Those of you who have been watching my astrology work unfold over time know that I have gone back and forth about using the modern outer planets, Uranus, Neptune, and especially dwarf planet Pluto. Since I put together my book of texts on The Classical Seven Planets I have been leaving them out in my personal work for about a year.
This year I have been giving my astrology clients the choice to include them or not, and 95 plus percent ask that they be used. I still only pay attention to them when they are either right on an angle, or are in tight hard aspect with a personal planet. Most of the time they are just not important, and just don’t refer to them very much.
Until I saw this situation.
I am leaving out all chart details except for the two planets right on the angles, Pluto on the Ascendant and Uranus right on the IC.
Uranus I could figure out right away. I thought there was some sort of upsetting or traumatic event in this person’s early family life that disrupted the home life, and gave this person an unsettled and distrustful attitude towards home, family and security, and towards older authority in general. This played an important part in the reading.
I wasn’t sure what to make of Pluto. Most of the modern meanings are very vague, like DEEP AND PROFOUND TRANSFORMATION – imagine my saying that in my best Darth Vader voice with reverb turned all the way up. Ominous, but vague. It could mean everything and nothing.
I didn’t say anything about Pluto, other than just mentioning its presence, until late in the session. My client described an incident that happened when they were a very young child. Their grandfather died in an accident in a mine, below the earth. What made this so traumatic is that one of the client’s older relatives said that the grandfather who had died was going to burn in hell for eternity since he wasn’t Christian. This gave my client vivid nightmares for a long time, and left them with a deep distrust and dislike of any sort of traditional religious system or authority.
After describing that incident, my client asked if there was any sign of that happening in the chart. So I looked again, and that is when it hit me in the face.
Pluto is the Lord of Hades, the Underworld. Pluto rules areas deep below ground, like mines.
And, in the traditional cosmos, Hell is deep within the bowels of the earth. There is a symbolic link between Pluto, the underground, and Hell.
The underworld is also the realm of sleep, dreams and nightmares. You can easily view Pluto as Lord of the world of sleep.
Pluto sitting very near the Ascendant described that incident – not vaguely, but in concrete and literal terms. Not just one part of that incident, but all the main parts – the death below ground, the reference to hell, the vivid nightmares.
Could I have found signs of that incident if I left out those two outer planets? Maybe, but not in anywhere as clear, plain and direct a way.
That convinced me.
—
I now take it as demonstrated that there is a useful and important place in astrology for the modern outer planets. The question for me now is, how do they fit in?
I still think the 7 traditional planets are the core of the tradition, and are easily the most important. I still will pay attention to the modern planets only if they make a strong hard aspect to a personal planet, or if they show up right on an angle. Anything sitting right on an angle in astrology is calling for attention.
I now wonder if part of my issue with using the modern planets is the vagueness of so much of the meaning and usage. However, that is an issue that I have with the meanings of all the planets in modern astrology. The traditional texts give meanings that are vivid, concrete and specific, and in modern astrology much of their concreteness and color has been lost or watered down.
I have been working to recover the richness and specificity of the traditional meaning of the main planets. Maybe there is a way to re-think the modern outer planets in ways that are less vague and cosmic, and are more specific and colorful.
Notice that Pluto in this reading did not talk about transformation, or deep powerful forces, or overwhelming urges. The meanings in this specific chart were very specific to the incident; they were not vague at all.
Maybe there is a useful way to talk about Pluto without having to put on the Darth Vader mask and turn up the reverb.
—
Image of Carlsbad Cavern by Martin Str from Pixabay
I like your reasoning very much…may I add, however that Olivia Barclay regarded the outers and their influence as of fix stars, which works for me. will you comment on this?
Charlie, I greatly appreciate your humility; it takes a lot to review one’s own positions and admit that maybe you should reconsider them. I myself have been working without the outers for a couple years now. I do this not because I believe the outers “don’t work” but because I always find that they distract me from what the core 7 planets are saying. With that said, sometimes I will add the modern planets to a chart after I have exhausted my understanding of the core 7. And sometimes they do help to clarify what is going on, or at least provide reinforcing testimony as to what the core 7 are saying.
Hello Kristina.
I think there is something to viewing the outer planets more like fixed stars than as full-fledged planets. I’ve heard that comparison before – my teacher Ben Dykes has used it. I suspect that comparison does go back to Olivia Barclay since she was one of the early pioneers in recovering traditional astrology.
After working with them over time, I now think the modern planets are more immediate and more influential than fixed stars. With the modern planets I pay attention to any hard aspect. With a fixed star I would use only a very tight conjunction, with an orb of two degrees maximum.
Comparing the modern planets to fixed stars is useful in that it emphasizes that the modern planets are just not as central or as important as the classical planets. I am also convinced that the outer planets only have meaning when they are in aspect to an angle or personal planet, and in that sense they are very similar to fixed stars.
Matt, I appreciate your comment.
One of the nice things about getting older is that I feel much less of a need to be right all the time. An advantage of admitting my opinion has changed is that it gives me the flexibility to grow and to learn new things.
As an astrologer, once you’re identified with a particular technique there is a strong pressure to defend it; it becomes part of your brand. I don’t care to do that.
I’m in the midst of some new explorations and changes just now. After finishing up my webinar on the Lots this past weekend I am eager to spend more time working with modern Uranian techniques like dials and midpoints. That means dropping a lot of my traditional rules and dealing with Uranian astrology on its own terms. I expect to learn a lot, and to have a lot of fun in the process.
Everything works in astrology.
As always, a very thoughtful consideration of a controversial topic – thank you!
I completely agree with you that anything, including Uranus, Neptune & Pluto, on an angle in any kind of chart is calling out for attention. I also agree that it is the concrete meanings & associations of the outer planets that are most useful.
Something that I’ve seen emerge from a natal chart with Pluto sitting right on the Ascendant is a powerful ability and desire to transform the body, with potentially positive and/or negative outcomes for the individual.
Also, the latest generation with the Uranus/Neptune conjunction (now in their late 20s-early 30s) are providing plenty of current, real-world opportunities to see how it plays out on a natal angle.