Outer Planets: Modern Rulers and Usage
What are Outer Planets
One topic I debate with consistently is the idea of Outer Planets, their usage, and what signs they rule, if any. I find that Traditional Astrologers can get too caught up in the dogma of using the seven inner planets (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, The Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon) and turn a blind eye to our outer friends, when they hold an immense amount of potency and the ability to further enrich delineations and our understanding of Astrology as a whole.
Let us first define the term “Outer Planet” before moving forward. The word out, as an adverb, is defined as “ situated far or at a particular distance from somewhere“, but the definition of out as a noun is a little different: “ in a state of unconsciousness“. As a verb, the word out is defined as “become known; emerge”. Taking all of these definitions into consideration, the word out is implicit of the concept of something being alien and unfamiliar. When we look at the suffix er, it is descriptive of “ the comparative degree of adjectives and adverbs”. We are then led to piece together the definition of the word “outer” as being defined as the degree of alienation of something that lives within one’s consciousness. Piecing together the word planet, we come to the conclusion that the definition of what an Outer Planet, which can now be defined as:
“Outer Planet: the degree of alienation of planets that lives within one’s consciousness”
From this definition alone, we are looking at the fundamental nature of which Outer Planets operate from. They don’t live within one’s consciousness, due to the degree of what is defined as consciousness in Astrology: the idea of visibility. If you can see it: it’s real for you. That’s what visibility is about, subjectivity— and this the whole premise that Astrology is built off of: subjectivity, because the only reason why Astrology works is because we are looking at how the celestial bodies influence life on Earth. To remove the idea of visibility from Astrology, removes the notion of subjectivity, and because Astrology is a subjective art: removing visibility is the invalidation of the Astrological Art as a whole. So how do Outer Planets play a roll here, well Outer Planets are not visible with a naked eye, and this is how Astrology was practiced and developed, because of the notion that if you could see it and experience it, it was true for you. The planets that are visible are: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, The Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon, and thus we can actually experience these planets subjectively because we can track their motion throughout the sky without the need for a telescope or device to enhance what we cannot perceive. This isn’t to say that because we don’t experience subjectivity of an issue that it isn’t real, because our level of subjectivity is in a bubble. We all live in a bubble. No matter how “woke” you think you may be: you are only woke and cognizant of what is in your range of cognition, but to think being woke is equated with understanding of things as a whole is naive and asinine. We will never be understanding of any situation as a whole, although this does not mean we should not try to expand our field of perception. What Outer Planets do is they decentralize subjectivity by being planets that are not observable and trackable with the naked eye, and are more about objectivity. From my perspective, objectivity is the ability to look at something in a state of consciousness that is separate from one’s own subjectivity and panning out to look at how our subjective experience is a part of a much larger change and sequence of events that we are individual experiencing. Outer Planets show how there is some greater occurrence that forces those to collectively experience this occurrence, and then perceive it through the subjectivity of the human experience. One analogy that is great for this is an earthquake. During an earthquake, some might experience the catastrophe to a much greater degree than others, who may be virtually unharmed by it. The earthquake is an outer and objective, but the experience of that earthquake and what it does to you in a state of immediacy is subjective. Outer Planets are here to provide objective perspective on that which is not consciously able to be understood through subjectivity until after that movement has passed. Our outer planets are: Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. We could even take this a step further and classify other dwarf planets as outer planets, even though they aren’t Astronomically considered planets, in Astrology, the word planet is defined as “wandering star”. Anything that wanders is a planet. However, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are the primary outer planets. They are indicative of objective change on Earth that we are all collectively and unconsciously contributing to, but vary to degrees and methodology of transfigurations, but they are ultimately showing the progression of the world and humanity that can be experienced subjectively, when aspected to certain planets, but also how we are all participatory in theses transmutations of society.
How to Use Outer Planets
On the subject of how Outer Planets should be used is a complicated one, because, we’ve been able to see the effects of planets like Uranus and Neptune and their progression through the entire zodiac since their discovery, however with Pluto we have a different case. Since Pluto’s discovery in 1930, it has not made a full revolution around the Sun, nor Zodiac, and thus, we have not had the chance to grasp a complete understanding of how to use Pluto, and will not have a complete understanding within our lifetime (current year: 2020). The progression of outer planets through the zodiac takes such a long time that in order to understand that planet in it’s entirely, it needs to have the ability to move through the entire zodiac and its effects manifest in order to see the range in ways this planet can behave. I do think in the future we will have a much better understanding of the way outer planets work, but in this current moment in time: they are still very fresh and we lack complete perspective on them. With that being said, it doesn’t mean we cannot explore ideas of how they work, and in fact, doing so will help develop our understanding of them even further, to help aid future generations of Astrologers.
People often ask the question on how to use Outer Planets in context with other planets via aspect. My answer for this is that Outer Planets effects are most potency when in a tight orb to another planets. My rationale behind this is the fact that outer planets take up less astronomical space in the sky so there affects will have less potency when using a wide orb. I am an avid use of sign based aspects, but when we talk about Outer Planets, I don’t think sign based aspects are applicable here. Referring back to the idea of visibility being symbolic of an energy being within one’s consciousness, outer planets are not in our conscious actively, because we are apart of their consciousness, or some greater consciousness, therefore we cannot come into understanding that they are in our consciousness unless they are visible. One instance in which outer planets can become visible are when they are aspected to another planet; the whole idea of aspects is that planets are able to see each other. Using the five major aspects (Conjunction, Sextile, Square, Trine, and Opposition) will solidify the meanings and significations of that outer planet into the consciousness of the individual, thus acting as a gateway for the objective to then be experienced subjectively. I should add, I think this is true for all planets when in aspect, that they must be within a really tight orb. Unaspected outer planets that are also not on an angle render little to no influence over the native, unless activated in some way, whether it be via transits, progressions, solar return, or a number of other predictive techniques. I am also inclined to say that outer planets become more relevant if that outer planet is aspected to the native’s sect light, as they are the two emitters of light in the Solar System, however this is not completely true. We can look at the Saturn/Pluto conjunction of January 2020 as reference that even though Saturn is not a sect light, the potency of that outer planets transits were not dialed down. Just a thought, but taking other planetary consideration is extremely important when denoting how important it is when an outer planets in aspect. I usually use an orb of 0-3° for outer planets; the tighter, the better, and the more subjective potency the experience of the planet will render.
On the question of what is the nature of these outer planets, outer planets are often ascribed traits that are sugar-coated to make people feel better about them. I strongly disagree with this. To sugar-coat a planet’s significations is to cover up the essence of a planet because one does not want to face the harsh reality that it may bring. Multiple people can have different perspectives of one thing, but the nature of that thing will always be static no matter how many perspectives try to dictate the narrative of it. With this being said: outer planets are malefic in nature and cause disruption, confusion, and other malefic influences, depending on the planet in question. The rationale is that Saturn, the planet known to rule restrictions, boundaries, and limitations is the last planet to have authority and complete control over all the planets that succeed it. It is the marker of what is visible and anything past Saturn is invisible. Being that the outer planets are outside the realm of Saturn, who rules restrictions and boundaries, we can see that the nature of these outer planets are that they know no boundaries, nor care about any boundaries. Not even Saturn can have control over them, and when Saturn attempts to bind these outer planets, it increases the malevolence of that outer planet, forcing it to act out. There is nothing beneficial— the act of something working to qualitatively improve the native’s life, and make it easier for them to achieve their goals— that comes from outer planets. Additionally, outer planets are then planets that have complete dominion over planets they come into contact with and alter their world, because they are of a power outside of the set limitations of safety set by Saturn. Outer planets are not to be glorified, because they are malevolent in nature.
Can outer planets personify the individual? To this, there is some ambiguity on this topic that I cannot fully understand at this moment. My understanding of the experience of subjectivity for outer planets is that they are like federal government, in which these planets are not necessarily in our control, but we can feel the ripples of their actions projected onto us. There was a discussion on Twitter, based on a tweet, in which I brought up that natives cannot be Uranian, Neptunian, or Plutonian, but others brought up a great point that when a planet is in the 1st house, the native will embody the qualities of those planets. This argument is very tricky in terms of the philosophy I subscribe to about the 1st house, and my inclination is to agree with this statement: if you have any planets in the 1st house, you will then take on the qualities of those planets. However, I feel that outer planets work a little differently here. Ari, @lovejustlied on Twitter, explained it beautifully in their tweet:
It’s less that the native takes on the role or the persona of that planet, but that they will directly experience those planets effects. The main distinction I make here between experiencing the effects and how this is different from inner planets is that inner planets live within our consciousness, and thus they can be manifested as physical incarnations in which we can identify. Being that outer planets live outside of our consciousness, they cannot be identified, and thus cannot be personified, but rather be influenced by those qualities, and can act as an agent for those energies. This rings true, in my practice, for the way the 1st house fundamentally works; the lord of the 1st acts as the agent in which the native embodies, whereas planets in the first help to further describe the nature of the individual. Some Astrologers might disagree with this, and will subscribe to the thought that any planets placed in the 1st house the individual will then take on the roll of, but I think there is a lot more nuance to the situation that that. Such as the difference between embodying and taking on the qualities of certain planets, which are completely different. Let’s take an example: we have Sagittarius Rising with Uranus on the Ascendent; this individual would be the embodiment of Jupiter, the ruler of the 1st house, with Uranian characteristics. This doesn’t meant that the native is Uranian, but that they are influenced by Uranus and embody Jupiter. I can act like Madonna (Uranus), but that doesn’t mean I am Madonna— I am still Max (Jupiter), exhibiting traits of Madonna (Uranus). Refer back to our definition of what an outer planet is, “the degree of alienation of planets that lives within one’s consciousness”. Additionally, Outer planets cannot be embodied because, in order for a planet to be personified, they must be the ruler of the 1st house. Outer planets do not rule any signs therefore they cannot be the ruler of the first house. Let’s talk more about this topic, of outer planets and their sign rulership.
Outer Planet Rulerships
The next topic I shall dive into is the idea of rulerships with outer planets, and how attributing these outer planets to zodiac signs defy the system of astrology in a way that fundamentally dismantled it, rending Astrology ineffective for practical use, without offering any remediation as to how to fix it. In order to understand why modern rulers do not work, we have to first understand the rationale behind modern rulers. For those who are unfamiliar with the Thema Mundi, it is essentially the “mythical birth chart of the world” and it is used “so that it would be an example for astrologers to follow in the charts of men” (Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis, 3, 9, 10). I’ve heard several Astrologers claim that they think the Thema Mundi is a load of crap, because it is mythical and involves lore. To this counterargument I say that, to ignore the Thema Mundi is to ignore the system of Astrology. To ignore the Thema Mundi is to ignore the whole idea of dignity and debility in all respects. To ignore the Thema Mundi purely because it is mythological or made up— you might as well ignore all of Astrology, because the myth of Saturn, Venus, Mercury, and many other gods are all weaved into the very fabric of Astrology. To expand even further, there is a rationale behind the Thema Mundi and assigning each planet to each domain. It follows as:
The Thema Mundi starts with Cancer Risings, because in Egypt this was when their year began, due to the flooding of the Nile that aligned with the fixed star Sirius, hence the reasoning for the Thema Mundi having 15º of Cancer Rising. Having Cancer Rising has implications that the rationale for Cancer Rising is also based off of the fact that it is based on the Sun’s progression through the zodiac. In Cancer, this is the beginning of Summer and the part of the year in which the length of the daytime is at it’s peak, and the length of the night is the shortest it can possibly get. This places the signs in which the Sun is in it’s Depression and Detriment in Libra and Capricorn, which are in respective parts of the sky associated with decline and darkness: the 4th and 7th houses. With this in mind, while the Sun is not placed in the 1st house, the Moon is, because the Moon is believed to be a life-giving, generative, force, and because the flood of the Nile took place annually when the Sun would align with the fixed star Sirius, the Moon would then be the ruler of Cancer, and the Sun ruling Leo, because this is the dead-center of Summer where the Sun is the hottest and can exert its heat the most. The Sun cannot be attributed to Cancer because, while the Sun is a generative, life-giving, force, it exerts heat, which is not a characteristic of Cancer: it is watery in nature. Then, as we get into the other planet’s rulerships, once having established the Sun ruling Leo and the Moon ruling Cancer, we know that Mercury cannot be more than one sign away from the Sun, so Mercury is then placed in Virgo. For Venus, we know that Venus cannot be more than two signs away from the Sun, and because Virgo is already occupied by Mercury, Venus then rules Libra. Furthermore, planets hereafter are then attributed rulership over signs that come next in order of descending planetary speed; Mars then rules Scorpio as it is the next fastest planet after Venus; Jupiter rules Sagittarius as the next fastest planet after Mars; and finally Saturn’s dominion is in Capricorn as the last planet. These are the underlying principles for the Thema Mundi and the rulership scheme: the Sun’s progression through the Zodiac, and the relative distance and speed of planets relative to the Sun, as well as the concept of increase and decrease in daylight and nighttime. For more information on why each planet rules two signs, check out this article by Chris Brennan, who briefly explains a Persian myth for the rationale behind the Thema Mundi.
With these prerequisites being set, let me explain why I do partially agree with Modern Astrology’s rationale for the Outer Planets ruling signs. It actually makes a lot of sense when we take the Thema Mundi into account. After Saturn’s domicile being Capricorn, the next planet would have to occupy the next sign in Zodiacal order, due to its distance from the Sun. Assigning Uranus to Aquarius does make sense for this sole reason, as well as Neptune being the ruler of Pisces. However, when we get to Pluto, this is where things start to get confusing. The Thema Mundi’s logic is that planets are assigned to signs based on their distance from the Sun, therefore the theoretical placement of Pluto’s domicile would then be Aries, since that is the next sign in zodiacal order after Pisces. However this contradicts the current, modern, rulership scheme, because we now know Pluto as the ruler of Scorpio. What most people don’t know is that Pluto was originally supposed to rule Aries, based on this logic. There is much debate about Pluto ruling Scorpio, found in this article, compiling a list of different discussions from different authors of the time. From this information and arguments presented, these authors are making connections only based off of associations and characterizations of Scorpio and Pluto. There is a logical fallacy in doing this— well there’s way more than just one but let me cover this specific logical fallacy in particular. Assigning rulership based off of associations is problematic because the only reason why these signs have the attributes they do is because of the planets themselves. Through making the association that Scorpio is associated with ‘death, rebirth, and transformation’ and then attributing Pluto’s domicile to Scorpio completely robs Scorpio of everything that it has been previously associated with, stripping it completely, and replacing it with Pluto. Once you do this, you cannot say that Pluto rules Scorpio, because the associations already attributed to Scorpio have been stripped, therefore there is now no logic for the basis of Pluto ruling Scorpio. This is specifically the case with Pluto, since it does not follow the same order that Uranus and Neptune follow (a rulership scheme I can get behind based on the logic that it follows, but I still reject). Additionally, with Pluto, because rulerships are based on the premise of planetary distance from the Sun, we know that Pluto is not the planet sandwiched in between Venus, the domicile lord of Libra, and Jupiter, the domicile lord of Sagittarius, otherwise ancient astrologer would’ve been able to utilize Pluto in, not only the Thema Mundi, but Astrological practice in general. Pluto’s rulership to Scorpio is based off of logical fallacies and associations, and the third and final logical fallacy, which is now applicable to Uranus and Neptune, is the fact that outer planets cannot ruler any planets at all because of what they represent. Going back to our definition of what outer planet is, based on unpacking of the words outer and planet, it is defined as: “the degree of alienation of planets that lives within one’s consciousness”. We know that consciousness is linked to visibility in Astrology, and the very fact that these outer planets represent alienation of consciousness because they are not visible, and then trying to attribute them to signs that are representative of ideas that live within our consciousness, and are linked to our subjective experience through visibility, creates the third logical fallacy. The system in which Astrology is built off of is all about visibility and the link to subjectivity, and is integrated into the very fabric of Astrology, no matter what tradition you practice, to then rob idea of visibility from Astrology, as a whole, is the invalidation of the Astrological Art as a means of understanding subjectivity as a whole. By integrating the objective into the subjective system, it creates confusion regarding the essence of what these planets actually represent. The 4th logical fallacy, which is not primary, but it is definitely worth mentioning, is that attributing outer planets to rule zodiac signs robs Saturn, Mars, and Jupiter of their diurnal/nocturnal houses. This is problematic because, regardless of if sect was a concept beknownst to modern astrologers, each planet has two modes of expression, otherwise known as masculine and feminine, yin and yang, active and passive— Im listing the alternative words to use besides masculine and feminine because of their connotations with gender, I prefer to use diurnal and nocturnal— and to then attribute a planet to rule a zodiac sign already occupied, it simplifies and waters down that planet’s significations and what it represents. There is simply no argument that does not carry logical fallacies with it for the rationale behind outer planets ruling signs of the zodiac.
This isn’t to say that because Outer Planets do not rule any zodiac signs, they don’t have any significance or any core meaning, in fact, you can extract so much from an outer planet without even mentioning a zodiac sign. Just take a look at my article on Pluto and its core significations, no mention of Scorpio whatsoever. We also see that many asteroids have such complexity in their significations even though they do not rule any zodiac signs, why does this same principle not apply for outer planets? Outer planets are very different from asteroids, in the sense that Uranus, Neptune, and not so much Pluto are planets and are big in their mass— they’re part of the gas giants, so they definitely have much more of an impact and significance than asteroids. However, the outer planets rule realms of consciousness which are not accessible to use directly, because we unconsciously play a role in carrying out their collective consciousness; outer planets are different forms of the collective unconscious. I don’t plan on diving into each outer planet’s significations in this post, because there is so much complexity to them to fit in this article, but this should give you an understanding and perspective on how outer planet’s significance and usage isn’t contingent on their ability to rule signs.
Conclusion
Outer planets are absolutely amazing, and as a traditional astrologer, and someone who mingles and chats with a lot of other traditional astrologers, we all need to stop turning a blind eye towards these important topics, such as outer planets. Integration, and bridging the gap between the traditional and modern, is the only way in which Astrology will be launched and propelled forward. I proclaim the title “PostModern Astrologer”, and I define PostModern Astrology as the ability to re-contextualize traditional astrology for a modern age: the 21st century. Part of postmodern astrology is the integration of new astronomical discoveries and this is just the first step towards integration, through further exploring these topics.
