What's your take on unaspected planets?

[unknown]

There's a lot said about unaspected/peregrine planets. Someone I forget
says that the planet's function will hardly operate (e.g. someone with no
aspect to Venus will have very little romantic life). Christine Shaw in
"Predictive Astrology" says that at times it will be like that, but at other
times the unaspected planet's function will take over altogether while all
the others disappear.

How do you read them yourself? Specifically, what about an unaspected Pluto
in Cancer, 11th? And what do you think of the various old rules about a
planet not counting as peregrine if, for instance, it's in its own sign?
(Personally, I'd have thought that not even being ruled by another planet
would isolate it more than ever!)

[CFA]

Post by unknown
There's a lot said about unaspected/peregrine planets. Someone I forget
says that the planet's function will hardly operate (e.g. someone with no
aspect to Venus will have very little romantic life). Christine Shaw in
"Predictive Astrology" says that at times it will be like that, but at other
times the unaspected planet's function will take over altogether while all
the others disappear.

I basically agree with that. It's like the planet is allowed more
latitude in expression because it's not connected by one or more
aspects. That seems counterintuitive as I write it.

Post by unknown
How do you read them yourself? Specifically, what about an unaspected Pluto
in Cancer, 11th?

Friends who try to 'help', but are rejected because, say, their
actions look controlling. ie, can't connect with what prompts them to
even try.

Post by unknown
And what do you think of the various old rules about a
planet not counting as peregrine if, for instance, it's in its own sign?
(Personally, I'd have thought that not even being ruled by another planet
would isolate it more than ever!)

Ken

[~^.Saba Gracile.^~]

Post by unknown
There's a lot said about unaspected/peregrine planets. Someone I forget
says that the planet's function will hardly operate (e.g. someone with no
aspect to Venus will have very little romantic life). Christine Shaw in
"Predictive Astrology" says that at times it will be like that, but at
other times the unaspected planet's function will take over altogether
while all the others disappear.
How do you read them yourself? Specifically, what about an unaspected
Pluto in Cancer, 11th? And what do you think of the various old rules
about a planet not counting as peregrine if, for instance, it's in its own
sign? (Personally, I'd have thought that not even being ruled by another
planet would isolate it more than ever!)

You can look at the cusp that the planet rules, your example with Pluto
it would have very transformative, dramatic emotional stances (Cancer).
Especially in society,with friends and groups feelings rule maybe
protecting an ideology strongly (11th). If you find small aspects you'll
be able to say something. Then you have Heliocentric and declinations
to complete from all angles, there will surely be something to say about a
planet.

Veronica

Post by unknown
--
A. B.

<>

My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check
that account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.

[Kjell Pettersson]

For me, unaspected and peregrine are two different terms. If a planet
is both, one has to look at its ruler to determine how it acts. I do,
however, think that except for the ruler's wishes, the planet acts
rather freely. That freedom, however, is probably not so good in most
cases, as it implies a lack of integration.

That an unaspected planet would take over entirely I do not think.
Perhaps in some special cases, but offhand I cannot think of what they
would be.

A planet in its own sign could be said to occupy every degree of the
sign, as it acts through every degree. That makes for more
integration.

If you count modern rulerships, Pluto would not be peregrine in the
second decanate of Cancer. If you do not count modern rulerships, all
the outer planets are peregrine everywhere. I guess one has to take a
stand on how one thinks about those things before one can arrive at
conclusions.

My own take on the modern planets is that they are rather hard to
integrate already from the beginning. They are "generational", etc. I
would also say that is part of how one should interpret them. Pluto in
Cancer, thus, would only be more plutonic, less restrained, less
integrated. But it's already there from the beginning, so the question
is what difference it makes.

/Kjell

There's a lot said about unaspected/peregrine planets.  Someone I forget
says that the planet's function will hardly operate (e.g. someone with no
aspect to Venus will have very little romantic life).  Christine Shaw in
"Predictive Astrology" says that at times it will be like that, but at other
times the unaspected planet's function will take over altogether while all
the others disappear.
How do you read them yourself?  Specifically, what about an unaspected Pluto
in Cancer, 11th?  And what do you think of the various old rules about a
planet not counting as peregrine if, for instance, it's in its own sign?
(Personally, I'd have thought that not even being ruled by another planet
would isolate it more than ever!)
--
A. B.><>
My e-mail address is zen177395 at  zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.

[Kjell Pettersson]

P.S.

Today I found this web page on unaspected ("peregrine") planets. In
not too many words it also explained the current mix-up of unaspected
and peregrine:

http://hniizato.com/2011/10/interpreting-unaspected-planets-noel-tyls-definition-of-a-peregrine-planet/.html

/K

Post by Kjell Pettersson
For me, unaspected and peregrine are two different terms. If a planet
is both, one has to look at its ruler to determine how it acts. I do,
however, think that except for the ruler's wishes, the planet acts
rather freely. That freedom, however, is probably not so good in most
cases, as it implies a lack of integration.
That an unaspected planet would take over entirely I do not think.
Perhaps in some special cases, but offhand I cannot think of what they
would be.
A planet in its own sign could be said to occupy every degree of the
sign, as it acts through every degree. That makes for more
integration.
If you count modern rulerships, Pluto would not be peregrine in the
second decanate of Cancer. If you do not count modern rulerships, all
the outer planets are peregrine everywhere. I guess one has to take a
stand on how one thinks about those things before one can arrive at
conclusions.
My own take on the modern planets is that they are rather hard to
integrate already from the beginning. They are "generational", etc. I
would also say that is part of how one should interpret them. Pluto in
Cancer, thus, would only be more plutonic, less restrained, less
integrated. But it's already there from the beginning, so the question
is what difference it makes.
/Kjell

There's a lot said about unaspected/peregrine planets.  Someone I forget
says that the planet's function will hardly operate (e.g. someone with no
aspect to Venus will have very little romantic life).  Christine Shaw in
"Predictive Astrology" says that at times it will be like that, but at other
times the unaspected planet's function will take over altogether while all
the others disappear.
How do you read them yourself?  Specifically, what about an unaspected Pluto
in Cancer, 11th?  And what do you think of the various old rules about a
planet not counting as peregrine if, for instance, it's in its own sign?
(Personally, I'd have thought that not even being ruled by another planet
would isolate it more than ever!)
--
A. B.><>
My e-mail address is zen177395 at  zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.

[Todd Carnes]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:12:34 CST, Kjell Pettersson

Post by Kjell Pettersson
not too many words it also explained the current mix-up of

unaspected

I guess I'm not too surprised Tyl is to blame for the mis-use of the
term "peregrine".

[Todd Carnes]

Post by unknown
There's a lot said about unaspected/peregrine planets. Someone I forget

A planet can be unaspected and still not be peregrine. The two terms
are not synonymous.

A peregrine planet is a planet that has no dignity - neither
accidental nor essential.

For example, a planet can be in its own terms or face, but make no
aspects. In which case, it will be unaspected, yet it will NOT
peregrine.

[unknown]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
There's a lot said about unaspected/peregrine planets. Someone I

forget
A planet can be unaspected and still not be peregrine. The two terms
are not synonymous.
A peregrine planet is a planet that has no dignity - neither
accidental nor essential.
For example, a planet can be in its own terms or face, but make no
aspects. In which case, it will be unaspected, yet it will NOT
peregrine.

Can a planet be peregrine but not unaspected, then? Or are they defined as
without dignity AND without aspects?

[Kjell Pettersson]

Having aspects and having dignity are two different things. A peregrine planet has no dignity, but may or may not be in aspect to other planets. A non-aspected planet, for its part, may or may not be in a position of dignity.

Some consider non-aspected planets to be extra strong, as they are not "bound" (my choice of word) by specific relationships (aspects, that is) with other planets. This goes against the idea that it would be "peregrine" (in the Tyl sense of powerless and on its own). The term for such a non-aspected planet is "calling", if I remember things correctly.

/Kjell

[unknown]

Post by Kjell Pettersson
Having aspects and having dignity are two different things. A peregrine
planet has no dignity, but may or may not be in aspect to other planets. A
non-aspected planet, for its part, may or may not be in a position of
dignity.
Some consider non-aspected planets to be extra strong, as they are not
"bound" (my choice of word) by specific relationships (aspects, that is)
with other planets. This goes against the idea that it would be
"peregrine" (in the Tyl sense of powerless and on its own). The term for
such a non-aspected planet is "calling", if I remember things correctly.

Thanks Kjell, very handy.

[dklugmann]

I was always taught that unaspected planets are kind of rogue forces in the chart unrestrained by other influences. In a way they are free to come and go as they please more so than other planets that are held in check by other forces.

http://www.myastrologycharts.com
Aspects - http://www.myastrologycharts.com/Astrology-Charts/Birth-Chart/aspects.php