The New Planets in the Outer Solar System

1
There have been a number of discoveries of new planets around Pluto and the jury is still out as to whether they can come in from the cold.

what will that mean for us astrologers who amongst will assign meaning to these new findings. I remember Linda Goodman saying 'when they discover Vulcan' we will be start to be able to read each others minds which I know is populist crap but you know what I mean.

3
what will that mean for us astrologers who amongst will assign meaning to these new findings.
What possible astrological significance could an object have that takes 10,500 years for a single revolution?

Tom

5
What possible astrological significance could an object have that takes 10,500 years for a single revolution?
That?s a long time and very little movement. Could a major aspect from such a slow-moving object indicate that the chart native has a need for routine colonic maintenance?




I think I may have said something crude. :oops:

7
Hi Skippy,

As a traditional astrologer I don't even use Uranus, Neptune and Pluto very often. I am very unlikely to use any other planets that are discovered. I suppose it depends a lot on how you view astrology and the way that planets affect us. The idea of only using the visible planets makes sense to me because there is an obvious visual connection that can be easily identified. There are also several other connections with the seven planets including the hermetic idea of the seven grades. With the jury still out about whether Pluto should have planet status or not I imagine it might be difficult for astrologers who use Pluto if it is downgraded. And with Pluto being such a new discovery, 76 years compared to thousands for some of the others, I'm not sure we can expect to understand it in the same way we can understand the visible planets. I cannot see, even if we choose to include them, how we can make good use of them until extensive research can be done on them.I think there is often a rush to try to start interpreting these discoveries without much thought. Look what happened when Chirion was discovered in 1977. It didn't take long for the books to start rolling out on what it all meant and Chiron hadn't gone through a complete cycle when these books were published. I was just trying to remember the name of the thing (planet or something) that was discovered fairly recently. Oh yes, Sedna. There was so much written about that and, if I remember correctly, the tsunami was blamed on Sedna. I think most astrologers will always be interested in any new information of this type. However, I really baulk at the idea of putting something in the chart just because it is there.

8
Sue wrote: I think most astrologers will always be interested in any new information of this type. However, I really baulk at the idea of putting something in the chart just because it is there.
Hmmm,
What are the parallels to the outer planets with traditional astrology
for exampel,

Ok lets look at some outer planetary meanings. Pluto obsession, deep penetrative, thought, research investigation blah blah blah,

or

Uranus new techonology, internet, higher achievement, genius blah blah blah. Traditionally, these things did not come along until after this planet was discovered.

Neptune, can't think of anything definative about neptune that cannot be equated with Jupiter.

Chiron - where you wound and where you heal, holistic s'pose that could be Saturn in traditional Astrology and given Chiron was son of Saturn that ain't surprising non.

Yeah I see what you are saying. I have an area where the outer planets and chiron are aspecting tight and heavy on my venus and sure feels real to me though.

9
one more thing..

Pluto, Chiron, Lilleth etc are all mythological archetypes from an ancient religion from which astrology was engendered. Thus they are Semiotics.

So.. couldn't we just argue then that these archetypes exist anyway and have no bearing on astrology whatsover..Mind you I find that argument, looking at my own chart, highly unlikely.

10
Lee Lehman talks about a study she did whereby she went through all of the words and phrases that were used to describe the three outer planets and compiled lists. She says she discovered that virtually all of these words were words traditionally used to describe Saturn. So she says that even though the modern astrologers accuse traditional astrologers of being fatalistic it is the modern astrologers who have added three malefics to the smaller group of malefics that the traditional astrologers have.
So.. couldn't we just argue then that these archetypes exist anyway and have no bearing on astrology whatsover.
Yes. In a sense you are right. These archetypes do exist. But I wouldn't say that they have no bearing on astrology. I am reading an interesting book at the moment by Ernst Cassirer that is part two in a three volume set. This particular one is on 'Mythical Thought'. It is not an astrology book but I have read several of his books and he almost always talks about astrology. In this particular book he says:
For astrology every occurrence in the world, every genesis and new formation is fundamentally illusion; what is expressed in the world process, what lies behind it, is a predetermined fate, a uniform determination of being, which asserts itself identically throughout the moments of time. Thus, the whole of a man's life is contained and decided in its beginning, in the constellation of the hour of his birth; and, in general, growth presents itself not as a genesis but as a simple permanence and an explanation of this permanence. The form of existence and life is not produced from the most diverse elements, from an interweaving of the most diverse causal conditions; from the very outset it is given as a finished form which need only be explained, which for us onlookers seems to unfold in time. And this law of the whole is repeated in each of its parts. The predetermination of being applies to the individual as applies to the universe.
When I read this I was reminded of Plato's idea that everything is within us and that a teacher is not someone who introduces information from without to within but rather draws the information that is within to without. I wonder how this idea relates to the belief by some astrologers that a planet is discovered when we are ready to take on board the archetype of that planet. Obviously these new discoveries are only new in the sense of the new awareness of their existence. If everything is already within and our lives are simply an unfoldment of all that is within then are these discoveries part of that unfoldment?

11
Hi Skippy,

The objects I was referring to were Kuper belt objects that were further out than "Sedna." Sedna has an 8 or 9000 year orbit I think. I hadn't seen anything with a 60 year orbit.

Like Sue I rarely use the three outers, so adding to them doesn't appeal to me either. They can be used like fixed stars. I would never consider using them as sign rulers.

If I recall Lehman correctly, most of the stuff attributed to Neptune used to belong to the Moon, Pluto picked up some Mars stuff, and I forget where the Uranus stuff came from. Mercury is possible. When I get home I'll have to look it up.

Tom

12
Im a bit off topic here but, yeah, I heard that before. Phillip Graves wrote a nice little bit on horoscope chat regarding uranus:

"Seen sometimes as a 'higher octave' of Mercury, Uranus enables communication without the conventional mechanism of speech and physical conduction methods. It is therefore associated with radio waves,..."