151
Hi Deb

If the outers are not personalised in any way, much can be gleaned from a chart without them. I believe a lot can be gleaned from a chart without even the asc/mc. Obviously, some charts are so much more interesting than others and these usually provide us with the most 'interesting' personalities and are easier to read. For me, the relationships between the planets provide the most information. Rulerships are interesting but with the variance in house system usage can become almost pointless because we are all choosing which system/s we prefer and ultimately everything is diluted as a result. I do think though in Brubecks chart, his strength of personality provided by pluto on asc allowed him to express his chart in a way that would have been much harder otherwise. I think cancer rising with moon in scorpio is a very harsh deal, squaring mars could make someone impossible! But pluto so fundamentaly placed is one who can overcome and whether we can see that planet or not, to my mind is irrelevant, its is Personal (with capital p).

I believe outers come into their own though via transits (including those to midpoint). To me, this is undeniable and I am equally as interested in the movement of planets to the natal than the natal itself as a blueprint. That the outers cannot be observed in their slow retrogrades or transits and are therefore less for it is not an idea that I feel is justified but I understand the thought process behind it.

152
The assertion that the ancients or early modern astrologers would have used the outer planets if they knew about them because "they are there" is by no means certain and in fact the more I think about it, the more I think they wouldn't have used them. We know about other planets or bodies in space and don't use them.

Deb said it best when she noted that

that the special role that the 7 traditional planets play don't get underestimated by them becoming regarded as just '7 of the 10'.
Giving the three outer planets the same significance as the 7 visible planets brings the wrecking ball to the traditional system. Some people may think that's fine. I'm not one of them and this Forum was set up to use that system. But I'll repeat because I think it is worth repeating. Modern astrologers don't simply use the outer three planets, they go after them first and usually to the exclusion of almost everything else.

Noel Tyl teaches this. His method of reading a chart is mostly looking for aspects between the three outers (and Saturn) with the remaining classical planets. Venus - Mercury contacts that we discussed in depth don't merit a yawn. From what I've seen of Modern delineation, Mercury merits about as much attention from them as Chiron does from me.

I think if it was sprung on Morin that there were three planets outside the orbit of Saturn his head would have exploded. Rather than "Oh gee I guess I have to use them," he would have been more likely to rationalize them out of his existence, or he would have given up astrology altogether. OF course I can't possibly know this for a fact any more than anyone else can possibly know the opposite. The idea that these three planets would have been woven seamlessly into the old system displays a lack of understanding of that system and how it applied to the worldview. Astrology was part of a larger and coherent worldview. Modern astrology is a sideshow in today's worldview. That difference alone should send people scurrying from Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

153
Im just on my way out and would like to respond more, Tom but for now will just say I think your reference to 'worldVIEW' is essential here. The worldview from the Greeks onwards should not imo send us scurrying from anything, why should its confines limit us to anything. The planets were there before any worldview or indeed the study of astrology. All unknowns should be a work in progress, shouldnt they?

154
Jill, I'm very glad you've joined us, but being new you may not have read this yet: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1877

It explains why this forum is reserved for discussion of traditional techniques, so it isn't the right place to develop more discussion on the outer planets than we've already had in this thread. I'm not trying to prohibit you but most members here are aware of the issues and want a place to keep the focus on understanding and applying traditional principles. You are welcome to expand your views and generate a new discussion in the general nativities forum if you want to though.

Deb

155
deb

thanks for clarifying that for me.. i can see how mercury is more involved in brubecks chart as oriental planet rising ahead of sun, which doesn't happen in chart 2.. the planetary phase relationship which you have articulated previously i can see as well.. i considered the aspects to midheaven, but can see that was incomplete without this additional info..

157
Hello,

I didn't actually want to get involved in this part of this discussion, but since misleading comments were made, comments that go directly contrary to my experience, it's only natural that I feel motivated.

Re: "Modern astrologers don't simply use the outer three planets, they go after them first and usually to the exclusion of almost everything else."

Many moderns are approaching from a psychological point of view. The outer planets, being trans-personal are harder to integrate into normal life, because their themes bridge issues beyond the personal and often go straight to what benefits the collective. Many of these troubling issues stick out like a sore thumb in the personality/life of the client and in the (related) positions of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

Re: "Noel Tyl teaches this. His method of reading a chart is mostly looking for aspects between the three outers (and Saturn) with the remaining classical planets."

Noel's method starts with:

A. Hemisphere groupings and stellia

B. Saturn

C. The Nodal Axis

D. The Sun-Moon blend

E. Dominant Aspects

As someone that has studied under Noel and has interacted with him directly and indirectly on his forum over the last 7 years, I find your statement to be obfuscating. Yes, the outers are important in Noel's teachings (they ARE planets and are there for the same reason as the others), but to reduce his teachings to basically the interaction of outer planets to the traditional seven is to leave out more of Noel's methodology than you have included.

In fact, Noel's main thrust through ALL of his teaching is on synthesis, the blending and correct understanding of the interaction of all factors, and this begins with the Sun-Moon blend (and other things mentioned above) which special, specific placements are then modifications/qualifications to what was initially understood.

What you have (falsely, imo) said about Noel, can be said about Adrian Ross Duncan, in that his approach mainly looks at Pluto, Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter contacting Mars, Venus, Mercury, Moon, and Sun.

Re: "Venus - Mercury contacts that we discussed in depth don't merit a yawn."

Again, quite the contrary, Venus-Mercury contacts are specifically discussed in Noel's teaching and even have a whole section dedicated to them. (relating to aesthetics and doing things to please, but also in terms of "idealism") The Mercury-Venus section is towards the very beginning of his Synthesis and Counseling book, where he is outlining his approach.

To say that, in his presentation, they "don't merit a yawn" is patently false and quickly disprovable...

Feel free to slam Noel or his methods as much as you are inclined to do... I only ask that when you are looking to find fault with his astrology that you do it through things that he actually does rather than your perception of what he does. Seems fair.

Note: I have had (over the years) my own criticisms of several issues with Noel and have publicly spoken about them. I could not criticize him for what you are stating, Tom, because I just don't see it.

Peace

James

159
Wouldn't it be a good idea to move this whole thread together with the more recent test to the natal astrology section? It would help everyone who use any techniques that could be labelled as non-traditional to participate without philosophical and exegetical issues and limitations. As far as I remember, that forum also gave place to similar discussions in the past.

160
I don't think so Levente. This thread was initiated by Tom in this traditional forum, as an invitation for those who want to use traditional methods to enage in the exercise he designed. The policies of this forum have been made clear enough - I've given the link above as a reminder and it has been said several times that if others want to present something similar in other forums they are perfectly welcome to do that. I'm more of the view that comments that have prolonged discussion of issues outside the focus of this forum should be removed as out of place, but I'll leave that for Tom to decide.

161
I think it would be a real shame if a great and really interesting thread dissolved into petty squabbling regarding traditional versus modern approaches.

It should be noted that nobody has witten any decree that somebody cannot start a similar thread on the Natal forum where the modern astrologers can use whatever methods they want. I don't recall anyone stipulating that this isn't allowed and that mystery charts are reserved for the traditional forum.

With that in mind, it seems odd to me that anyone would complain about the clear focus on traditional readings in a traditional forum. If you want modern readings use the modern forum.

It should be pretty straightforward right? In fact Deb has actually, as I understood it, gone further and even said that the odd modern observation is ok here, which, when you think of it, is actually quite generous.

But as for this thread, this is a traditional thread set up by a traditional astrologer in a traditional forum. It doesn't take much leap of imagination to understand that the goals of this thread in keeping with the goals of this forum is to maintain a focus on traditional usages of astrology.

But I don't think this is the thread to discuss everyone's disagreements with either traditional nor modern astrology. This has been a great thread, let's keep it that way and just quietly agree to disagree with one another where necessary.