeking something from the other, aiming to appease or which will need to move away if the relationship/negotiation breaks down. Many useful details derive from this but it would take an article.
On a more general level, the traditional principle is that superior planets are resistant to the aspectual effects of inferior planets, whilst inferior planets are more easily impressed upon by the influence of superiors. So in an aspect of Venus and Saturn, for example, it will be the Saturn influence that predominates ? it is less likely that Venus, being inferior, will bring a cheering effect to Saturn and more likely that Saturn will bring a chilling effect to Venus. On the other hand Jupiter can have a more moderating effect on Saturn, because it is a more superior planet. This kind of thinking is also built into the notion of ?friendships? of the planets.
And then we have the notion recognised in the assignation of natural significators ? e.g., the 7th consideration of the Centiloquium of Hermes Trismegistus, tells us:
  • Make the Sun, or any of the superiors to signify princes and great persons. Scribes and rustics, the inferior planets, and chiefly the Moon.