|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the problematic side, the individual with Sun in aspect to an outer planet may run the risk of being overwhelmed, engulfed, or otherwise submerged in archetypal expressions that dwarf the individual's ability to construct a stable sense of self over time. Just as there is a literal vast expanse between the Sun and the outer planets, there is a similar psychological expanse between the astrological Sun, the center of being, and the outer planets, carriers of the transpersonal. The instincts, predispositions, and motivations of the outer planets may be too intense, dynamic, or chaotic in nature for the Sun to adequately manifest its individual contributions. There can be an over-identification with the archetypal expression of the outer planet to such an extent that the ego becomes fused and merged with a force of nature that is well beyond the personal self.
This article has chosen to highlight individuals with the outer planets in aspect to the Sun that have been victorious in managing the needs of the personal self with the transpersonal energies with which they are intimately in touch. When successfully navigated, individuals with the Sun in aspect to an outer planet often are the ones that change, transform, and evolve social structures beyond their current limitations. So while the individual with the Sun in aspect to an outer planet runs the risk of being overtaken by a psychological complex, they also have the opportunity to utilize the energies available to them for significant benefit to the collective.
Sun-Uranus and the New Paradigm:
If one directs one's gaze toward history, it becomes apparent that cultures have a tendency to reinvent themselves time after time. Why is this so and where does this drive for change come from? For, in some respect, there is great truth in the observation that the more things change, the more things stay the same. The human condition hasn't changed in a dramatic fashion in over two thousand years. The basic dilemmas and struggles of humans haven't fundamentally changed in this timeframe. Wars are fought, nations rise and fall, people fall in love, couples have babies—the basic framework has stayed the same even if the cultural ideas, technologies, freedoms, and beliefs undergo tremendous change. So, why the need for change? Why the need for cultural reinvention?
From a popular viewpoint, it is obvious that cultures have undergone significant reformations and revolutions through time—the Scientific Revolution, the Protestant Reformation, the Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution. From this same vantage point, it would be obvious to see that cultures and institutions do indeed experience and endure sweeping overhauls, but this perspective would assume these revolutions are as arbitrary as they are random. That is, this popular viewpoint suggests that there is no real reason, logic, or intrinsic patterning for societal revolutions; it is simply a phenomenon that must be noted, but otherwise it is completely contingent upon haphazard historical forces.
|
|
next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
