One of the big controversies in astrology is what planets should be included in reading charts. In particular, what do we do with the planets that have been discovered since the 18th Century, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. We have already established that these planets are not a part of the Traditional Model of the Cosmos. One of the difficulties with Modern Astrology is that it abandoned the traditional model of the cosmos and traditional techniques in favor of new “discoveries.”
Traditional Astrology has been gaining ground in the past decade or so, which tries to retrieve and relearn techniques that have been long lost from Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance times. Current practitioners of the craft of Traditional Astrology are not in agreement as to whether the modern planets should included in chart reading. Some will argue that the modern planets have no meaning at all; others will argue that they DO have meaning, but that they should not be given rulerships or dignities in the signs of the zodiac. In my own practice, I will have to say that it took me a while to formulate a theory regarding these planets. For many years, I did not use then at all, and I hardly missed them. Yet, when I included them in my readings, I did find that there was an added dimension to the chart by including them. I did notice that they did not have the higher spiritual meanings ascribed to them by New Age astrologers. Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were malefics, pure and simple.
It was only recently, after reading The Feminine Universe, by Miss Alice Lucy Trent that I began to understand a possible new approach to these planets. The Feminine Universe described three poisons of the Modern Era. These poisons are atomization, deracination, and deformation. It is axiomatic and generally agreed by astrologers that give any meaning at all to the modern planets is that their meaning is informed by the social and political conditions taking place when they were “discovered,” and most would agree that they did not have any meaning whatsoever until after their discovery. If this was the case, then any meaning ascribed to them would have to be unique to the modern world. As I thought about the meanings ascribed to these planets and compared them with the description of the above mentioned poisons, they fit almost perfectly together. Below are the definitions of these poisons, as described by The Feminine Universe.
This is the force that separates us from one another. In societies before the Modern Era, people lived most of their lives in community and in family. One’s identity in the world was based on one’s community and family connections. People did not make major decisions on their own. In Modern times, we are very much cut off from each other, even our own families. People live alone. We have complicated governmental programs and insurance to help us in cases of emergency, whereas, in the past, one might rely on one’s family and community to care for us. In many ways, the United States and other democratic nations are founded on atomization, and it is glorified as “rugged individualism.” Interestingly enough, the meaning ascribed to Uranus is that of individualism, that which makes us separate and different from one another. Uranus was discovered in 1781, around the time of the American and French Revolutions.
Deracination is the force that cuts us off from our roots and from our traditions. This poison affects us in many different ways, from the way we dress to our manners and our furniture. We no longer understand or care about our traditions. Our understanding of our place in the world and in our community becomes confused and unclear. This very much fits with the meaning ascribed to Neptune, confusion and lack of definition or clarity. Neptune was discovered in 1846. Interestingly enough, the Theosophical Society, which had a huge role in separating traditional sciences, such as astrology, from their roots, was founded in 1875. In the last half century, deracination has become quite rampant and is most noticeable in the deterioration of our clothing choices and our manners since the mid-1960’s in the West.
The last, and probably most destructive of these three poisons is the poison of Deformation. This poison is one of inversion, an intentional creation of dark and disturbing images. One can hardly watch television or consume any modern media without encountering rampant deformation. The meaning ascribed to Pluto is of death and destruction, a fitting meaning to a planet named with the name of the Lord of the Underworld. Pluto was discovered in 1930, the time period in between the World Wars, and right before World War II. It is about 30 years later that Western civilization began a rampant deterioration that the Feminine Universe describes as the Eclipse.
Now, if the Traditional Planets represent the Higher Cosmological Spheres, it is not hard to extrapolate that the three Outer Planets represent Lower Spheres, or the Outer Darkness, referred to in the Christian tradition. Interestingly enough, these planets may have very well been known about in Ancient times. Certainly, Uranus was. Our Ancient forebears knew enough not to intentionally invoke these planets, however.
In my own astrological practice, I have begun to look to these planets from the viewpoint of places where a Native is most vulnerable to the poisons of atomization, deracination and deformation. In so doing, I have found that this reading has given me far greater accuracy than any other reading of these planets that I have ever tried.
24 thoughts on “The Outer Planets – A Theory”
I was some what interested in astrological ideas in the 1980’s later to reject them as simply unscientific. However in reading your explanation of value of astrology from the basic position of the traditional cosmological worldview as outlined in “The Feminine Universe,” my view is no longer one of complete rejection. Your speculations regarding the three outer planets are also quite thought provoking.
Thank you for your comment, Mr. King. You were right in your assessment about astrology being “unscientific”, or at least, in the sense of not relating to modern science. From an essentialist standpoint, the scientific “world view,” is false the sense that it tries to speak to anything but the purely physical. I am distinguishing the scientific “world view” from the “scientific method.” The “scientific method” is quite valuable in determining how essentialist principles apply to physicality, and if actually practiced without the “world view” provides a humility in the form of testing one’s own ideas and hypotheses with actual observation. In that sense, good astrology does *use* the scientific method in observation of how the 7 basic metaphysical principles, as represented by the 7 Traditional planets and luminaries, actually “work” in the lives of human beings and societies, but Traditional Astrology is not based in natural science.
Unfortunately, the scientific “world view” is quite prevalent and has been since the “Enlightenment,” so many astrologers have forgotten (or never learned) this, and they try to fit astrology in with the scientific “world view” in various ways. This is the reason that some Modern astrologers incorporate natural bodies, such as asteroids and other heavenly bodies in their readings, and there is confusion now that science has declared Pluto to be “not a planet.” From a metaphysical standpoint, science’s declaration in this matter is meaningless. One may use the scientific method to observe Pluto’s effect on us; however, the definitions given by science as to what constitutes a planet (which I believe is now that a heavenly body is round and large enough able to clear its own orbit of asteroids and other debris) give no help as to whether the body is a representation of a metaphysical (or demonic) principle.
In a sense, what I am describing in this comment is the difference between modern science and traditional science. Traditional science starts with metaphysical principles, which are by definition beyond our senses, and then uses observation to see what “works” in the physical world. Modern science uses observation alone, with a “world view” that there is nothing else in existence, except that which can be observed with the senses or with instruments, which are really only an extension of the senses.
I find it of interest that the outer planets mirror the triplicity of manifestation. Uranus, Nepture and Pluto correspond to the “three worlds”: sky, waters and earth. However, as you note, they seem to represent the darker or inverse aspect of these realms, which is particularly clear in the case of Pluto. The three worlds in turn correspond to the three gunas: sattva, rajas and tamas. Even the expression of the sattvic guna can have negative (tamasic) aspects: in one form of excessive conservativism that stifles necessary change (rajas), or in another form of excessive radicalism that, in the name of purity of doctrine, destroys traditional society. Uranus seems to embody the second aspect.
As I understand it, the current “interpretations” of the meanings of the Outer planets were promulgated by the Theosophical Society which is at best highly unreliable and fanciful and at worst an example of what Guénon terms the Counter-tradition. If these interpretations are not pure invention, then they were (as claimed) dictated by discarnate entities known collectively as “the Great White Lodge” or “Ascended Masters”.
Since Theosophy is clearly counter-Traditional in many respects, these discarnates are likely to be of a demonic kind. Therefore introducing fundamentally demonic forces into the human sphere and putting a largely favorable interpretation on them would be precisely what one would expect.
Actually, the mythos behind the names for these planets is actually quite fascinating. Of course Pluto (or Hades) is the Hellenistic Lord of the Underworld. No further explanation is needed there, I imagine.
Uranus, as the sky god, in this mythology is rather a monster. He hates the children that are born to his wife, the Earth Goddess, Gaia, and Gaia actually conspired with her children to overthrow Uranus. I would tell more of the story, but it is rather ugly and Dark. I do not recommend looking it up, especially those readers who may be more sensitive! Needless to say, Uranus is a far cry from the gentle, compassionate Queen of Heaven in Filianist thealogy. Actually, the mythology of the name Uranus holds with the poison of atomization quite nicely, from what I can tell.
I just looked up the mythology behind Neptune, which not surprisingly seems rather confusing, with multiple associations. In one story, Neptune was thrown into the sea by his father at his birth, and later went on to usurp his father. That sounds like quite a symbolic name for a planet that may represent deracination.
Now, one could say that the names were randomly chosen to fit with the other planets who were given names from Roman mythology; however, I do think that the names can be quite significant, whether the namers were aware of it or not.
your comment here reminds me of liz greene and her strong interest in the association of astrology to mythology..
regarding the article – it would seem the meanings that modern astrologers came up with for these outer planets seems to work for you.. i think it is better to think of astrologers making observations, as opposed to categorizing astrologers as either modern or traditional.. i feel the same way about breaking down viewpoints based along male or female lines too.. some viewpoints have relevance and some don’t.. does it really matter whether they get categorized with words like traditional, modern, or male or female?
You make a couple of points in your comment, so with your indulgence I will take them one at a time.
1. Mythology are stories of essential metaphysics and Universal Truth, so yes, astrology and all traditional sciences are necessarily rooted in mythology.
2. Astrology is a very wide field, with various different schools of practice. Actually, even the distinction between modern and classical/traditional astrology is a rather broad brush. Within the category of modern astrology, there are various branches, such as Uranian astrology, psychological astrology, and cosmobiology. Within the category of classical/traditional astrology, you will find Renaissance astrology, Medieval astrology, Hellenistic astrology, among other branches. Each of these branches has different “rules” or practice and methods and their own economy. Some astrologers “mix and match” methods and schools. Some branches and schools “mix and match” better than others. Classical/traditional methodology does not “mix and match” well with modern methodology. One of the things that I am doing with this blog is integrating astrology with traditionalist and feminine essentialist philosophy. In this vein, what I am discussing is not necessarily even classical or traditional astrology, but in my own astrological practice, my methodology is that of classical/traditional astrology.
3. With respect to the modern interpretation of the Outers, looking at them with a rather broad brush, I suppose that there is some concordance in what I have described with the modern interpretation of these planets. Use of the Outer Planets in readings is one of the most obvious distinction between modern and classical/traditional astrology. Some (but not all, or even most) classical/traditional astrologers may use the Outer Planets in interpretation; however, they do not attribute any rulerships to the Outer Planets, but use the traditional rulerships of Mars (rather than Pluto) for Scorpio, Saturn (rather than Uranus) for Aquarius, and Jupiter (rather than Neptune) for Pisces. The other area of dispute I have with the modern interpretation of the Outer Planets is that the modern interpretation tends to be much more positive than is warranted. For example, Uranus is seen as “innovative” and to produce “genius”, Neptune as seen as “spiritual” and “transcendent”, and Pluto as “transformational.” While I do think that there are positive sides to the Traditional Planets, even Mars and Saturn, I do not think that there are any positive sides to the Outers. They *may* be an extension of the destructive side of Saturn, which does lead the way to new birth, but I am not at a level of Enlightenment to be able give that more than a passing glance.
4. Feminine and masculine are not synonymous with female and male. Female and male relate to biological genders, whereas feminine and masculine in this context relate to metaphysical concepts. In Eastern thought, this is yin/yang. Western thought has placed primacy on the masculine, or active, principle, and is far overbalanced in that direction. Western traditional/classical astrology also tends to assign primacy to the masculine principle. Feminine essentialism assigns primacy to the feminine principle, or the non-active/passive, principle. “Earth moves, heaven is still.”
saying the outer 3 planets are malefics is not expressing an original idea.. lumping the theosophist or new age movement in with modern astrology is like lumping slavery or cultural male dominance with traditional astrology.. cultural movements may have had some bearing on the astrology of the time, but i prefer acknowledging the limitations of a particular astrological approach as opposed to making sweeping statements on modern or traditional astrology.
until the release of william lillys ‘christian astrology’ in 1985 – traditional astrology as practiced by ”’traditional” astrologers of today never took place. those who were a part of a lineage of astrological associations that trace right back to alan leo helped to make his book and the ‘modern’ movement of ‘traditional’ astrology a reality.. of course since 1985 many more books that were never available previously to a wider audience continue to be made available.. people like james holden or ben dykes continue to translate and publish older astrological works and all astrologers who are interested benefit from this…
i think if more people and astrologers in particular, if they knew some of the history on the reintroduction of these texts would appreciate that ‘traditional’ astrology is a very modern past time thanks to the same people that some folks like to negate for the type of astrology they practiced or with what they mixed it with.. it is all relative to the information people have available to them at the time and of course an open mind towards wanting to learn more.. considering the outer planets is a case in point and kudos to you for keeping an open mind and considering the possibility that some astronomical body that wasn’t discovered or acknowledged by astrologers in the deep past might be worthy of consideration..
I agree that the malefic nature of the outer planets is not an original idea. 2+2=4 is not an original idea either. Surely what we are concerned with is not originality but truth.
I should like to point out that I was not “lumping” the Theosophical Society with modern astrology. I was pointing out that the supposed meanings of the Outer Planets were actually originated by the Theosophical Society. Rather like “lumping” The Lord of the Rings with Tolkein.
I am no astrologer, traditional or modern, though, like any traditional person I believe that the “planetary” (I would say Janyatic or Angelic – the planets being merely one outward manifestation, albeit the primary one from our current incarnate perspective) principles are fundamental to all science other than that which specifically restricts itself to purely physical considerations. Which, of course, is as legitimate (and as specialized) as plane geometry restricting itself to two dimensions.
The fact that certain texts have only recently been republished would seem to have very little bearing on the fundamental question of whether an essentialist or a substantialist world-view is correct. That, I would suggest is the real issue.
No, I am not expressing original ideas in this article, or this blog for that matter. If my ideas were original, they would be worthless from a traditionalist perspective. That is one of the huge areas of difference between modern and traditionalist thought. “Originality” and “innovation” are considered suspect. It is the faithful passing along of traditional wisdom that is valued.
Does this mean that there is no place for research and adaptation? No, research and adaption still have a place, but new ideas are not valued for their newness. Actually, I have started a rough draft of my next article, which is on this very topic, so I think I will leave further discussion on the subject of research and observation for a full article.
One of things I will address in your comment is something that I think I need to clarify a bit. I think referring to the Outers as malefics probably confuses matters, in that we also refer to Mars and Saturn as malefics. I do not think that the Outers are malefics in the same sense that Mars and Saturn are. English is a very difficult language for expressing metaphysical concepts. On a physical level, Mars and Saturn often affect our lives in ways that seem destructive, and through recorded history, the Martial and Saturnian influences have been severely overbalanced, leading to the historical violence and cruelty that you refer to, but Mars and Saturn are planetary representations of the Divine along with the other 3 traditional planets and 2 luminaries. In their balanced state, the Martial influence is protective and the Saturn influence is solidifying.
I do not think that the same can be said about the Outer planets. I think that their influence is demonic rather than Divine. It is highly unlikely that the Ancients had not “discovered” these planets, as you say. In fact, it is pretty clear that the Ancient Chaldeans knew about Uranus at the very least. It is highly likely that they knew about the others as well. They did chose not to embrace them, however.
I think that the Outer Planets influence us as much as we let them. We can resist the forces of atomization, deracination, and deformation, or we can embrace them. Modern society has chosen to embrace these poisons, just as modern astrology is fascinated by the Outer Planets. One can not avoid the influence of Mars and Saturn. I do believe that one can avoid the influence of the Outers, on a personal level, at least.
This is a rather cursory response, and I did not get to all of your issues. These are rather complex matters, and I will likely be writing future articles on many of these topics.
Cure Tadashiku says: “I agree that the malefic nature of the outer planets is not an original idea. 2+2=4 is not an original idea either.”
2+2=5 is not an original idea either. The difference between 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 is not one of originality but one of truth.
On the other hand, 2+2=26.43708139 probably is an original statement. Is it any better for that?
this is in reply to the 3 posts in response to my post.. hopefully i can cover most of what i would like to say and not miss out on too much. first off – thanks for the conversation..
when i mentioned ‘this is not an ‘original idea’ i only wanted to point out that the thought of the outer 3 as being malefic or challenging in nature is not something that hasn’t been discussed by astrologers before, regardless of the box one would like to put those astrologers in. that’s all..
to cure tadashiku – i continue to believe it is very important the historical context of the use of these terms ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ astrology and it definitely hinges on the release of lillys ‘christian astrology’ in 1985 and all the older astrological texts that have come on-stream since.. to ignore that is to miss a very important part to this article and that is this : astrologers wanting to ‘identify’ closely with what they perceive as ‘traditional’ astrology have to come to terms with how they do or don’t respond to the knowledge of their being a few other planets now known to exist that weren’t on the radar in lillys time and further back.. this is why the context and the use of these terms is so interesting to me… does one still get to call themselves a ‘traditional’ astrologer while incorporating these more recent discoveries or does a new category get made for referring to ‘trad astrologers’ who are using some of the modern planets and etc?
i went to the link you provided.. it looks like an exercise in semantics to me, so if you’d like to explain or comment on how that link you have shared is relevant to this conversation, please go ahead.. i don’t see it at present..
myriam – i like what you have said in response to me here and i look forward to your next article. there is lots to comment on, but i am going to defer to your next article as well. thanks.
Honored Mr. James, thank you for replying so thoughtfully and at such length to our humble comments. I understand why my reply may have been a little hard to grasp. The issues that this question raises are very big ones and relate to one’s fundamental philosophy: what we believe the universe and existence as a whole actually is.
I tried to reply making this clearer in relation to the Astrological questions we have been discussing, but my reply became so long that it turned into a full-scale article. You will find that article here and I hope it will make the whole question a little more understandable. But be aware that in order to understand it one will have to step, at least for a moment, beyond the modern Western ideology. Hard to do I know since the whole culture is permeated by it!
If you have further questions, please feel free to ask them.
Thank you so much for writing this article, http://www.mother-god.com/traditional-cosmology.html, and sharing it with us, Tadashiku-san. Your analogy of a world in which mathematics has been forgotten, with remnants to be found in carpentry, is very apt and helpful.
I am going to take your analogy one step further to explain the difference between Modern and Classical Astrology. Going back to the world where mathematics have been forgotten, some new tools were invented. Not remembering mathematics, a new generations of carpenters grew up thinking and teaching that mathematics were a silly superstition of the past. We have new tools. Each new generation of carpenters began to innovate and make up new ways to make furniture thinking they were superior to the generations of carpenters before then.
In this scenario, furniture made with these *new* techniques and tools became less and less sturdy and would fall apart at the least amount of stress or pressure. As a part of this, the entire craft of carpentry began to fall into disrepute.
This situation continued until some carpenters re-discovered that mathematics used to be a part of carpentry. In trying and applying the discipline of mathematics, they began to see that their chairs and furniture became sturdier and did hold up under pressure. Seeing the superior craftsmaidship of the chairs using mathematics, other carpenters began learning how to use and apply mathematics to carpentry.
Despite this, there were carpenters who were reluctant to give up the “new” tools in favor of mathematics, and some who continued to believe that mathematics was foolish superstition of the past. There were also some carpenters who thought that maybe they could incorporate newly found mathematics, but they could still keep the “new” tools. This analogy is pretty close to the current state of astrology with the re-introduction of Classical techniques.
Now, one could very make the observation that carpenters who are beginning to incorporate mathematics do not fully understand mathematics, and certainly do not understand it as well as it was understood in the past. That may be a valid criticism, and most, if not all, modern practitioners of Classical Astrology would likely agree with this. One could even argue that they are not true practitioners of the craft, because they do not have an unbroken line of instruction from teachers who fully understood mathematics.
The way I see it, though, is that we can acknowledge this limitation, and we can continue to learn and grow in our understanding of essentialist metaphysics. This is not a reason to abandon the study and emulation of astrologers from the past or to treat this study as it is on equal footing with the study of the “new” tools of Modern Astrology.
It is true that most current students and practitioners of Classical Astrology, myself included, began our study after seeing how the use of these re-discovered tools produced richer and more accurate readings for ourselves and for our clients. Through our study, we also discovered that astrologers of the past gave more consistently accurate readings then many of us can even come close to emulating.
Oh dear, this response ended up being quite long as well, and I have an article to write. Thank you again for your article.
this is in response to your june 23rd post and article that you have shared here – http://www.mother-god.com/traditional-cosmology.html
it appears to me that you’re highlighting the differences between a materialist viewpoint verses a more spiritual and/or metaphysical viewpoint. it’s a great distinction to make, but i’m less inclined to want to divide everything up using these terms to come up with a ‘new’ flat earth type approach to all topics, including what the difference is between traditional and modern astrology. these terms are all relative and not so rigid that they can be so easily used to divide and label everything nearly as conveniently as you appear to imply in your article..
philosophy isn’t just the domain of a particular group of people or society.. it belongs and is open to everyone. you don’t have to be male or female, a traditional or modern astrologer, or whatever category one wants to make a division within, to partake in it.
generally i think the most fanatical people are those who are chasing their own demons. i know this is true for me in that any time i have felt their was some dragon to slay it invariably reflected my own subconscious or unconscious inner world that i was yet to recognize. now, i am in my 50’s and didn’t see this as clearly when i was younger.. i was too busy doing battle with the ‘outside’ world to take a closer look at the world ‘inside’.. i’ve always had a strong interest in ”metaphysics”. i use this word a loose way to define anything that isn’t immediately broken down into a hard tangible.
some of these ideas represent the conflict that astrologers like to define as temperament and the differences represented symbolically between the fire and earth elements.. i have an emphasis in fire in my chart. the material world is something i am always banging up against.. i am always curious about other people and one of the ways i have satiated this is thru a life long interest in astrology.. if i was just interested in what my physical senses told me, i am sure i would be never gotten around to astrology! thanks for sharing your article..
I think it is very true that names for these things are not accidental – however much the namers themselves may consider them “arbitrary”. Deeper forces are at work than they may be aware of. Undoubtedly this is why the planets “outside” Saturn and metals “below” lead (lead, of course corresponding to Saturn and the terms outward (away from the Center) and downward being metaphysically equivalent) have equivalent names. Plutonium, Neptunium, and Uranium. Just as the planets “below” (i.e. more dense than) lead are too “heavy” to bear their own “weight” and therefore decay radioactively, so the outer planets represent forces of decay and chaotic instability.
The “transmutation” of naturally occurring radioactive materials “downward” by nuclear fission could be seen as the precise opposite of the spiritual process of transforming Saturnian lead into Solar gold. And this process is mirrored by the Postmodernist fostering of the chaotic social tendencies represented by the outer planets. Herr Doktor Freud, who introduced many of these chaotic elements into Western thought, prefaced one of his major works with a quotation from Virgil: “If I cannot move Heaven, then I will stir up Hell.”
Hello Miriam, I was writing a short piece on the outer planets an attempt to make them work in Traditional astrology when I came upon your article. I referred very positively to your article and quote you with full credit given. Shine on,
Thank you for your kind comments. I am honored by your reference to this article in your own blog.
It’s very fine and insightful work 🙂
I have read your articles for at least one year and I love them. 🙂 In the last few days, I’ve recalled an idea that blew my mind. The idea/information was that since the nuclear bombings, everything has uranium atoms… including the bodies of human beings. I don’t know whether this is true or not, since I found it out from a TV show, where characters were testing whether a bottle of wine was made in a certain century or is fake. They mentioned if, after the test shows a certain level of uranium radiation on that bottle, then the bottle is fake, since the real one wouldn’t have been contaminated (it was claimed that bottle was found in a sunken ship). Does it make any sense?
Because of that, I couldn’t wrap my mind around it… If that’s true, than that explains why the outer planets may have bigger significance a long time after Uranus had been discovered.
Just for the sake of observation, I’ve done a thorough search of dates and times of the first bombings, to bet a more exact idea, to draw a line between “before” and “after’.
The first ever atomic/nuclear bombing had plutonium involved, which surprised me. Here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_%28nuclear_test%29 ) you have the time, date and place of this event.
The first uranium bombing (with time, date and place) is to be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki . I only used the first day, since the second bomb was designed with plutonium.
As you can see, summer 1945 is the line… Before that, the world wasn’t such a bad place, right? After that, the decay of society can be easily observed after the 1950’s, if I’m not mistaken. The decay was already taking place before 1945, but at a much slower pace. After that, in 1947, Roswell happened. The technology is developing at a much faster rate than ever.
There are a lot of things to discuss. I just hope that I’m wrong. If I’m not wrong, then it would take thousands of year to get rid of uranium atoms.
Oh, thank you so much for your comment, and for following my articles for so long. You raise some interesting facts. It is quite interesting that the Outer Planets have the same names as the radioactive, unstable elements.
I have been doing a lot of thinking and research since I first wrote this article, and I think that with respect to the Outer Planets, we have choices. With the 7 traditional planets, we are bound by their influence. I think that the Outer Planets only have influence if we let them. For example, the use of nuclear weapons was a choice, Of course, we are all affected by the choices of others and those in power.
While there is only so much one can do about the choices of others (if one can do anything at all), On the other hand, I do think that personal choices to avoid and not spread the modern poisons does help on an Aethyric level and that changes in the Aethyr (for good or ill) do become physical after a time.
I know it’s seven years since you posted this but this is the first time I’ve seen it.
Wonderful insight. As a practising astrologer myself I concur with your findings, although I am very grateful to you for passing on your knowledge of ‘The Feminine Universe’ and the outer planets more negative associations.
I too have made a partial return to a more traditional astrology and do not assign the outer planets to any signs, although I do put them in the chart, usually.
Being a Sun Aquarian myself, I have never felt comfortable with the sign’s more eccentric traits, those apparently attributable to Uranus.
Wonderful article, stay safe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much for your kind words. I do regularly use the Outers now, with the associations that I discuss here.
I use them more in Mundane charts than in Nativity charts. If they touch very personal places in Nativity charts, I do mention them as issues that can crop up, with suggestions as to how to avoid their influence.
In the seven years since I wrote this, I am convinced that their impact can be avoided or at least minimized on a personal level. Sadly, I think that their associations have been embraced by many societies, so they do play a big role on a global level.
Anyways, thank you again for your comment. Please stay safe as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person